Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=Southpaw;356525]The problem is, neither of the final two runs were "up the gut". Both were wide, and the second looked like it was supposed to be off tackle, which is Portis' bread and butter..[/quote]

Agreed, I'm just suggesting a reason why I think Gibbs may be scared of using CP in goal-line situations. He hasn't been particularly effective in them with our playcalling and o-line.

I'm one of those guys who'd much rather have a 3rd and goal from the 8 than be on the 1 yardline with 3 chances to punch it in. We just don't know how to / have the personnel to do that anymore, and I think that just doesn't compute with Joe.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=dmek25;356522]that fumble lies more on Campbell then Portis. its his responsibility to make sure the hand-off hits portis in the chest[/quote]

Nothing Campbell could do different there. Portis shouldn't have been reaching for the ball. He should have let Campbell put it in the breadbasket. Instead he reached for the ball because he was too anxious to hit the hole and it dropped.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[QUOTE=skinsnut;356499]
[B]DUH![/B]

Its the annual time of year to place or hopes on DALLAS losing before the Super Bowl....this is still a 7-9 Redskins team...ugh.[/QUOTE]


Man I hope you're wrong, Dallas looks like the best in the NFC by far. I'm pulling for Green Bay if the Skins cant do it. But fuck lets get this ship righted and fire whoever was play-calling the 2nd half, was it gibbs or saunders or both?

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;356481]Gibbs stated Betts was in because he was in on the entire last drive, so it just made sense to leave him in to finish the drive. The problem is, Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts seems like he's effing scared of scoring touchdowns. Gibbs also stated that those last two runs are their best running play. The second issue is, those are Portis' best runs. Betts is most effective running inside, so I don't understand the call to run Betts wide.

The supposed "power back" got stoned by Antonio Pierce(who didn't even wrap him up initially) on third down, and then TRIPPED on fourth and the game. That was frustrating as hell to watch. Of course the game shouldn't have come down to that, but watching Campbell lead them down to the one yard line, and then Betts falling down with the game on the line pissed me off.[/QUOTE]


Agreed.....was hard to stomach! I'm still picking up my hair I pulled out, off the floor of the bar I watched the game at. Not really sure if Portis would have been any beter then Betts in that situation. Whatever the case....we sure didnt need to rush that play with over 25 secs to go :o( O-line was not prepared.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;356481]Gibbs stated Betts was in because he was in on the entire last drive, so it just made sense to leave him in to finish the drive. The problem is, Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts seems like he's effing scared of scoring touchdowns. Gibbs also stated that those last two runs are their best running play. The second issue is, those are Portis' best runs. Betts is most effective running inside, so I don't understand the call to run Betts wide.

The supposed "power back" got stoned by Antonio Pierce(who didn't even wrap him up initially) on third down, and then TRIPPED on fourth and the game. That was frustrating as hell to watch. Of course the game shouldn't have come down to that, but watching Campbell lead them down to the one yard line, and then Betts falling down with the game on the line pissed me off.[/QUOTE]

Exactly...that's a play where Portis lowers his pads and goes into the endzone standing up! Betts didn't level his pads and didn't seem to make any effort to break the tackle.

As for Portis getting stuffed on 3 dives a few years ago. Betts is the same back who had someone grab his shirt tail and go down on like the 3. His shirt tail and he couldn't break the guy's grip in order to score. People need to see Betts for what he does: good vision, find the hole, hit the hole, go down after one hit (and generally fall backwards)

Re: Clinton Portis
 

This game cleary showed who is the better back. Betts has had 1 good year, he had his first td as a redskin in 05, how many has portis had for us since 04..... Betts is not a good runner, puts his head down and will try and run over ppl without even looking his team or the other, dont matter

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[QUOTE=DiehardSkin88;356597]This game cleary showed who is the better back. Betts has had 1 good year, he had his first td as a redskin in 05, how many has portis had for us since 04..... Betts is not a good runner, puts his head down and will try and run over ppl without even looking his team or the other, dont matter[/QUOTE]

I think saying he's not a good runner is a little much, but the guy shouldn't have been the one toting the rock on the goalline with the game on the line.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=jdlea;356599]I think saying he's not a good runner is a little much, but the guy shouldn't have been the one toting the rock on the goalline with the game on the line.[/quote]

True Dat!

Re: Clinton Portis
 

to be honest, yes, I'd rather have seen portis in, but I don't care who is back there...we should have scored. portis, betts or sellers...whatever...

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=BrunellMVP?;356606]to be honest, yes, I'd rather have seen portis in, but I don't care who is back there...we should have scored. portis, betts or sellers...whatever...[/quote]

Betts is good between the 20's. Last year we had a problem scoring inside the 5 because Betts was playing not Portis. Portis has scored all three times we were inside the 10 this year. Why he was not is beyond me.

Another point, why don't we use the naked bootleg? I've never seen that play stopped in my life! It was the perfect time they new were were going left and cheating that way.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

you know that sellers play worked really well in the past (the year he had like 6 TDs for a total of 8 yards), so i don't mind the call...

as for betts- i agree, should have been someone else, but really...i'm not sure it would have made a difference....the calls were bad..too transparent as the giants were in the backfield...

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=skinsfan242;356611]Another point, why don't we use the naked bootleg? I've never seen that play stopped in my life! It was the perfect time they new were were going left and cheating that way.[/quote]

Amen. It's not like we've got gimpy, glass-crafted Brunell in there. J-Cam should *easily* score on that call, and he's shown that he can take a little contact with no ill effects.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

yeah I wouldve rather had portis searching for paydirt than betts... but in that situation on the one yardline I wouldve handed it to sellers or done a QB sneak...

Re: Clinton Portis
 

The bottom line is Portis fumbled and didn't catch a pass that would have helped keep a drive alive. Maybe we need to bring in Rock.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=skinsfan69;356658]The bottom line is Portis fumbled and didn't catch a pass that would have helped keep a drive alive. Maybe we need to bring in Rock.[/quote]

How the hell is that the bottom line, when Betts had the opportunity to tie up the game and failed twice? It sounds like your only defense of Betts lack of ability is that Portis had a bad play too. That's a ridiculous argument.

And as far as the Portis fumble; it was a bad exchange. Portis never even had possession of the ball. And the dropped pass is bad, but those plays happen. What's your defense for Betts' less than two yard rush average?