Clinton Portis
 

while I'm not happy with the loss, this really bothers me. why does it seem like Portis is always on the bench in crunch time? i have no problem with calling a run at the end of a game. i do have a problem with our back up carrying it. the one thing Portis has shown here is the ability to get into the end zone. it seemed like for alot of the second half, Portis was on the sideline. the man is too good, and makes too much, to be a spectator

Re: Clinton Portis
 

I don't have a big problem with it. Betts has been a very productive runner for us and he has to be able to get it done in big spots just like Portis.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

He WAS hurt in the 2nd qtr, knee or leg it looked like, but he did come back in the second half.

Maybe it was his drops and fumbles.

Betts is a good shot to score too, it's not like we had a scrub trying to push into the end zone. I would've liked to see Sellers with a run on that last goal-line push, but if Betts HAD scored, you'd all be praising him and asking for him to start over Portis.

We can't go back in time. Gibbs has taken us to 4 Super Bowls and at the time, he trusted his players to execute. They didn't.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

Regardless of who was running the ball at the end of the game it would have not mattered the line fall apart on the last two plays.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

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.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

If you really want to break down some things CP's fumble and his dropped pass (easily would have been a 1st down) really hurt this football team yesterday. I don't think he played well at all outside the crushing block on Pierce and a couple good runs. Let us not forget he also got a delay of game for spinning the damn ball after a 10 yard run...idiot!

Re: Clinton Portis
 

Im sorry, there is NO WAY Betts is even nearly as good as CP at finding the goal line. I agree that it seemed ridiculous to me that he wasn't in there on those last two plays. Obviously there was something coach saw that I didn't, but it still made me wanna tear my hair out.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

I have to question why BETTS and PORTIS and taking equal time this year.
Yes, Betts had a good year last year....and Portis had a better one the year before....the reason?

Good Running Backs get better as the game progresses, the more touches they get, the better feel they get as to where the holes will open up.
At this point I doubt the benefit of "keeping them fresh" exceeds the benefit of "improved Yards Per Carry" as the game progresses.

I say...keep Portis in 75% of the time and only put Betts in when he needs a break.

And, BTW....it was INSANE or STUPID to not have your best running back in with 4 plays to go at the FREAKING 1 yard line with the game on the line....running BETTS wide is stupid....it NEVER WORKS....NEVER!
(especially on the left where they are expecting it due to our line issues)
[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.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

I agree, Portis is the guy near the goal line. It wold be nice to hammer Sellers in there from a yard out also. Running the ball to the left was very predictable and they certainly knew it was coming. Portis defintely gets better as the game pregresses. The way the NFC looks right now we are right in the thick of things with two games against the cowboys. A lot of football left to be played but 3 and 0 would have been nice.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=jbcjr14;356483]If you really want to break down some things CP's fumble and his dropped pass (easily would have been a 1st down) really hurt this football team yesterday. I don't think he played well at all outside the crushing block on Pierce and a couple good runs. Let us not forget he also got a delay of game for spinning the damn ball after a 10 yard run...idiot![/quote]

It was a 5 yard penalty for spiking the ball

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=jbcjr14;356483]If you really want to break down some things CP's fumble and his dropped pass (easily would have been a 1st down) really hurt this football team yesterday. I don't think he played well at all outside the crushing block on Pierce and a couple good runs. Let us not forget he also got a delay of game for spinning the damn ball after a 10 yard run...idiot![/quote]

What does Portis dropping a pass, or muffing a handoff have to do with Betts being unable to get into the endzone, or tripping over his one lineman with the game on the line? Of course those plays hurt(like several others from several other players), but the point is, Portis finds the endzone, and Betts doesn't.

Betts runs well when there's a hole. If there's no hole for him to run through, he's ineffective. Portis can at least attempt to make something out of nothing, which is a skill the Betts completely lacks.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

I'll tell you why CP isn't in there on goal line carries, because Joe's inclined to call the same basic play -- run it up the gut. And remember back to '05 when we'd see CP get stuffed 3 times at the goal line on 3 attempts, and then we'd end up kicking it?

Sellers should have been in on those plays and not as a receiver, either.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=jbcjr14;356483]If you really want to break down some things[B] CP's[/B] [B]fumble[/B] and his dropped pass (easily would have been a 1st down) really hurt this football team yesterday. I don't think he played well at all outside the crushing block on Pierce and a couple good runs. Let us not forget he also got a delay of game for spinning the damn ball after a 10 yard run...idiot![/quote]
that fumble lies more on Campbell then Portis. its his responsibility to make sure the hand-off hits portis in the chest

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=dgack;356519]I'll tell you why CP isn't in there on goal line carries, because Joe's inclined to call the same basic play -- run it up the gut. And remember back to '05 when we'd see CP get stuffed 3 times at the goal line on 3 attempts, and then we'd end up kicking it?

Sellers should have been in on those plays and not as a receiver, either.[/quote]

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.

But I agree that Sellers should have gotten the ball on a FB dive at least once. He's pushing 300 pounds... he can fall foward for a god damn yard.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=Mattyk72;356458]I don't have a big problem with it. Betts has been a very productive runner for us and he has to be able to get it done in big spots just like Portis.[/quote]

WRONG. You put your best players in when the game is on the line, period. The fact that Betts has been a productive runner for us in the past doesn't factor into this equation. It's nice to have a productive backup, but he shouldn't be in there in that situation. To have Portis on the sideline as much as he was is ridiculous.

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?

Re: Clinton Portis
 

There is no question that you put ur best player in the game on the field for those 4 plays...that player being Clinton Portis. Aside from having more game experience, he also draws more attention from the defense (i.e. the initial play action pass to Sellers would have been more wide open and would have had a better chance at working). In addition Portis is better at the goal-line no question and he does well after first contact.

That being said, it was just one game and if you really want to search for answers, I think our bigger problem is the play-calling throughout the entire 2nd half and our defense's inability to play pass defense. Eli is a good QB when he has time and he proved it by leading those 3 drives. Why can't Carlos Rogers play in coverage? If those Giants receivers had caught some very catchable balls we could have been blown out and it wouldn't have mattered whether we could have scored on our last possession. Another obvious problem that is going to come back to us is that our O-line is not fast enough, to pick up blitzes or to pull and do some of those more elaborate (Joe Gibbs style) run blocks. Somebody earlier said we are about a 7-9 team. I wouldn't go that far b/c we have the benefit of an easy schedule so i'd say 9-7 or so.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=canthetuna;356627]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...[/quote]

Agree'd...whats wrong with your 280+ pound FB plowing in from a yard out and whatever happened to letting your rather big QB sneak it in? They rushed when they didn't have to(something Campbell will learn to take control of) and didn't have the right back in the game but you still need to score there with three shots even if it is with what is in reality a real good back up running back.

They need to find their offensive identity and Portis needs to play a bigger role in that if they are to contend for the playoffs.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=Rajmahal33;356672]There is no question that you put ur best player in the game on the field for those 4 plays...that player being Clinton Portis. Aside from having more game experience, he also draws more attention from the defense (i.e. the initial play action pass to Sellers would have been more wide open and would have had a better chance at working). In addition Portis is better at the goal-line no question and he does well after first contact.

That being said, it was just one game and if you really want to search for answers, I think our bigger problem is the play-calling throughout the entire 2nd half and our defense's inability to play pass defense. Eli is a good QB when he has time and he proved it by leading those 3 drives. Why can't Carlos Rogers play in coverage? If those Giants receivers had caught some very catchable balls we could have been blown out and it wouldn't have mattered whether we could have scored on our last possession. Another obvious problem that is going to come back to us is that our O-line is not fast enough, to pick up blitzes or to pull and do some of those more elaborate (Joe Gibbs style) run blocks. Somebody earlier said we are about a 7-9 team. I wouldn't go that far b/c we have the benefit of an easy schedule so i'd say 9-7 or so.[/quote]

What schedule are you looking at? Easy?

Detroit (2-1) dangerous offense, doesn't bode well for our coverage problems
at Green Bay (3-0) probably the 2nd best in the NFC at this point
Arizona - another good corps of wide receivers, doable
at New England (3-0) don't need to say anything here
at NY Jets - probably doable
Philadelphia - intra-division, always tough
at Dallas (3-0) probably the best in the NFC at this point
at Tampa Bay (2-1) solid defensively, but doable
Buffalo - if there's a cream puff on the schedule, this would be it
Chicago - a defensive struggle, but doable
at NY Giants - payback time, but a difficult game on the road
at Minnesota - probably doable
Dallas - at least we're at home

Not an easy schedule, but nothing's really changed. Most people wouldn't have us better than 2-1 now anyway, we just lost the wrong game.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

It's not hard to see that Portis has a lot more athleticism then Betts. On 3rd down if that's Portis in the backfield Pierce doesnt get a clean hit and he reaches the ball into the endzone. Last year our O-line was great, Timmy Smith could have run for 100 yards a game. Betts is not the franchise RB that can carry a team. He is however a very servicable backup who can step in and be solid if unspectacular.

PORTIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME!!!

Bad call Gibbs/Saunders.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;356664]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?[/QUOTE]

No man, Betts is better because Portis fumbled and dropped a pass. It doesn't matter what Ladell Betts did or didn't do, the argument ends at Clinton fumbled. Betts's continued red zone ineffectiveness has nothing to do with this argument. Or Clinton's averaging 3 yards more per carry yesterday than yesterday. Clinton fumbled a handoff on twice the workload...that means Betts should be in there...even if he can't average 2 yards a carry, break a tackle or score with 2 opportunities from the 2 yard line. :rolleyes:

Re: Clinton Portis
 

[quote=jdlea;356775]No man, Betts is better because Portis fumbled and dropped a pass. It doesn't matter what Ladell Betts did or didn't do, the argument ends at Clinton fumbled. Betts's continued red zone ineffectiveness has nothing to do with this argument. Or Clinton's averaging 3 yards more per carry yesterday than yesterday. Clinton fumbled a handoff on twice the workload...that means Betts should be in there...even if he can't average 2 yards a carry, break a tackle or score with 2 opportunities from the 2 yard line. :rolleyes:[/quote]

DID you just argue with yourself? You can't base what portis is gonna do on the next play based on his last play.

Re: Clinton Portis
 

yeah... if we're talking about fumbling tendancies and we're saying we should play betts over portis due to them... wow. thats all i can think to say...

I re-watched this play and there was a gaping hole outside that he could've hit had he looked at it, but it looked like he was just searching for a quick cut-back lane and I dont know if he would've had the speed to get there anyway. I know CP could've, but we'll never know if he wouldve... however Mike Sellars would've been my call at least one of those times...

Re: Clinton Portis
 

Let's make this simple.

Betts, 596 career carries, 9 tds. (avg of a TD every 66.22 carries)
Portis, 1433 career carries, 55 tds. (avg of a TD every 26.05 carries)

Yeah, I have a problem with Betts carrying the ball with the game on the line instead of Portis.

Nuff Said!

Re: Clinton Portis
 

I'm pretty sure Portis was hurting the entire 2nd half. He came out on that last drive. We could all say shoulda coulda woulda at this point. Only real thing is none of that matters now. I'll guarantee ya it won't happen again. We also gotta remember that the game was not lost on that pathetic drop in the backfield. It was the 21 unanswered points and ineffective offense the entire 2nd half. You leave a defense out there what do you expect!? Can't wait til after the bye week. Can't believe players don't have to report!? What kinda bullcrap is that?

Re: Clinton Portis
 

All this Betts Portis stuff is a none factor, neither is capable of knocking a LB, or a DL backwards, so it really didn't matter which one was in because they were going to have to run through someone because there is no way our line was going to block all those defenders, especially on an off tackle play when the Giants are selling out like they were out of desperation, the guy who can run through people is Sellars, and Gibbs just doesn't get it. I am tired of hearing how Portis would have scored, when is the last time he ran through anyone? He has been stopped continuously in short yard gut plays since he's arrived in DC, he is not a short yardage back.

Yes he's been finding the end zone but smash mouth is not his bread and butter. Sellars just may be the best short yardage back in the league, I have never seen the guy stopped on a short yardage play, let alone 4 carries in a row, Gibbs has the horses, he just don't know how to ride'em.