Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257594]Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?[/QUOTE]

Because Betts fumbled that game away

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257601]Because Betts fumbled that game away[/quote]

Are you seriously pinning that loss all on Betts?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=dgack;257599]Hey, I'm looking at stats of games played, to refute the notion that Betts has had "one good game". The fact is, he historically runs well when he gets carries comparable with a starting NFL RB. When he gets 5-10 carries in a game, of course he's not going to blow anybody's skirt up.

When he gets opportunities, he has taken advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

He has been alright when given the chance. However, he hasn't been healthy enough to get a whole lot of shots with this team. Like I said before once in 5 season coming into this one he has played more than 12 games. 12!

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;257602]Are you seriously pinning that loss all on Betts?[/QUOTE]

No, but without that fumble they have a much better shot at winning. They were working their way to a drive that could have gotten them right back in it, however, the fumble killed that. The D should've played better, but that hurts...a WHOLE LOT. About as much as when Stephen Davis fumbled against the Boys a few years back...

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257570]Please read the prior 5 pages and see everyone's thoughts on this....[/quote]

I did & there were several posts that I wanted to quote, too many actually.
While I echoed the sentiment of others, I also added some commentary that others hadn't - that w/the franchise tag Champ would have no choice in the matter until we negotiate. The Skins don't seem to like the franchise tag, but it has been used recently as a medium to buy time & trade disgruntled players.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=dgack;257599]Hey, I'm looking at stats of games played, to refute the notion that Betts has had "one good game". The fact is, he historically runs well when he gets carries comparable with a starting NFL RB. When he gets 5-10 carries in a game, of course he's not going to blow anybody's skirt up.

When he gets opportunities, he has taken advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

I think a big point a lot of people have brought up though is that he hasn't been able to take advantage of opportunities because he's always been hurt.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257574]I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are [B]2-6 [/B]when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?[/quote]

What's our impressive record when Clinton's starting?

18-19.

So I guess we can't win with Clinton Portis, either.

Oh, and BTW, the Chargers have gone 48-44 with the greatest RB of our generation and possibly all-time.

Thank you drive through.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=freddyg12;257608]I did & there were several posts that I wanted to quote, too many actually.
While I echoed the sentiment of others, I also added some commentary that others hadn't - that w/the franchise tag Champ would have no choice in the matter until we negotiate. The Skins don't seem to like the franchise tag, but it has been used recently as a medium to buy time & trade disgruntled players.[/QUOTE]

Okay, it just seemed like you just read the first few pages and replied. I apologize then. However, if a guy doesn't wanna play, he doesn't have to show up. And I thought they did franchise him, but they worked out the trade. Champ could have forced his way out and he pretty much did. IMO, the trade worked out well for both teams.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=dgack;257611]What's our impressive record when Clinton's starting?

18-19.

So I guess we can't win with Clinton Portis, either.

Oh, and BTW, the Charges have gone 48-44 with the greatest RB of our generation and possibly all-time.

Thank you drive through.[/quote]

Uh, so the fact that the Redskins don't have a winning record with Portis makes a remark about the Redskins winning with Betts less ridiculous?

A lot of people around here like to see actual facts behind random off the wall comments, and I have no problem calling someone out when the comments are particularly silly.

If all it takes for a statement to be true is for someone to make the claim, then the Redskins can win with me as the starting strong safety. By your logic, that statement is true because they don't have a winning record with Archuleta at strong safety.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257625]Uh, so the fact that the Redskins don't have a winning record with Portis makes a remark about the Redskins winning with Betts less ridiculous?

A lot of people around here like to see actual facts behind random off the wall comments, and I have no problem calling someone out when the comments are particularly silly.

If all it takes for a statement to be true is for someone to make the claim, then the Redskins can win with me as the starting strong safety. By your logic, that statement is true because they don't have a winning record with Archuleta at strong safety.[/quote]

Look, you're confusing two types of things here. One is people's opinions, which you can agree with or disagree with. The other are facts. You used a FACT (Betts' record as a starter) to refute someone's OPINION that you COULD WIN GAMES with him at RB. That's a totally legit approach. In a way, I'm arguing against both your AND his opinion, though, because I'm showing with FACTS, that neither Portis nor Tomlinson's presence as starters alone can "make teams win".

Note that my argument for Betts' efficacy has always been about how many yards he puts up, not necessarily that we can "win games with him". You can't easily compare "game winning activities" with current statistics, so I prefer to compare using what stats we do have. Admittedly, those can still be used in questionable ways, but they're better than totally subjective comparisons.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

You must also look at the fact that Bett's missed blocking assignments essentially led to two turnovers. Portis is the entire package, bett's brings some good things to the table, which explains why Portis is a probowl player, and bett's is a better than average backup, as of right now....

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=dgack;257636]Note that my argument for Betts' efficacy has always been about how many yards he puts up, not necessarily that we can "win games with him". You can't easily compare "game winning activities" with current statistics, so I prefer to compare using what stats we do have. Admittedly, those can still be used in questionable ways, but they're better than totally subjective comparisons.[/quote]

Using stats to back your argument is fine, and it's actually what I base most of my arguments on also. The problem with using rushing stats for a Betts argument is that he only has a handful of 20+ carry games in his five year career, and everyone knows that statistics are flawed when you have a smaller pool of statistical events to choose from.

While his numbers do look decent based on the 20+ carry games he's had, I think the fact that he's only had a few 20+ carry games in five seasons says volumes more about Betts than the actual numbers in those handful of games.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257643]While his numbers do look decent based on the 20+ carry games he's had, I think the fact that he's only had a few 20+ carry games in five seasons says volumes more about Betts than the actual numbers in those handful of games.[/quote]

I won't argue it says something about the guy's durability, or at least his luck. The reason I point out how few 20+ carry games he's had is to point out that we really don't know how good he could be. His early years were spent on some pretty bad Redskins teams even when he WAS relatively healthy, and he didn't have the confidence of the coaches until now.

I certainly am not trying to make a case for Ladell > CP. Just pointing out that he could be a lot more effective for the Skinss than many of us think / expect.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257601]Because Betts fumbled that game away[/quote]


I'm not going to insult your football intelligence. But your comment makes no sense. One turnover does not win or loose a game. You should know that. What if Brandon Lloyd catches the damn ball that JC put right in his hands on the first play of the game? What if, what if, what if.........

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;257399]This article about Betts really made me wonder:

[URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-bettsbid&prov=ap&type=lgns"]Given chance to shine, Betts ponders staying with Redskins - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/URL]

If Gibbs really knew what he had in Betts when he got here, do you think he would have still made the move for Portis?? He says he doesn't regret making the move and of course Portis is a top flight back in this league, but I wonder how things would have turned out if he thought Betts was a capable starting back. I doubt we would have been able to retain Bailey anyway, he really seemed set on getting out of here.

Just one of those things that makes you wonder.[/QUOTE]

Matty, I think you are the only person on this board who can bring this topic up without getting flamed.

I love Portis, but I have wondered about that recently. Even if we couldn't have kept Bailey (and I disagree that we couldn't, it seems that was always more of a money issue) we could have gotten two first round picks for him plus kept that second round pick. Who knows how that would have worked out. However, I'm still glad to have Portis.