If Chargers can get a 1st & 3rd for Turner, don't we have to shop Betts?

[MTK]

whatever

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by offiss

As time goes on it WILL become more and more apparent that he is what he is a change of pace back. He's still young and yet still he can't keep himself on the field, the guy isn't built for the pounding an everydown back get's unless he's running in space like he did in Denver, hence system back!

You know, if you take out the bolded part of your last paragraph, any right thinking fan, with a football IQ above retarded would think you were talking about Betts.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by offiss

You both get to wrapped up in numbers, well here's a number for you, Clinton went from 5.5 yards per carry in denver, to 3.8 with us, he had the lowest yards per carry out of any legitamate starter in 2004, which means any back in the league would have posted better numbers if he was force fed the ball enough times.

And don't forget he ran up huge numbers with the Broncos in 2003 against a horrible defense in the Chiefs, close to 400 yards I believe against 1 team and something like 6 or 7 rushing TD'S. he had 5 for us the whole year in 2004.

I will say it again CLINTON IS NOT A GREAT BACK! Just like I said Arrington was not a great LB. As time goes on it WILL become more and more apparent that he is what he is a change of pace back. He's still young and yet still he can't keep himself on the field, the guy isn't built for the pounding an everydown back get's unless he's running in space like he did in Denver, hence system back!

Denver also had more outside runs designed for Clinton's breakaway speed. We tried to pound him between the tackles too much in '04. His yds/carry were up from 3.8 in '04 to 4.3 in '05 when we started to use more sweeps and other outside runs. He's a great blocker with good hands, blazing speed, and has over 1500 yds in 3 of his 5 season (over 1300 in 4 outta 5). He's way better than a change of pace back.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Denver also had more outside runs designed for Clinton's breakaway speed. We tried to pound him between the tackles too much in '04. His yds/carry were up from 3.8 in '04 to 4.3 in '05 when we started to use more sweeps and other outside runs. He's a great blocker with good hands, blazing speed, and has over 1500 yds in 3 of his 5 season (over 1300 in 4 outta 5). He's way better than a change of pace back.

shhh - Don't talk about 05, when he put the team on his back and carried it into the playoffs. That would screw up Offiss' logic of "looking beyond the numbers". Oh wait, that assumes that Offiss uses [I]actual /I]logic and not drug induced fantasy logic. That's a pretty big assumption.

[SmootSmack]

Y'all remember when Offiss said Portis would probably be the best running back Gibbs had ever coached? My how times have changed

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

You both get to wrapped up in numbers, well here's a number for you, Clinton went from 5.5 yards per carry in denver, to 3.8 with us, he had the lowest yards per carry out of any legitamate starter in 2004, which means any back in the league would have posted better numbers if he was force fed the ball enough times.

And don't forget he ran up huge numbers with the Broncos in 2003 against a horrible defense in the Chiefs, close to 400 yards I believe against 1 team and something like 6 or 7 rushing TD'S. he had 5 for us the whole year in 2004.

I will say it again CLINTON IS NOT A GREAT BACK! Just like I said Arrington was not a great LB. As time goes on it WILL become more and more apparent that he is what he is a change of pace back. He's still young and yet still he can't keep himself on the field, the guy isn't built for the pounding an everydown back get's unless he's running in space like he did in Denver, hence system back!

If you are trying to make an Anti-Clinton Portis argument, I'd leave Denver out of this.

As far as the 2004 argument goes, Offiss is correct. Despite the raw yardage totals being heavily in Portis' favor, Betts accrued more total value in 90 carries than Portis did in 350. Betts was more successful in crucial situations than Portis was that year, and ran up a higher YPC average. For whatever reason, Portis was an ineffective runner in 2004, racking up 1300 yards pretty much entirely due to the sheer number of carries he got that year. Bottom line is that if this was April 2005, Offiss would have a very convincing argument.

Well, I just checked my calender and it turns out that it is NOT April 2005. It is in fact April 2007. You know what this means, Offiss? It means we have two more years of data to analyze to see if this was a fluky year, or the start of a trend.

In 2005, Clinton Portis was unquestionably a top 10 runner in the NFL. Ladell Betts' year was pretty below average. Portis added 200 more yards to his season total in a nearly identical amount of carries. This blew up his yards per carry. It's actually very defenseable to say that Portis was better in 2005 than LaDainian Tomlinson. He was unbelieveable. Betts fell off the map.

In 2006, Portis put togehter a solid first half of the season at less than 100 percent. Betts rebounded from a bad 2005 to be one of the better RBs in the league. Had Portis stayed healthy, their numbers for the season likely would have been reversed.

Because of Portis' consistency these last two years, it makes no sense to dwell on the 2004 season. You can point to the 2004 season as a reason for concern, but to use it as the basis for prediction is--well, you'll see soon enough when your prediction misses by a hilarious amount.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you are trying to make an Anti-Clinton Portis argument, I'd leave Denver out of this.

As far as the 2004 argument goes, Offiss is correct. Despite the raw yardage totals being heavily in Portis' favor, Betts accrued more total value in 90 carries than Portis did in 350. Betts was more successful in crucial situations than Portis was that year, and ran up a higher YPC average. For whatever reason, Portis was an ineffective runner in 2004, racking up 1300 yards pretty much entirely due to the sheer number of carries he got that year. Bottom line is that if this was April 2005, Offiss would have a very convincing argument.

Well, I just checked my calender and it turns out that it is NOT April 2005. It is in fact April 2007. You know what this means, Offiss? It means we have two more years of data to analyze to see if this was a fluky year, or the start of a trend.

In 2005, Clinton Portis was unquestionably a top 10 runner in the NFL. Ladell Betts' year was pretty below average. Portis added 200 more yards to his season total in a nearly identical amount of carries. This blew up his yards per carry. It's actually very defenseable to say that Portis was better in 2005 than LaDainian Tomlinson. He was unbelieveable. Betts fell off the map.

In 2006, Portis put togehter a solid first half of the season at less than 100 percent. Betts rebounded from a bad 2005 to be one of the better RBs in the league. Had Portis stayed healthy, their numbers for the season likely would have been reversed.

Because of Portis' consistency these last two years, it makes no sense to dwell on the 2004 season. You can point to the 2004 season as a reason for concern, but to use it as the basis for prediction is--well, you'll see soon enough when your prediction misses by a hilarious amount.

What it comes down to is this, you either have the eye to see what this guy really is, or you don't. I recieved the same nonesense about Lavar when I said he wasen't that good, as well as Brunell, so we will just take the wait and see aproach.

And if you think the 2004 season is meaningless think again, there is a reason Portis bulked up, he didn't want to be battered like he was in 2004 where Gibbs ran him into the ground as if he were Riggins trying to justify the trade for him. Bottom line regardless it was and will always be a lowsey trade for us. Portis is under the gun this season because he will be compared to Betts under the same conditions so he better outplay him.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

shhh - Don't talk about 05, when he put the team on his back and carried it into the playoffs. That would screw up Offiss' logic of "looking beyond the numbers". Oh wait, that assumes that Offiss uses [I]actual /I]logic and not drug induced fantasy logic. That's a pretty big assumption.

Just another idiotic post by big time Joe Redskin, as if our offense had anything to do with our making the playoffs let alone Portis becoming a one man show. It was all defense. But I guess your acid flashbacks have yet to cease.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

You know, if you take out the bolded part of your last paragraph, any right thinking fan, with a football IQ above retarded would think you were talking about Betts.

????????????

And if we lets say decieded to remove everything but the bolded part of your statement would we be talking about you?


And if my aunt had balls she be my uncle.

[MTK]

Yeah it was all defense, CP's 5 game streak of 100+ yards or more had nothing to do with the playoff run.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by offiss

What it comes down to is this, you either have the eye to see what this guy really is, or you don't. I recieved the same nonesense about Lavar when I said he wasen't that good, as well as Brunell, so we will just take the wait and see aproach.

And if you think the 2004 season is meaningless think again, there is a reason Portis bulked up, he didn't want to be battered like he was in 2004 where Gibbs ran him into the ground as if he were Riggins trying to justify the trade for him. Bottom line regardless it was and will always be a lowsey trade for us. Portis is under the gun this season because he will be compared to Betts under the same conditions so he better outplay him.

"Lousy" "Lousy" "Lousy" "Lousy"

Learn how to ****ing spell Lousy. This is my new pet peeve

[DiehardSkin88]

HAHAHAHAHA! Offiss, you gotta be kidding me bro. Portis? 3rd down back? Cant stay on the field? What are you smoking dude. I believe this was the first time he was injured in his career? He has always broke 1,000 yards in every season and the first 2 seasons with us he had 1300 then 1500? Broke our rushing record only SECOND season with us, and yes he is still young so what makes you think he'll regress so much? He was playing with an injured shoulder and he he could still pound it in goaline situations for 7 or 8 touchdowns? Your argument is ridiculous you have nothing backing up what your saying of portis being a 3rd down back and all that bullshit. To be honest, this was probably the dumbest response i have ever read on this websit

[Daseal]

That was a lowsey post, Smootsmack.

Often times I understand where Offiss is coming from, and agree with him on a regular basis. But I can't do it for Portis. I agree he's a system back, but many backs in this league are. You build the offense to his strengths and he's a definite stud in this league. Worth the trade we gave, probably not, but champ didn't want to be here and Portis is awesome!

[SmootSmack]

It seems like Portis is going to be "punished" for the rest of his career for having played in Denver. That's a real shame.

[SkinsFanSince91]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

If you're going to go putting stuff in bold font, you should at least know what you're talking about. Walker held out and essentially forced a trade, Vinatieri and EJ were both free agents who left their teams for better deals. That's not the same as trading a player. Maybe, just maybe you could make the argument that not re-signing a free agent is the same as "releasing" the player, but that would be stretching it.

I think we should leave our quarterback, running back and wide receiver situations alone. Not necessarily because I think Betts is great (he's decent) but because I think the unit as a whole would greatly benefit from all coming back together for another year.

Two things:

1) First off, I do know what I am talking about. I said in my earlier post, "this is the NFL ladies and gents, people get traded and released after better seasons than Betts had last year." My entire point was that a move of that mature would NOT be a precedent in NFL front office policy. Key words were "released" and "traded."

Javon Walker wanted a deal done b4 his breakout season, and when it came back that he was performing at a probowl level, he wanted a renewed contract b4 his last season. He never got it, then reported to camp and got hurt early in the season. After a great season, injury came, and then he was traded on draft day. Hmmm, a draft day trade, oh, how SO relevant, but it is often overlooked, by the eager to respond internet pundits.

2) Betts contract is made to be trade bait. 5 yrs 12 mill + 3 mil bonus. There are kickers and back up across the league that have WwaaaaayyyY better contract than than, especially after ther resigning. Albeit, we could use a good backup RB, we need more depth as a team via draft picks, which we seriously lack.

thats all. we both/all have points, but draft day will show up soon and we will either have our deal or out one 1st day pick.

My point is, when the draft comes, and we see ALL of the players pass us by, we are gonna be wishing we could get at leat one or two. Then the forums will pop up here, and I will be there to let everyone know that we'd be pissed after we couldn't pick anymore in the first day.

BUt we will see come draft day.