Portis v. Betts: The Grass is Always Greener

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I have read an awful lot of posts recently calling for the coaches to re-evaluate Portis, play Betts more, or even start Betts in place of Portis. Although I agree that Betts needs to get more carries, I cannot understand why anyone would want to start Betts in lieu of Portis.

Argument #1: Betts Hits the Holes with More Power
I don't really agree that Betts hits the holes with more power. Portis is about as physical a back as you can ask for. Moreover, even if Betts is more physical than Portis, who cares? Right now Portis is averaging a full yard more per carry than Betts (3.9 ypc to 2.9 ypc).

Argument #2: Portis is Injury Prone
Portis has been hit by the injury bug over the past 12 months, but people who think Betts never hits the training room, think again. Betts and Portis have missed a combined total of 28 games over the course of their careers. Guess who has been more injury prone? Betts. Betts has missed 16 games over the course of his career due to injury, whereas Portis has missed 12 games.

Argument #3: Portis Has Not Been Productive in Washington
I cannot believe that I actually need to refute the claim that Portis has not been productive in Washington. Over his first two years in Washington,
Portis rushed for 2,831 yards and caught passes for 451 yards. Portis also caught or ran for 18 touchdowns. Finally, Portis has been incredibly good in pass protection. Now, Portis did have a "down year" in 2006, but what Redskin didn't.

So, are the Portis haters bitching fo bitching's sake, or is it just that the grass is always greener on the other side?