|
|
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
[ 9]
10
11
12
GTripp0012 04-09-2007, 05:16 AM Worse than 5-11? Then if we had Jones and Jones Calvin Johnson would be a Skin. To bad.
I guess I don't know what we would do without Portis? Perhaps finish 4-12, or make the playoffs like J Jones did? What a coin flip.Well, we wouldn't have had the no. 4 rushing offense last year or no. 9 in 2005, that's for sure.
Does having the No. 4 rushing attack mean anything in the grand scheme of a 5-11 season? Of course not. Does having the No. 9 rushing attack mean anything in a 10-6 playoff season? Quite obviously, yes.
offiss 04-09-2007, 06:29 AM Well, we wouldn't have had the no. 4 rushing offense last year or no. 9 in 2005, that's for sure.
Does having the No. 4 rushing attack mean anything in the grand scheme of a 5-11 season? Of course not. Does having the No. 9 rushing attack mean anything in a 10-6 playoff season? Quite obviously, yes.
Absolutly, and who was responsible for most of that rushing attack last season? Betts! Funny we were at 9th with Portis, and 4th mostly without Portis.
In the grand scheme of things it wasen't Portis who delivered a playoff berth, it was the defense hands down! That is the difference between the 2 seasons, not Portis!
GTripp0012 04-09-2007, 06:51 AM Absolutly, and who was responsible for most of that rushing attack last season? Betts! Funny we were at 9th with Portis, and 4th mostly without Portis.
In the grand scheme of things it wasen't Portis who delivered a playoff berth, it was the defense hands down! That is the difference between the 2 seasons, not Portis!Well the defense was certainly the problem this year, but it's not like they didn't cost us a few games last year. It was inconsistent in 2005 (which beats completely crappy).
Our offense was very consistent for most of 2005 and was every bit as good as the defense. People remember the playoff games. People don't remember the games that we lost because our opponents scored way above their season average PPG.
Portis wasn't anymore responsible for the above average offense in 2005 than Brunell or Moss, but he was certainly every bit as important as either.
Southpaw 04-09-2007, 09:52 AM Absolutly, and who was responsible for most of that rushing attack last season? Betts! Funny we were at 9th with Portis, and 4th mostly without Portis.
Mostly without Portis? CP was playing on an injured shoulder for only eight games last season, and produced almost 50% of the yards a healthy Betts produced in 16 games. He also produces five more rushing touchdowns than Betts, and six less fumbles. Please expand on the "Mostly without Portis" comment, because your baseless and outright false statements are getting tough to follow.
offiss 04-09-2007, 05:37 PM Mostly without Portis? CP was playing on an injured shoulder for only eight games last season, and produced almost 50% of the yards a healthy Betts produced in 16 games. He also produces five more rushing touchdowns than Betts, and six less fumbles. Please expand on the "Mostly without Portis" comment, because your baseless and outright false statements are getting tough to follow.
That's probably just your inability to comprehend.
Either Portis played or he didn't? On one had you say Portis got half the carries, on the other hand your insinuating that Betts had all the carries. The fact is if the season was split as you say 8 for Portis, which means that would leave 8 for betts, [at this point you may get out a calculater and check the math if your having trouble following] then who had more yards? I believe it was Betts. Didn't Betts almost set a Skins record when he took over full time for most consecutive 100 yard games? Didn't I see Portis doing damage control saying he wants to be able to run downhill just like betts was? We didn't run downhill with portis because he can't. He's to slow to the hole, Betts on the other hand hits the hole with everthing he has, unlike Portis who hesitates looking for a big gap, because he knows he ain't knocking anyone backwards. If you think the coaches didn't notice the difference in the running game in it's consistancy with Betts in there your sadly mistaken, you do not make the type of commitment to a back when you have a huge money in another back in Portis if you didn't see something better in Betts, and that something better is his ability to move the chains and get the tough yards, which is more important than the occasional big run.
Betts in 7 starts had 1,154 rushing yards on 245 carries, a 4.7 yards-per-carry average
In 9 starts Portis had 127 carries for 523yds for a 4.1 avg.
Who was more effective? Obviously Betts!
And for the record Betts 4.7 avg. is more than any average that Portis has had since he's arrived in DC, 4.3 was the best Portis could deliver. So if you want to cry injury go ahead I am sure there was a span in Portis's tenure here that he was healthy and couldn't touch maybe the most important stat of all for a RB, YARDS PER CARRY!
offiss 04-09-2007, 05:46 PM Well the defense was certainly the problem this year, but it's not like they didn't cost us a few games last year. It was inconsistent in 2005 (which beats completely crappy).
Our offense was very consistent for most of 2005 and was every bit as good as the defense. People remember the playoff games. People don't remember the games that we lost because our opponents scored way above their season average PPG.
Portis wasn't anymore responsible for the above average offense in 2005 than Brunell or Moss, but he was certainly every bit as important as either.
I really have to say you must have been watching a different team than I.
How you can knock our defense in 2005 is beyond me, for a defense to just flat out carry that team into the playoffs and win a playoff game for us was above and beyond what we could have hoped for. Couple that with the fact that the offense left them on the field all year makes thier accomplishment even more impresive. The problem last year was the defenses inability to bail out the offense which put a big spot light on our problems offensively and we could no longer hide Brunell, that is why the teachers pet fianlly got the hook, the defense stopped winning games for him, and Brunell wasen't about to start winning games! He's all about not losing them!
SmootSmack 04-09-2007, 06:03 PM And for the record Betts 4.7 avg. is more than any average that Portis has had since he's arrived in DC, 4.3 was the best Portis could deliver. So if you want to cry injury go ahead I am sure there was a span in Portis's tenure here that he was healthy and couldn't touch maybe the most important stat of all for a RB, YARDS PER CARRY!
Do you really believe that? YPC is the most important stat? Especially in a ball control offense?
hooskins 04-09-2007, 06:13 PM Also Offiss, what about all the fumbles that have plagued Betts? How about the one that cost us the game towards the end of last year.
Sorry to ruin your hard-on for Betts but Portis is better talented too. That is an ex-factor. He isn't just a straight N-S runner, but he can be if he wants to. Also Al was using him wrong in the beginning of the season and when Gibbs took control towards the end of the season he called the runs that Betts had.
Perhaps if Gibbs took control earlier Portis would have had monster numbers too.
Just for the record:
Steven Jackson's career YPC = 4.4
Clinton Portis YPC = 4.7
I guess the numbers don't lie
brent 04-09-2007, 07:35 PM Skins need to have a balanced offense this year: 1500 yards for Portis and 1500 yards for Betts!
|