Interesting tidbit about our running game

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

I posted this in another thread with regard to Portis:

Portis will likely have 2,600 to 2,700 yards in his first two years as a Redskin. That is pretty damn impressive; regardless of what he racked up in Denver. While he's not the 2nd best running back in the league, he's probably the 2nd back I'd take in the league (Tomlinson being the 1st). People think of his contract in today's NFL dollars. That's the wrong approach.

Yeah, but what's his average getting those 2600 to 2700 yards? More importantly, what's his average against NFC East opponents, in the games that matter most? Right now, it's not even 4 yards a carry.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

First, Portis, unlike James or other great backs in the NFL today, is 24. 24 years old is damn young, in fact there are a lot of rookie running backs who are 24.

For running backs, the life-span in the NFL can be shorter than you think. Sure, he could be in prime condition for another five years, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Second, there are a lot of great backs in the NFL who aren't as versatile as Portis. I bet you will be very hard pressed to find a running back that can pick up blocks, catch passes out of the backfield or from the line, or make plays like Portis can. Either they are great runners (i.e. Larry Johnson) or they are great receivers (i.e. Westbrook) or they are great blockers, but rarely do you find a back that can do all of the above.

Versatility is great, as long as you do the things you were brought in to do first. Right now, even with an improved offensive line, Portis has yet to be a game-changer, he has yet to be the threat to totally take over the game like he was in Denver. I don't think any rational person will try to argue that we are seeing everything we hoped for from Clinton Portis.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Third, if you look at guys like Alexander, Johnson, or James, Portis isn't running behind the kind of offensive lines or offenses that they are. You'll be hard pressed to find a back that is posting the kind of numbers that Portis is in an offense that is as inconsistent as ours. The only ones who comes close are Willis McGahee and Reuben Droughns and I'd take Portis over either of those two in a heartbeat.

My argument to this is that Portis was supposed to be the running back that transformed our offense into levels like those of the Colts or Seahawks. He was supposed to get past 7 and 8 man fronts, and make defenses pay by opening up the passing game. Right now, our opponents have no reason to respect the threat Portis poses.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Fourth, Portis has a great attitude; he's a "team" guy despite his antics. Shaun Alexander threw a hissy fit because he was one yard behind Curtis Martin for the rushing title last year.

Hmmm, Clinton Portis with the transgender dress-ups on Thursdays versus Shaun Alexander's hissy fits? With 1339 yards and 20 touchdowns so far, I'll take Mr. Hissy Fit, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

You find me a 24 year old back, who can catch, run, block, and even pass who can run behind a mediocre offense without griping and then I'll consider the trade to be a bad one. Until then, Portis is a stud in my book.

I firmly believe that when the history books are written, the Portis trade will rank just below the Herschel Walker and Scott Mitchell moves in terms of one team getting a raw deal.

[skins052bgr8]

Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

The list goes on, where teams use a big back for short yardage. Give me a break everyone said it themselves. Portis is a big play back not one who is going to turn the oh great 50 Gut into 60 yard TD's every game. That is Gibbs style offense adjust to Portis strengths. Example the Tampa game the most I seen stretch plays and outside off tackle stuff all year example Portis big game. I see Broughton on Special Teams, put him in on short yardage to move the pile where Portis is largely outweighed verse 300 pound lineman. Just does not make since. The problem may not be the playcalling, but the personnel the coaches choose to use in those situations. Don't give me he fumbled in Pre-Season. Many of our players are fumbling bumbling fools in some games.
I have not seen Portis get many opportunities where he is left one on one in open field, I have seen him lately bouncing off keeping his feet better and getting extra yardage when he is swarmed by two, three and four people. He is following his blocks better as well and getting some tough yardage.

[Gmanc711]

[QUOTE=skins052bgr8]Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

[QUOTE]

YES! YES! YES! Portis is not as good of a runner in short yardage situations, ESPECIALLY when teams are expecting it. We've seen that in every single game since Portis has been here. How many times have we seen 1st and goal on the 3, and we run two plays up the gut w/ Portis for absolutley jack-crap, and be forced to run a bootleg. The guy is just not that good in that type of a situation, so why do we continue to put him in the situation? Thats my problem. Portis, in my opinion, is a freaking awsome running back as a whole, but in that situation, I dont think hes that good. So my question is why is he in there then?

[celts32]

[QUOTE=Gmanc711][QUOTE=skins052bgr8]Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

YES! YES! YES! Portis is not as good of a runner in short yardage situations, ESPECIALLY when teams are expecting it. We've seen that in every single game since Portis has been here. How many times have we seen 1st and goal on the 3, and we run two plays up the gut w/ Portis for absolutley jack-crap, and be forced to run a bootleg. The guy is just not that good in that type of a situation, so why do we continue to put him in the situation? Thats my problem. Portis, in my opinion, is a freaking awsome running back as a whole, but in that situation, I dont think hes that good. So my question is why is he in there then?

Your absolutely right. Portis is not the complete back to run this offense. Gibbs used to have backs he could use in every situation. Portis is not that back...it's not his fault but he's not. Gibbs made a mistake bringing him here and paying him 50 million to be the every down starter.

I have a hard time imagining the skins winning big in the next few years with Portis as the every down back. They either need to trade him for a better fit which may not be possible due to the cap, or bring in another back who runs the inside runs and short yardage stuff better. But if you go that route you are paying Portis 50 million to be a part time player. It's not a good situation but they need to do something by next season.

[#56fanatic]

[QUOTE=Gmanc711][QUOTE=skins052bgr8]Portis is not the problem, he is getting his yardage and moving the chains for the style back he is. He is not a bruiser up the middle 3rd and 2 type guy. That falls on Gibbs and the coaching staff.

Let me see

Tampa uses Alstott on short yardage not Cadillac or Pittman
Falcons use Duckett not Dunn
Giants use Short not Tiki

YES! YES! YES! Portis is not as good of a runner in short yardage situations, ESPECIALLY when teams are expecting it. We've seen that in every single game since Portis has been here. How many times have we seen 1st and goal on the 3, and we run two plays up the gut w/ Portis for absolutley jack-crap, and be forced to run a bootleg. The guy is just not that good in that type of a situation, so why do we continue to put him in the situation? Thats my problem. Portis, in my opinion, is a freaking awsome running back as a whole, but in that situation, I dont think hes that good. So my question is why is he in there then?

I agree with your statement in regards to using a bigger, stronger back in those situations. However, where I disagree is that the running style for the teams you mentioned, tampa, falcons, giants, they all have a running attack that suits the back being used. Falcons use more stretch plays that allows Dunn to pick a hole and explode through it. As well as Tampa and the Giants. They put there backs in position that best fits their ability. We on the other hand continue to hand Portis the ball and say run up the gut, run behind Jansen or Samuels. The few plays we use that allows Portis to use his cutback ability or speed are very effective. The fact is we dont have enough of those plays in the book to use. I would like to see more of Nemo in the short yardage situations. we did draft him for that reason, and he has yet to see the field. But that goes with Joes thinking of not playing rookies. And playing Carlos is not his decision. GW makes ALL of the decisions regarding the defense and Joe makes them with regards to the offense.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I don't think any rational person will try to argue that we are seeing everything we hoped for from Clinton Portis. My argument to this is that Portis was supposed to be the running back that transformed our offense into levels like those of the Colts or Seahawks. He was supposed to get past 7 and 8 man fronts, and make defenses pay by opening up the passing game. Right now, our opponents have no reason to respect the threat Portis poses.

With all due respect, no rational person should have expected Portis to turn our offense into the Colts or Seahawks. That is unless you expected Portis to use his magic wand to turn Chris Samuels into Walter Jones, Mark Brunell into Peyton Manning, etc.

Not to sound like a real jerk, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to what guys like Antonio Pierce are saying or where opposing defenses are lining up. Pierce said after the Giants' blowout, "We knew that if we stopped Portis, we would stop their offense. So we did everything to shut him down." Moreover, opposing defenses are stacking the box with more than 7 guys on 90% of downs.

[irish]

I said a few weeks ago that CP was not what the team was looking for in a RB (due to his lack of explosiveness) and was ripped by almost everyone on this site because as I was told, CP is a great team player and blocker (he is but thats not why the skins got him). Yesterday's game proves again CP is a decent back but not the explosive threat the skins hoped he'd be when they acquired him. On top of that CP is not a money back and will not get that 1 or 2 yards when the chips are down. I dont think the skins would take CP if they had to do it all over again but like Matty said, its too late now.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

With all due respect, no rational person should have expected Portis to turn our offense into the Colts or Seahawks. That is unless you expected Portis to use his magic wand to turn Chris Samuels into Walter Jones, Mark Brunell into Peyton Manning, etc.

Not to sound like a real jerk, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to what guys like Antonio Pierce are saying or where opposing defenses are lining up. Pierce said after the Giants' blowout, "We knew that if we stopped Portis, we would stop their offense. So we did everything to shut him down." Moreover, opposing defenses are stacking the box with more than 7 guys on 90% of downs.

Yeah, you're right, I never should have expected Clinton Portis to take us to the next level. What was I thinking?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yeah, you're right, I never should have expected Clinton Portis to take us to the next level. What was I thinking?

Portis was supposed to boost our offense. It is impossible to know what our current offense would look like without Portis (as he's in it).

All I was saying that it is unrealistic to expect Portis to take this team from what it was like in 2003 to a stellar Indy or Seattle-type offense. But, I guess unrealistic expectations are to be expected here in D.C.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Portis was supposed to boost our offense. It is impossible to know what our current offense would look like without Portis (as he's in it).

All I was saying that it is unrealistic to expect Portis to take this team from what it was like in 2003 to a stellar Indy or Seattle-type offense. But, I guess unrealistic expectations are to be expected here in D.C.

Unrealistic expectations? By the latter half of his second season, this should be about the time that this offense takes its shape and starts guiding this team to wins. By this time, I don’t think it’s unrealistic with an improved offensive line for Portis to gouge out the tough yardage, to pound teams into submission, to protect fourth quarter leads, and put teams away.

But if you never expected that Ramseyfan, or thought that such scenarios were unrealistic, it follows that everything’s just peachy with your analysis of Portis. After a 6-10 season, and now, losers of 3 straight and falling in 6 of their last 8 performances, sorry if I don’t share your optimism.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Unrealistic expectations? By the latter half of his second season, this should be about the time that this offense takes its shape and starts guiding this team to wins. By this time, I don’t think it’s unrealistic with an improved offensive line for Portis to gouge out the tough yardage, to pound teams into submission, to protect fourth quarter leads, and put teams away.

But if you never expected that Ramseyfan, or thought that such scenarios were unrealistic, it follows that everything’s just peachy with your analysis of Portis. After a 6-10 season, and now, losers of 3 straight and falling in 6 of their last 8 performances, sorry if I don’t share your optimism.

I think we did have a right to expect an improved offense. And, our our offense has improved over the last few years (as hard as that might be to believe), just not to the extent that we would like. Do you disagree?

My point was that you can't place all the blame for our offensive woes on Portis. I interpreted your previous posts as saying that Portis was supposed to revolutionize the offense and turn it into a Indy or Seattle type offense. I just don't believe that was a realistic expectation. There are 11 guys on the field on offense and Portis is just one of them.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

I think we did have a right to expect an improved offense. And, our our offense has improved over the last few years (as hard as that might be to believe), just not to the extent that we would like. Do you disagree?

No, certainly the offense has improved, at least in the passing aspects. But now, we’re getting back to our 2004 ways. Teams are doubling Santana Moss, and the running game is not picking up the slack. In fact, it hasn’t even accomplished basic tasks that every quality team should expect – running out the clock, getting first downs near the end of the game to protect leads, giving your defense a chance to rest. None of this has happened when we needed it most. I just don’t think it’s too much to ask someone of his notoriety, considering what we parted with to bring him in here to accomplish those objectives. And I think it’s perfectly fair to criticize both he and the offensive line when they fail to do the things that could have prevented this current three-game slide.

No, it’s not all Clinton Portis’ fault. But judging from what I’ve seen so far, I think the trade was a raw deal, I think he was not worth the money, the cap implications, the excitement, and the second round pick to get him. I’m just not impressed.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Yeah, you're right, I never should have expected Clinton Portis to take us to the next level. What was I thinking?

Talk about misplaced expectations. Here I thought the missing piece for the past several years has been a decent quarterback, or even a steady and reliable coaching staff, but apparently Clinton Portis was supposed to strap the entire team on his back and carry them to the promised land.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Talk about misplaced expectations. Here I thought the missing piece for the past several years has been a decent quarterback, or even a steady and reliable coaching staff, but apparently Clinton Portis was supposed to strap the entire team on his back and carry them to the promised land.

I'm not saying that Portis was supposed to do everything all by himself. I'm saying I've been less than impressed with his performance so far. But since you mentioned it, up until the last couple of weeks, we have had decent quarterback play, an experienced coaching staff that appears to be firmly entrenched, and we're now below the .500 mark, staring from the outside looking in yet again. Portis was supposed to help us get to the Promised Land. From what I've seen, he hasn't.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

With all due respect, no rational person should have expected Portis to turn our offense into the Colts or Seahawks. That is unless you expected Portis to use his magic wand to turn Chris Samuels into Walter Jones, Mark Brunell into Peyton Manning, etc.

Not to sound like a real jerk, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to what guys like Antonio Pierce are saying or where opposing defenses are lining up. Pierce said after the Giants' blowout, "We knew that if we stopped Portis, we would stop their offense. So we did everything to shut him down." Moreover, opposing defenses are stacking the box with more than 7 guys on 90% of downs.

My contention for the most part is great lines make decent backs look very good, great backs make decent lines look great, Peyton, and Sanders, are 2 players who did it most of their careers without great lines, when our line becomes good enough for Portis to run like he did in denver, it will be good enough for Betts or others to do the same.