The Portis move in hindsight

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by dgack

What's our impressive record when Clinton's starting?

18-19.

So I guess we can't win with Clinton Portis, either.

Oh, and BTW, the Charges have gone 48-44 with the greatest RB of our generation and possibly all-time.

Thank you drive through.

Uh, so the fact that the Redskins don't have a winning record with Portis makes a remark about the Redskins winning with Betts less ridiculous?

A lot of people around here like to see actual facts behind random off the wall comments, and I have no problem calling someone out when the comments are particularly silly.

If all it takes for a statement to be true is for someone to make the claim, then the Redskins can win with me as the starting strong safety. By your logic, that statement is true because they don't have a winning record with Archuleta at strong safety.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Uh, so the fact that the Redskins don't have a winning record with Portis makes a remark about the Redskins winning with Betts less ridiculous?

A lot of people around here like to see actual facts behind random off the wall comments, and I have no problem calling someone out when the comments are particularly silly.

If all it takes for a statement to be true is for someone to make the claim, then the Redskins can win with me as the starting strong safety. By your logic, that statement is true because they don't have a winning record with Archuleta at strong safety.

Look, you're confusing two types of things here. One is people's opinions, which you can agree with or disagree with. The other are facts. You used a FACT (Betts' record as a starter) to refute someone's OPINION that you COULD WIN GAMES with him at RB. That's a totally legit approach. In a way, I'm arguing against both your AND his opinion, though, because I'm showing with FACTS, that neither Portis nor Tomlinson's presence as starters alone can "make teams win".

Note that my argument for Betts' efficacy has always been about how many yards he puts up, not necessarily that we can "win games with him". You can't easily compare "game winning activities" with current statistics, so I prefer to compare using what stats we do have. Admittedly, those can still be used in questionable ways, but they're better than totally subjective comparisons.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by dgack

Note that my argument for Betts' efficacy has always been about how many yards he puts up, not necessarily that we can "win games with him". You can't easily compare "game winning activities" with current statistics, so I prefer to compare using what stats we do have. Admittedly, those can still be used in questionable ways, but they're better than totally subjective comparisons.

Using stats to back your argument is fine, and it's actually what I base most of my arguments on also. The problem with using rushing stats for a Betts argument is that he only has a handful of 20+ carry games in his five year career, and everyone knows that statistics are flawed when you have a smaller pool of statistical events to choose from.

While his numbers do look decent based on the 20+ carry games he's had, I think the fact that he's only had a few 20+ carry games in five seasons says volumes more about Betts than the actual numbers in those handful of games.

[dgack]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

While his numbers do look decent based on the 20+ carry games he's had, I think the fact that he's only had a few 20+ carry games in five seasons says volumes more about Betts than the actual numbers in those handful of games.

I won't argue it says something about the guy's durability, or at least his luck. The reason I point out how few 20+ carry games he's had is to point out that we really don't know how good he could be. His early years were spent on some pretty bad Redskins teams even when he WAS relatively healthy, and he didn't have the confidence of the coaches until now.

I certainly am not trying to make a case for Ladell > CP. Just pointing out that he could be a lot more effective for the Skinss than many of us think / expect.