Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.[/QUOTE]

betts doesn't break as many tackles, he's not as fast and he fumbles more. Its not like betts is 260lbs or anything.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.[/QUOTE]


Palease! I saw it before we traded for him, I alway's maintained if Betts was in Denver he would have put up the same numbers as Portis, and he runs much harder, his one draw back is his ability to stay healthy.

Bottom line we gave up a ton for a third down change of pace type back, when the holes get big enough for Clinton to run through they will be big enough for just about any other back as well.

Our talent is so overvalued and overpaid it's ridiculous, Lavar, Samuels, Portis, Brunell, any idea what a real GM could do with the money from those salaries? We could have monster players where we need them, offensive, and defensive linemen, instead our top 2 picks spend most of their time on the bench, and as for the rest of the big time surprises Gibbs said where coming out of this draft? Yea right! And that's why Gibbs likes to overpay for established talent no eye for unestablished talent, Taylor was a no brainer, Cooley was a very good job on his part, and that's about it in 2 drafts, Rogers is a quality pick, but we could have done a whole lot to help the overall team by dealing down, instead we gave away next years draft for a QB. I love to hear gibbs justify his signing of estabished talent with the old the draft is a crap shoot, and then give up next years draft for a position which is the biggest crap shoot of all QB! Yes the draft is a crap shoot for those who don't know what they are doing.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

sounds like you should get a job a GM, since everyone else (besides you) is obviously an idiot.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]i just notice portis run downhill so much (when he does have a hole) that he falls on his own. he's just not the player we were hoping him to be. if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis. Does anyone else see that?... Portis always falls on his own face first when he could have gotten serveral more yards. Its like he runs completely downhill to where it benefits the other teams.[/QUOTE]


L. Betts wears girls p@6%!#$. Every nick, every hit, he gets hurt.

Anyone else notice we lost the second half kick-off because of L. Betts?



:dallas: :dallas:

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]sounds like you should get a job a GM, since everyone else (besides you) is obviously an idiot.[/QUOTE]

While he may not have any business being a GM, his post was exactly right. We overpay, give up draft picks, have no depth on the D-line, and if one player goes down, there's no one who can adequately replace him -- see Boschetti, Killings, and Aki Jones. Gibbs, Snyder, and Cerrato cannot escape blame for that.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]While he may not have any business being a GM, his post was exactly right. We overpay, give up draft picks, have no depth on the D-line, and if one player goes down, there's no one who can adequately replace him -- see Boschetti, Killings, and Aki Jones. Gibbs, Snyder, and Cerrato cannot escape blame for that.[/QUOTE]

I get your point..................but, If [b]he[/b] doesn't have any business being GM, it would tend to discount the accuracy of [b]his[/b] argument.
In a perfect world some of these things may be true. However, when Gibbs and his team took the skins, as we all know, the team had been in COMPLETE disarray for some time. When you [b]must[/b] make radical player changes immediately, and the timing is not of your choosing, you make the best deal you can. It may not be the deal you want. Being in a weak bargaining position, makes it impossible to drive a really good deal, so you do the best you can.
Additionally, it is real easy to blow up a speculative, foundationless commentary when the author has [b]no skin on the table[/b].

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

i dont think CP has had one game that's wowed me since he became a redskin. it not like he sucks or anything; it's just a matter of the money we gave up. i doubt teams are gonna pick up rbs from denver anymore thinking that they're heroes. tatum bell is lighting it up. seems like any back can light it up there.

i don't know if betts would run better than CP; but at a lower price it might have been the way to go. too late now though; hopefully CP will start breaking out and playing like we need him to.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=VTSkins897]i dont think CP has had one game that's wowed me since he became a redskin. it not like he sucks or anything; it's just a matter of the money we gave up. i doubt teams are gonna pick up rbs from denver anymore thinking that they're heroes. tatum bell is lighting it up. seems like any back can light it up there.

i don't know if betts would run better than CP; but at a lower price it might have been the way to go. too late now though; hopefully CP will start breaking out and playing like we need him to.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with you. All because of that opening run against Tampa last year a lot of people have thought he is our savior at rb. I've always liked Betts from day 1. Only problem is he gets hurt to often. I definetly think we need a stronger more power back in our backfield. But we are stuck with CP. It's just weird seeing a guy trip over his feet more than he gets tackled.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=jrocx69]if we start betts i bet he gets more 100 yard games with this team than portis.[/QUOTE]

Betts is a change of pace back. Nothing more. He's a poor mans Steven Davis. And by that I mean he has a similar running style, but Davis could hold onto the ball a lot better, and he could actually run people over. Whenever someone takes Betts head on, it looks like they're tackling a pillow. He actually got tackled one time Sunday by his friggin shirt-tail. It irritates me when people try to claim that he's a "power back". If he was a starter in the NFL, his career would be very similar to Troy Hambrick's.

Not to say that he doesn't have success in his current role, but that's because he's such a different runner than Portis. Teams gameplan for Portis, and when Betts comes in, he's able to take advantage because he runs completely different. But to claim that Betts is a better back than Portis, in any offense, is ridiculous.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

If Ladell Betts carried the load the Skins could easily be the Miami Dolphins from last season. Betts comes in and has maybe 2 good runs a game and you think he should start? He had that one game against the Vikes though. Okay, so that effectively makes him Ki Jana Carter. Betts can't carry the load. And there's no real point in arguing about it because he never will. Unless Portis goes down.

As for everyone being overrated on Washington...I wish we would cut them then. So all of you could see how a great a team full of Lemar Marshalls is.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Regardless, Clinton Portis definately doesn't have very good balance. At least Betts keeps his feet moving and can get the extra few yards after contact. It seems to me like Clinton hasn't been the same back since the Meadowlands game last year when he fumbled. Now he seems to just not want to turn it over and grind out the yards, which sucks. He is a bad ass blocker though, though you wouldn't know it watching Sunday's game. Betts sucks at blocking and is a pretty bad receiver as well. He is a better between the tackles runner, though, which seems to be the only way Gibbs will run it.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=skindogger47]Regardless, Clinton Portis definately doesn't have very good balance. At least Betts keeps his feet moving and can get the extra few yards after contact. [/QUOTE]

Are we talking about [b]Ladell[/b] Betts? The Ladell Betts that I watch on Sundays has good vision, but he is definitely not the hard runner everyone claims he is. Stephen Davis, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ricky Willaims, Steven Jackson, they are hard runners. Backs that can run guys over, drag defenders with them, and move piles. Anyone that is dragged down from behind, by a safety with one hand on his shirt-tail is automatically disqualified. I swear, if Betts ever had a decent amount of carries at Soldier Field in November or December, the wind would tackle him more times than the Bears would.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

I don't know man, I've seen Betts drag people with him many times.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I don't know man, I've seen Betts drag people with him many times.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've seen far more instances of him being knocked backwards or just plain dropped by a cornerback.

Re: Basically, it all starts with Portis
 

Four carriers yes he didn't get a chance. Seriously though how many times have you seen him break out in a run then trip over his own feet. He does all the time. It is like he is speed wobbling, going to fast to keep his balance.

It was just one bad game. If we beat the Eagles Sunday night we will all be on cloud nine again. Plus I would not be surprised if the Giants lose in San Fran.