Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

Uhhhh they are 3-1, I say the 2 back system is working nicely.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

Great idea. Then we'll do to our running game what the Bears did to theirs in the offseason. Gut it. we have 40% of last year's starting offensive line. Our entire right side is staffed with backups.

And Clinton plays with a reckless abandon that 35 snaps a game will virtually guarantee he misses time through a season due to injury. You can keep him running healthier, and thus harder if you can keep his load between 20 and 25 carries.

And, they are different types of backs. Defenses get used to how fast Clinton hits the hole, and then the change of pace with Ladell can affect the timing for the opposition's run attack.

Come on.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

Until Portis is 100% healthy I don't really see this as a debate.

As far as getting better as the game wears on, sometimes it has to do with the mental aspect as well. Have you ever played sports and come out onto the field with some jitters? Than once the game has settled, you find your knack.

Also physically, if you're in the game longer your muscles aren't going to tighten up because your sitting on the sidelines. You stay loose, get into a rhythm, and perform better. I know this may vary from back to back, but I definitely think there is room for speculation here... but it may very well be a moot point.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

agreee with Monk's down completely, Betts and Portis work in tandem!!!!!

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Southpaw;361096]Please tell me you're not relating Clinton Portis to Skip EFFING Hicks...

And comparing Stephen Davis to Betts is a bit of a stretch too, considering Davis wasn't allergic to touchdowns.[/quote]
Nah, I wasn't really trying to compare Portis to Hicks in regard to talent... but as to a scat back with the Redskins... I like a smash mouth... and yes, I was comparing Betts to Stephen Davis from his early days here in DC.

Please tell me people's memories are not so short to remember how lowly we thought of Davis in the early days.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Redskin Rich;361132]Nah, I wasn't really trying to compare Portis to Hicks in regard to talent... but as to a scat back with the Redskins... I like a smash mouth... and yes, I was comparing Betts to Stephen Davis from his early days here in DC.

Please tell me people's memories are not so short to remember how lowly we thought of Davis in the early days.[/quote]

So now Portis is a scat back... I don't understand why people still have the impression that Betts is this bruising power back. Does anyone recall the play yesterday when Betts was running straight up the gut, and got blown up on a high tackle? Any "power" back in the league should have an advantage on a high tackle when the supposed power back is running downhill with a head of steam, but Betts got knocked two yards backwards.

And Betts isn't exactly in his "early" days. He's been in the league for six years now, which means over half his career is over. Running backs aren't really known for 10+ year careers.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Southpaw;361139]So now Portis is a scat back... I don't understand why people still have the impression that Betts is this bruising power back. Does anyone recall the play yesterday when Betts was running straight up the gut, and got blown up on a high tackle? Any "power" back in the league should have an advantage on a high tackle when the supposed power back is running downhill with a head of steam, but Betts got knocked two yards backwards.

And Betts isn't exactly in his "early" days. He's been in the league for six years now, which means over half his career is over. Running backs aren't really known for 10+ year careers.[/quote]
Didn't Betts run for 1100+ yards in just part of the season last year??? I am a little forgetful in my old age... how many years was Davis a back up to Terry Allen, and then a full back to Skip Hicks before he became "The Man"?????

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

Redskin Rich, did Portis not sign a football for you or something? Seems like you have a lot of actual hate for Portis.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

I should have known this thread was going to turn into Portis v. Betts.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;361146]I should have known this thread was going to turn into Portis v. Betts.[/QUOTE]

It's funny, we complain about lack of depth. But when we have it, such as with our running back situation we find ways to complain about that too.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Redskin Rich;361141]Didn't Betts run for 1100+ yards in just part of the season last year??? I am a little forgetful in my old age... how many years was Davis a back up to Terry Allen, and then a full back to Skip Hicks before he became "The Man"?????[/quote]

Betts has 2.7 a carry this season, and he's never been to fond of the endzone. He got 1100+ yards in an [B]entire[/B] season last year. He had the majority of the carries in about 10 of those games. He had a nice stretch at the end when the line was healthy and playing lights out in regards to run blocking. Do you think it's coincidence that since the two of the better run blockers on the line have been injured, Betts is almost completely ineffective?

And Davis was a backup for three years. Betts didn't crack the starting lineup until his fifth season, but again, what does Stephen Davis have to do with Betts? While Betts looks like he should run with power, Davis actually was a power back.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

What are we even arguing about??

Portis is having a good year. Why is that not enough?

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=12thMan;361146]I should have known this thread was going to turn into Portis v. Betts.[/quote]

I apologize for my part in that, but it's tough for me to just sit here and watch people throw out ridiculous claims that have no basis in fact.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

I think that Portis should get more carries. Betts is OK but he's more of screen pass type of guy to me. He has shown the ability in the past but I think Portis is the guy unless he's hurting or needs a breather.

No matter what Sellers is the ONLY option in short yardage and goaline situations. Did you see his carry 3 linebackers into the endzone??

Makes me really pissed off that Betts got the call against the G-men......

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;361145]Redskin Rich, did Portis not sign a football for you or something? Seems like you have a lot of actual hate for Portis.[/quote]
lol... that was good smoot... no, I never met Portis... nor tried to.... I am not that big on the current guys.

I think of the Redskins as a North South running team. I also think that Portis has been run hard over the years and his best days are behind him.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Redskin Rich;361158]lol... that was good smoot... no, I never met Portis... nor tried to.... I am not that big on the current guys.

I think of the Redskins as a North South running team. I also think that Portis has been run hard over the years and his best days are behind him.[/quote]

His best days are behind him at what 26 yrs old?

Oh, and I know your response to that. He's a very old 26 yrs old, right?

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

LOL. Seems like every thread on the ground game turns into Portis v. Betts. The two-back system is working OK but it's not dominant. The reason is Betts is one of those backs who needs a lot of carries to begin reading the defense. Others have said it and he's admitted it. Betts isn't the best guy to come in once every few plays and be real productive. Sellers does it because he's so damn powerful. I think Portis should continue to get the bulk of carries, Sellers more in short and goal line, and Betts in screens and passes (he does have better hands than CP).

All that said, Betts is a huge factor. If CP gets hurt Betts can be real productive just like last year. Everyone wants to think of him as a power but he got real talent to avoid tacklers in close quarters once he gets in the groove. He did it over and over again last year. Also, Betts really seems like a back that could turn out like a Tiki for us. Seriously! CP will be long gone before Betts and he just keeps learning. I think when it's his time to take the bulk of carries in our downhill running game Betts will really impress (again).

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=MTRedskinsFan;361162]LOL. Seems like every thread on the ground game turns into Portis v. Betts. The two-back system is working OK but it's not dominant. The reason is Betts is one of those backs who needs a lot of carries to begin reading the defense. Others have said it and he's admitted it. Betts isn't the best guy to come in once every few plays and be real productive. Sellers does it because he's so damn powerful. I think Portis should continue to get the bulk of carries, Sellers more in short and goal line, and Betts in screens and passes (he does have better hands than CP).

All that said, Betts is a huge factor. If CP gets hurt Betts can be real productive just like last year. Everyone wants to think of him as a power but he got real talent to avoid tacklers in close quarters once he gets in the groove. He did it over and over again last year. Also, Betts really seems like a back that could turn out like a Tiki for us. Seriously! CP will be long gone before Betts and he just keeps learning. I think when it's his time to take the bulk of carries in our downhill running game Betts will really impress (again).[/quote]


No one is really aruguing Portis v. Betts. At least I'm not. And I started the thread. I just want to see Portis get most of the carries instead of splitting them. I think he's one of those guys that get's better as you get into the fourth quarter. That's taking nothing away from Ladell Betts at all.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

Here we go again w/ Portis and Betts! I think the rotation we are currently doing is just fine. If CP can get 17-20 carries and if Betts can get 8- 10 then that's ideal. Both guys are productive but Portis is w/out question the better back.

Why does this argument always come up? Can't fans just be happy that we have 2 good backs? Actually we have 3 cause Rock runs it well too.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

the two back competition keeps the guys fighting for extra yard....it's not like a lot of the nfl isnt doing the same thing.....i mean christ....turner had a big day yesterday

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Sean Taylor;361156]I think that Portis should get more carries. Betts is OK but he's more of screen pass type of guy to me. He has shown the ability in the past but I think Portis is the guy unless he's hurting or needs a breather.

No matter what Sellers is the ONLY option in short yardage and goaline situations. Did you see his carry 3 linebackers into the endzone??

Makes me really pissed off that Betts got the call against the G-men......[/quote]

Kind of makes you sick that we actually traded for Duckett when we had this guy all along. And the thing is he was begging Gibbs for carries all along.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=12thMan;361161]His best days are behind him at what 26 yrs old?

Oh, and I know your response to that. He's a very old 26 yrs old, right?[/quote]
So to speak, yes my friend... he is not strong enough to take the beating he took early in his career. He is one of the many running backs that were only good for a few years.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

He's not getting a huge amount of carries thanks to our two-back system, but he's having a pretty damn good year. Sure, we might not see him put up 1500+ yards again, but at the end of the year, look at his YPC and we'll see where he stands.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

It's a balancing act--run Portis as much as you need to win, but keep him healthy. It's not about stats, it's about wins, including late season and hopefully playoff wins.

Some of the comments here are off-base, IMO: RedskinRich--it really does sound like Portis ran over your dog or something. No heart? Over the hill? Come on.

And the history stuff is just irrelevant--Yeah, let's get back Steven Davis and argue about the merits of Skip Hicks. How bout Kenny Watson? Isn't he tearing it up for Cinncy? Oh, and what about Sultan MuCulough, or whatever his name was... Look, we have 2 backs who have both run for 1000 yards in a season in the NFL. And one has some of the best numbers ever in the beginning of a career, and the Redskin single season running record, over such heroes as Riggins, Davis, Byner, Allen, etc. Find the right balance and win some games. Find the plays that work for Betts, if he's not as "interchangeable" as the coaches seem to think. Make sure Clinton is rested and ready for the fourth quarter, as well as for the crucial games. But why would anyone complain about this situation? Just ask the Bears, or many of the teams without one, much less two good runners.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Redskin Rich;361181]So to speak, yes my friend... he is not strong enough to take the beating he took early in his career. He is one of the many running backs that were only good for a few years.[/quote]

That's just a ridiculous statement. One of the fastest running backs EVER to 5,000 yards, was only good for a few years... Newsflash. He's still very good.

Betts had a solid half season. He's shown nothing this season to warrent a starting job, especially in Washington.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

all you gotta do is watch the games....portis is awesome...one of the best backs in the league

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

whoa whoa whoa, i think u guys have the argument all wrong...it shouldnt be betts vs portis, it should be rock vs sellers. I think based on yesterdays game its obvious that Mike Sellers is a hall of famer to be and he deserves to carry it 40-50 times a game. I think its also pretty obvious that since portis fumbled the ball "his best days are behind him" and he has an incurable fumbling problem. It only makes sense that since rock recovered the thrash fumble on the special teams HE is the answer. He should split carries with mike sellers!


i mean honestly, is this really what it has come to? we start questioning a ratio of carries in a game that we obliterated our opponent??? Ideally, i want our team to go up by 50 points thru the air in the 1st quarter and all of our backs get 15 carries a piece for the rest of the game with their only responsibility being to run the clock out, but im pretty sure thats not gonna happen often. Can we just be satisfied with winning in the fashion that we did yesterday? How about we reserve our criticism for areas of the team that are actually shaky (which is a category our running game does NOT fall under)? I love being a skins fan but some of us are way too fickle and judgemental for my taste.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

God Bless you Taj, I mean Raj. I agree wholeheartedly.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[QUOTE=Rajmahal33;361205]whoa whoa whoa, i think u guys have the argument all wrong...it shouldnt be betts vs portis, it should be rock vs sellers. I think based on yesterdays game its obvious that Mike Sellers is a hall of famer to be and he deserves to carry it 40-50 times a game. I think its also pretty obvious that since portis fumbled the ball "his best days are behind him" and he has an incurable fumbling problem. It only makes sense that since rock recovered the thrash fumble on the special teams HE is the answer. He should split carries with mike sellers!


i mean honestly, is this really what it has come to? we start questioning a ratio of carries in a game that we obliterated our opponent??? Ideally, i want our team to go up by 50 points thru the air in the 1st quarter and all of our backs get 15 carries a piece for the rest of the game with their only responsibility being to run the clock out, but im pretty sure thats not gonna happen often. Can we just be satisfied with winning in the fashion that we did yesterday? How about we reserve our criticism for areas of the team that are actually shaky (which is a category our running game does NOT fall under)? I love being a skins fan but some of us are way too fickle and judgemental for my taste.[/QUOTE]

Well put, Raj. Nuff said.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[QUOTE=Rajmahal33;361205]whoa whoa whoa, i think u guys have the argument all wrong...it shouldnt be betts vs portis, it should be rock vs sellers. I think based on yesterdays game its obvious that Mike Sellers is a hall of famer to be and he deserves to carry it 40-50 times a game. I think its also pretty obvious that since portis fumbled the ball "his best days are behind him" and he has an incurable fumbling problem. It only makes sense that since rock recovered the thrash fumble on the special teams HE is the answer. He should split carries with mike sellers!

i mean honestly, is this really what it has come to? we start questioning a ratio of carries in a game that we obliterated our opponent??? Ideally, i want our team to go up by 50 points thru the air in the 1st quarter and all of our backs get 15 carries a piece for the rest of the game with their only responsibility being to run the clock out, but im pretty sure thats not gonna happen often. Can we just be satisfied with winning in the fashion that we did yesterday? How about we reserve our criticism for areas of the team that are actually shaky (which is a category our running game does NOT fall under)? I love being a skins fan but some of us are way too fickle and judgemental for my taste.[/QUOTE]

Great post...or the greatest post? ;)

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

THE greatest post.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Rajmahal33;361205]How about we reserve our criticism for areas of the team that are actually shaky (which is a category our running game does NOT fall under)? I love being a skins fan but some of us are way too fickle and judgemental for my taste.[/quote]

The funny thing is, I completely agree. But I'm unable to let completely ridiculous statements slide by without any kind of rebuttal.

What's lost in my argumentative comments is the fact that I actually like Ladell Betts in his current role in the offense. I just disagree with what some people seem to think his role SHOULD be.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[QUOTE=Redskin Rich;361132]Nah, I wasn't really trying to compare Portis to Hicks in regard to talent... but as to a scat back with the Redskins... I like a smash mouth... and yes, I was comparing Betts to Stephen Davis from his early days here in DC.

Please tell me people's memories are not so short to remember how lowly we thought of Davis in the early days.[/QUOTE]

What I think you're misconstruing is the fact that Clinton isn't a "scat back" and Ladell Betts isn't a smash mouth back. I've never seen a "smash mouth" back get hit with a shoulder pad and not wrapped up, not score a TD. Also, never seen one get blown up the way Betts did yesterday. Betts is, at best, a poor man's Priest Holmes in that he has good vision, but he doesn't effectively use his supposed power and he's not a good power back.

Bottom line: Portis blocks better and runs harder. Betts is a great change of pace back, he's about as powerful as Ki Jana Carter...

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

I really like the way the two guys are working right now more because Portis is staying fresh and he's staying relatively healthy. He hasn't been healthy since last preseason and he's still playing well. I like getting Betts in there to keep Portis fresh, however, I can't accept an argument that Portis (the toughest back they've had since Davis) is somehow a scat back who can't run north south. He's the best north south runner on the team beyond Sellers. Portis is a great back and Betts is a good backup. That's where it ends. This shouldn't be a Portis v. Betts thing, but apparently it has to continue to turn into it.

I've been pleased with what I've seen, more because of W's than because of any overwhelming effectiveness. Portis is playing pretty well, Betts isn't right now. As the season wears on, everyone will be happy the Skins have them both.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

betts is a terriffic back but theres a reason that we traded champ bailey 4 years ago, they should stick with clinton

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=Southpaw;361139]So now Portis is a scat back... I don't understand why people still have the impression that Betts is this bruising power back. Does anyone recall the play yesterday when Betts was running straight up the gut, and got blown up on a high tackle? Any "power" back in the league should have an advantage on a high tackle when the supposed power back is running downhill with a head of steam, but Betts got knocked two yards backwards.

And Betts isn't exactly in his "early" days. He's been in the league for six years now, which means over half his career is over. Running backs aren't really known for 10+ year careers.[/quote]

I remember the play and basically Ernie Sims - a top 10 pick - flashed in the hole completely untouched (was on the right side of the line btw) and hit Betts in the backfield. I don't recall Betts being "blown up" on the play and actually he spun a bit and fell forward. Basically the play was dead for the get go because the blocking apparently broke down, or Sims made a nice play, or some combination of the two. No one would have had a chance on that play, not Clinton Portis, not Ladell Betts, not Stephen Davis, not Gerald Riggs, not John Riggins, you get my point. I don't think you need to tear down Betts because you like Portis and a probably wouldn't point to that particular play. If you are getting hit in the backfield, just after you get the ball, by a 250 pound man who runs a 4.5 who is coming at a dead sprint then there are other problems other than who is carrying the ball.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

Yeah he didn't get blown up, he got hit hard. He stayed up though and if Simms hadn't rapped his legs he would have kept going. It's not Bett's fault Simms got into the backfield that fast.

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;361250]I remember the play and basically Ernie Sims - a top 10 pick - flashed in the hole completely untouched (was on the right side of the line btw) and hit Betts in the backfield. I don't recall Betts being "blown up" on the play and actually he spun a bit and fell forward. Basically the play was dead for the get go because the blocking apparently broke down, or Sims made a nice play, or some combination of the two. No one would have had a chance on that play, not Clinton Portis, not Ladell Betts, not Stephen Davis, not Gerald Riggs, not John Riggins, you get my point. I don't think you need to tear down Betts because you like Portis and a probably wouldn't point to that particular play. If you are getting hit in the backfield, just after you get the ball, by a 250 pound man who runs a 4.5 who is coming at a dead sprint then there are other problems other than who is carrying the ball.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! Weird how some people want to tear down Betts after he helped us save some dignity through last year's nightmare. This guy is better than every other backup I can think of aside from Turner, and he's better than a few of the starters (Lindell White). I think Skins fans should stop crapping on our guy - he's a Redskin thru and thru or he would have gone elsewhere after last season to cash in on his performance (2nd only to LT for the last 6 or 8 games).

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

I would like to see Mr. Sellers get some carries early , to wear down the defence . Give teams one more thing to worry about , then those toss plays to CP will pick up some huge gains . When are we going to see R. El throw a td to CP ? Once the Line gels , JC keeps getting better , CP / Moss near 100% the O should be just fine ,,,, just need to get 7 pts on our long drives and after turnovers !!

Re: Portis and Betts: Should We Just Stick With Portis?
 

[quote=MTRedskinsFan;361522]Exactly! Weird how some people want to tear down Betts after he helped us save some dignity through last year's nightmare. This guy is better than every other backup I can think of aside from Turner, and he's better than a few of the starters (Lindell White). I think Skins fans should stop crapping on our guy - he's a Redskin thru and thru or he would have gone elsewhere after last season to cash in on his performance (2nd only to LT for the last 6 or 8 games).[/quote]

Yet it's perfectly ok to crap on Portis...

And just as I see the play as a supposed power back getting overpowered, the Betts lovers see it completely different. I've already stated that I like the current situation with the running backs, but some people still seem to think that Betts' production last season has anything to do with this season, in which Betts' numbers are below average.