The Portis move in hindsight

MTK · 12-08-2006, 02:16 PM

I just wanted to clear something up regarding Betts and his fumbles. I've seen a lot of people implying that he fumbles a lot, so I did some number crunching to see if he really is fumble prone.

In his career to date Betts has 634 total touches, this includes rushes, receptions and kick returns. Out of these 634 touches he's fumbled 8 times, or once every 79.25 touches.

To compare, Portis to date in his career has a total of 1543 touches. He's fumbled 16 times or once every 96.4 touches.

Now if you want someone who really is fumble prone, look at Ricky Williams who averages one fumble per 57.2 touches.

While one of the best in the league right now is LT. He only puts in on the ground once every 163.25 touches.

Another example is Tiki Barber who over the last 3 years has really shored up his fumble problems and is one of the better backs in the league now at not fumbling. Over the last 3 years he only gives it up once every 120 touches.

My conclusion is Betts is pretty average, he's not bad enough to call fumble prone in my opinion.

The Zimmermans · 12-08-2006, 03:04 PM

You must also look at the fact that Bett's missed blocking assignments essentially led to two turnovers. Portis is the entire package, bett's brings some good things to the table, which explains why Portis is a probowl player, and bett's is a better than average backup, as of right now....

djnemo65 · 12-08-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

This article about Betts really made me wonder:

Given chance to shine, Betts ponders staying with Redskins - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

If Gibbs really knew what he had in Betts when he got here, do you think he would have still made the move for Portis?? He says he doesn't regret making the move and of course Portis is a top flight back in this league, but I wonder how things would have turned out if he thought Betts was a capable starting back. I doubt we would have been able to retain Bailey anyway, he really seemed set on getting out of here.

Just one of those things that makes you wonder.

Matty, I think you are the only person on this board who can bring this topic up without getting flamed.

I love Portis, but I have wondered about that recently. Even if we couldn't have kept Bailey (and I disagree that we couldn't, it seems that was always more of a money issue) we could have gotten two first round picks for him plus kept that second round pick. Who knows how that would have worked out. However, I'm still glad to have Portis.

Gmanc711 · 12-08-2006, 05:11 PM

Watch the Redskins with Clinton Portis on the feild....watch the Redskins without Clinton Portis....they are two completley different teams, period.

The sad part is, this argument really should have nothing to do with Ladell Betts, because it dosent. Ladell Betts is a very nice running back.

However, Clinton Portis is a game changing, franchise changing running back. Since he's been here, here are my list of games we would have not won if we didnt have Clinton Portis in our backfeild....

2004....(6-10)
We dont win...vs Tampa Bay 148 yds TD, @ Chicago 176 yards, @ Detroit 147 yds, TD Pass. without Portis.

In 2005 (10-6)
We were a much better team overall, but
H vs Chicago 141 yds (That 41 blast from our own 4 basically won the game).
What should have been @ Tampa Bay but we lost that one, @ Arizona, vs NYG, @ Philadlephia

This year, I dont think we win the Jaguars, or Dallas II this year without Portis.

He's just a differnet type of back. Ladell Betts is not as good as Clinton Portis, there is no other way to explain it.

I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards.

Heres the other big thing....has anyone seen Betts block? Watch him and watch Portis...its night and day. Clinton Portis is a complete package.

Again, I hate that I have to "Blast" Betts so to speak for this, because I absolutley love Ladell Betts and I couldnt be more excited that he is coming back to Washington. But this get rid of Portis, should we have gotten Portis stuff is just crazy to me. Even if we didnt get Portis in 04' we would have gotten someone else, or would still be looking for someone else.

dgack · 12-08-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards.

I don't know who specifically this was aimed at, but let me say for the 9th time that I'm a huge CP fan, in no way think that Betts is a better back than CP, or that we'd be better off with Betts than CP. There's no doubt Clinton's presence makes a huge difference -- some in measurable ways, others intangible.

I don't, however, think that this team is doomed without CP, and there's a difference. Betts is better than "just average", I think, but he's never been healthy and the undisputed starter on a decent enough Redskins squad to show it.

We should be thrilled to have a guy like Ladell as a #2 -- much like when the Ravens had Chester Taylor to back up Jamal. What's wrong with that?

Gmanc711 · 12-08-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgack

I don't know who specifically this was aimed at, but let me say for the 9th time that I'm a huge CP fan, in no way think that Betts is a better back than CP, or that we'd be better off with Betts than CP. There's no doubt Clinton's presence makes a huge difference -- some in measurable ways, others intangible.

I don't, however, think that this team is doomed without CP, and there's a difference. Betts is better than "just average", I think, but he's never been healthy and the undisputed starter on a decent enough Redskins squad to show it.

We should be thrilled to have a guy like Ladell as a #2 -- much like when the Ravens had Chester Taylor to back up Jamal. What's wrong with that?

Its not aimed at anyone in-perticular. It just seems to happen alot, on a lot of skins' forums. I remember after Betts had a big day against the Vikings in 2004, there was alot of "Trade Portis" type threads. It isnt aimed towards anyone....except maybe Matty, and thats just because

CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR · 12-08-2006, 08:51 PM

The reason Bailey didnt want to be a redskins was because the skins never ever pay their own players. (BETTS) about time. Should have kept Bailey and our second rounder to boot. We could have drafted Portis the same year we picked Betts but pased him over. So to make up for it we give up the best CB and a second rounder great move as usual. Throwing away picks like they dont matter.That why we stink now.

MTK · 12-08-2006, 09:11 PM

Just to be clear I'm not trying to suggest I think we would be better off without Portis, that wasn't my point of this thread at all, though it seems to have gone that route.

I was simply wondering what Gibbs would have done if he had known what he had in Betts prior to making the move. Would he had still made the move?

budw38 · 12-10-2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just to be clear I'm not trying to suggest I think we would be better off without Portis, that wasn't my point of this thread at all, though it seems to have gone that route.

I was simply wondering what Gibbs would have done if he had known what he had in Betts prior to making the move. Would he had still made the move?

Good point , too bad you have to explain it again . We could have traded bailey < if he wanted out > for multiple draft picks and drafted another back , an O lineman and used our 2nd on the DL .The Texans traded two 2nd rd picks for CB Buchanan<who sucks > we couldn't have got more for Bailey ? We could have signed a rb if F/a and saved that pick . I also like CP , but he has not been a dominant back in Washington . How many times has he run for over 140 yds in a game ? How many times has he failed on short yardage ? I think he is a heck of a back , maybe a better passing game would give him more big runs , but as of now ,,, he aint no LT or LJ or S. Alexander . As far as Denver , they have had 3 RB's over 1,500 yds , and T. Bell was on pace for 1,600 yds last yr before he got hurt. Not saying Portis is not a great back ,but we could have made a better deal .

skinsfan69 · 12-09-2006, 10:23 AM

Bottom line is I hope CP comes back healthy and plays his ass off like he always does. We are going to need him (along w/ Betts) next year with a young QB. Plus he is one of the team leaders. My only point was there was no need to throw in the 2nd rounder. Bailey for Portis straight up ( or a later round draft pick) would have probably gotten the deal done. But I'm glad he's a Redskin. I love the way he pass protects and blocks down field. You simply can't replace that. We need more CP's on this team if you ask me.

irish · 12-09-2006, 10:25 AM

Betts has not even played 1 complete season as a starter and to judge him as compared to Portis is crazy. Portis is a bonafide starter in the NFL and Betts is a back-up filling in for the injured starter. Betts may become a starter and good back in the league but I'd like to see him play a little more than a partial season before I start comparing him to a real starter.

12-08-2006, 02:16 PM	#1
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,848	Re: The Portis move in hindsight I just wanted to clear something up regarding Betts and his fumbles. I've seen a lot of people implying that he fumbles a lot, so I did some number crunching to see if he really is fumble prone. In his career to date Betts has 634 total touches, this includes rushes, receptions and kick returns. Out of these 634 touches he's fumbled 8 times, or once every 79.25 touches. To compare, Portis to date in his career has a total of 1543 touches. He's fumbled 16 times or once every 96.4 touches. Now if you want someone who really is fumble prone, look at Ricky Williams who averages one fumble per 57.2 touches. While one of the best in the league right now is LT. He only puts in on the ground once every 163.25 touches. Another example is Tiki Barber who over the last 3 years has really shored up his fumble problems and is one of the better backs in the league now at not fumbling. Over the last 3 years he only gives it up once every 120 touches. My conclusion is Betts is pretty average, he's not bad enough to call fumble prone in my opinion. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

12-08-2006, 05:11 PM	#4
Gmanc711 Thank You, Sean. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gaithersburg, MD Age: 39 Posts: 7,506	Re: The Portis move in hindsight Watch the Redskins with Clinton Portis on the feild....watch the Redskins without Clinton Portis....they are two completley different teams, period. The sad part is, this argument really should have nothing to do with Ladell Betts, because it dosent. Ladell Betts is a very nice running back. However, Clinton Portis is a game changing, franchise changing running back. Since he's been here, here are my list of games we would have not won if we didnt have Clinton Portis in our backfeild.... 2004....(6-10) We dont win...vs Tampa Bay 148 yds TD, @ Chicago 176 yards, @ Detroit 147 yds, TD Pass. without Portis. In 2005 (10-6) We were a much better team overall, but H vs Chicago 141 yds (That 41 blast from our own 4 basically won the game). What should have been @ Tampa Bay but we lost that one, @ Arizona, vs NYG, @ Philadlephia This year, I dont think we win the Jaguars, or Dallas II this year without Portis. He's just a differnet type of back. Ladell Betts is not as good as Clinton Portis, there is no other way to explain it. I hate that everytime Betts has a good game, we want to trade Clinton Porits. Its freaking ludacris. I have news for everyone....I could have ran through those holes last week in Atlanta...in fact, I almost question Betts on a couple of those runs for NOT gaining more yards. Heres the other big thing....has anyone seen Betts block? Watch him and watch Portis...its night and day. Clinton Portis is a complete package. Again, I hate that I have to "Blast" Betts so to speak for this, because I absolutley love Ladell Betts and I couldnt be more excited that he is coming back to Washington. But this get rid of Portis, should we have gotten Portis stuff is just crazy to me. Even if we didnt get Portis in 04' we would have gotten someone else, or would still be looking for someone else. __________________ #21

12-08-2006, 08:51 PM	#7
CHIEF CHUCKING MY SPEAR Impact Rookie Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: va Age: 58 Posts: 890	Re: The Portis move in hindsight The reason Bailey didnt want to be a redskins was because the skins never ever pay their own players. (BETTS) about time. Should have kept Bailey and our second rounder to boot. We could have drafted Portis the same year we picked Betts but pased him over. So to make up for it we give up the best CB and a second rounder great move as usual. Throwing away picks like they dont matter.That why we stink now.

12-08-2006, 09:11 PM	#8
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 52 Posts: 99,848	Re: The Portis move in hindsight Just to be clear I'm not trying to suggest I think we would be better off without Portis, that wasn't my point of this thread at all, though it seems to have gone that route. I was simply wondering what Gibbs would have done if he had known what he had in Betts prior to making the move. Would he had still made the move? __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

12-09-2006, 10:23 AM	#10
skinsfan69 Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 17,453	Re: The Portis move in hindsight Bottom line is I hope CP comes back healthy and plays his ass off like he always does. We are going to need him (along w/ Betts) next year with a young QB. Plus he is one of the team leaders. My only point was there was no need to throw in the 2nd rounder. Bailey for Portis straight up ( or a later round draft pick) would have probably gotten the deal done. But I'm glad he's a Redskin. I love the way he pass protects and blocks down field. You simply can't replace that. We need more CP's on this team if you ask me.

12-08-2006, 03:04 PM	#2
The Zimmermans Impact Rookie Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Woodley Park, Washington DC Age: 41 Posts: 937	Re: The Portis move in hindsight You must also look at the fact that Bett's missed blocking assignments essentially led to two turnovers. Portis is the entire package, bett's brings some good things to the table, which explains why Portis is a probowl player, and bett's is a better than average backup, as of right now.... __________________ Dan Snyder is a Cancer, Joe Gibbs is the Cure

12-09-2006, 10:25 AM	#11
irish Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,575	Re: The Portis move in hindsight Betts has not even played 1 complete season as a starter and to judge him as compared to Portis is crazy. Portis is a bonafide starter in the NFL and Betts is a back-up filling in for the injured starter. Betts may become a starter and good back in the league but I'd like to see him play a little more than a partial season before I start comparing him to a real starter.

The Portis move in hindsight

Locker Room Main Forum