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