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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I still like Julies Jones he runs behind a worse line than Portis and still gets his yards, they infact remind me of each other, Portis a little faster, Jones runs a little harder.

As for Kevin Jones I really think he needs to get with a real team, I will judge no player with his kind of potential until he leaves detroit, kind of how tampa bay was for years back in the day.

The fact is I would take either one of those backs over Portis if I am allowed to take back the Bailey trade and trade Bailey off for what I believe we could have recieved was a couple of #1 picks, or at the very least a 1,2,and a 3, that trade would have given us 3 extra picks plus our #2 back, as well we wouldn't have 52 mil invested in one player who is now splitting time with his backup. And yes under those circumstances Stephen Jackson would be a Skin. Along with a lot of other talent to say the least!

However if we had Jones and Jones running the ball, we would be much worse off.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

Portis and Betts are close in talent. Not so close that we can't see that Portis is better, but close.

I personally don't think Adrian Peterson will be as good at Portis. Adrian Peterson has a very undisciplined running style. At his prime, he probably won't be as good as Portis is now. I think it's going to take a few years for the team that drafts Peterson to see any return on him. He's overrated.

Jackson is probably a better back than Portis, but you're splitting hairs. It's really close and even though Denver was the one who received all the value, Portis was a much smarter pick than Jackson. Had we traded Champ and a 2nd rounder to move up and take Jackson, I really don't think our team would be too much different right now at all.

QUOTE=GTripp0012;295389]Both Stephen Jackson and Adrian Peterson were higher rated than Portis was coming out of college. So if you think it takes some mystical eye to agree with the majority opinion, I really don't know what to tell you.

I do know what to tell you though, if that is the case why not pick the higher rated back late in the first round in Jackson with one of the picks we would have recieved for Bailey? It would make sense to take the higher rated back wouldn't it? If he's higher rated in college it would make sense that he would be a better back in the pro's which it has. Further more he was more of the type of back to handle what Gibbs wanted to do in the running game and that's pound the ball. But apperantly Gibbs doesn't have the mystical eye because he didn't agree with majority opinion, like most of his personel moves. Kind of like when the majority said Brunell is washed up, or Campbell is a mid second round pick.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

However if we had Jones and Jones running the ball, we would be much worse off.

Worse than 5-11? Then if we had Jones and Jones Calvin Johnson would be a Skin. To bad.

I guess I don't know what we would do without Portis? Perhaps finish 4-12, or make the playoffs like J Jones did? What a coin flip.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

I do know what to tell you though, if that is the case why not pick the higher rated back late in the first round in Jackson with one of the picks we would have recieved for Bailey? It would make sense to take the higher rated back wouldn't it? If he's higher rated in college it would make sense that he would be a better back in the pro's which it has. Further more he was more of the type of back to handle what Gibbs wanted to do in the running game and that's pound the ball. But apperantly Gibbs doesn't have the mystical eye because he didn't agree with majority opinion, like most of his personel moves. Kind of like when the majority said Brunell is washed up, or Campbell is a mid second round pick.

Well, we very well could have traded up back into the first round to get Jackson. Would we be much different as a team now? Not really. Would we be better off in the distant future? Perhaps. Portis had more mileage on him than Jackson in 2004, but then again a lot can happen between now and the end of their respective careers. I wouldn't worry too much about a hypothetical situation of two years ago, especially one that would have changed our current situation as little as that one did.

One thing that had to factor into such a decision had it even been considered is the very real possibility that Stephen Jackson doesn't live up to his first round draft status. Anybody who compared Portis' production to Olandis Gary's or Quentin Griffin's could have seen that he was much more than a "system back" (a term with no real meaning). So he was not really a question mark at all, whereas Jackson was potentially following in the footsteps as guys like Trung Candidate and Curtis Enis.

We know now that the scouting projection to the NFL for Stephen Jackson was spot on. We didn't know that at the time. Considering the similarity in the production of the two backs over the last 3 years, I'd say we made the right decision at the time, and if we had honestly (hypothetically) considered both those options, we really didn't have a wrong move.

My previous post was not really enforcing the notion that it's always (or ever) smarter to pick the player who the scouting agencies love, just pointing out that its not really an outlandish statement to say the higher rated prospect will have a better career. As people around here have certainly realized by now, no one on this fourm thinks less of conventional football logic and player evaluation than me. I don't think of the Portis trade as an especially good nor bad move. I don't necessarily think that a trade up in the 2004 draft for Stephen Jackson would have been better, nor worse. I think it (should, at least) be obvious now that both backs would be playing the exact same role in the offense equally well.

[GTripp0012]

Conventional logic also says that when a guy like Brunell gets to the age of 35, he's just too old to play, but thats simply just not reality. Campbell was a clearly undervalued prospect in NFL circles, and we took advantage of that. Conventional logic will be wrong more often then not, so I see no reason to trust anything it says. I can draw my own conclusions with varying degrees of effort.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

Worse than 5-11? Then if we had Jones and Jones Calvin Johnson would be a Skin. To bad.

I guess I don't know what we would do without Portis? Perhaps finish 4-12, or make the playoffs like J Jones did? What a coin flip.

Well, we wouldn't have had the no. 4 rushing offense last year or no. 9 in 2005, that's for sure.

Does having the No. 4 rushing attack mean anything in the grand scheme of a 5-11 season? Of course not. Does having the No. 9 rushing attack mean anything in a 10-6 playoff season? Quite obviously, yes.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, we wouldn't have had the no. 4 rushing offense last year or no. 9 in 2005, that's for sure.

Does having the No. 4 rushing attack mean anything in the grand scheme of a 5-11 season? Of course not. Does having the No. 9 rushing attack mean anything in a 10-6 playoff season? Quite obviously, yes.

Absolutly, and who was responsible for most of that rushing attack last season? Betts! Funny we were at 9th with Portis, and 4th mostly without Portis.

In the grand scheme of things it wasen't Portis who delivered a playoff berth, it was the defense hands down! That is the difference between the 2 seasons, not Portis!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by offiss

Absolutly, and who was responsible for most of that rushing attack last season? Betts! Funny we were at 9th with Portis, and 4th mostly without Portis.

In the grand scheme of things it wasen't Portis who delivered a playoff berth, it was the defense hands down! That is the difference between the 2 seasons, not Portis!

Well the defense was certainly the problem this year, but it's not like they didn't cost us a few games last year. It was inconsistent in 2005 (which beats completely crappy).

Our offense was very consistent for most of 2005 and was every bit as good as the defense. People remember the playoff games. People don't remember the games that we lost because our opponents scored way above their season average PPG.

Portis wasn't anymore responsible for the above average offense in 2005 than Brunell or Moss, but he was certainly every bit as important as either.

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by offiss

Absolutly, and who was responsible for most of that rushing attack last season? Betts! Funny we were at 9th with Portis, and 4th mostly without Portis.

Mostly without Portis? CP was playing on an injured shoulder for only eight games last season, and produced almost 50% of the yards a healthy Betts produced in 16 games. He also produces five more rushing touchdowns than Betts, and six less fumbles. Please expand on the "Mostly without Portis" comment, because your baseless and outright false statements are getting tough to follow.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Mostly without Portis? CP was playing on an injured shoulder for only eight games last season, and produced almost 50% of the yards a healthy Betts produced in 16 games. He also produces five more rushing touchdowns than Betts, and six less fumbles. Please expand on the "Mostly without Portis" comment, because your baseless and outright false statements are getting tough to follow.

That's probably just your inability to comprehend.

Either Portis played or he didn't? On one had you say Portis got half the carries, on the other hand your insinuating that Betts had all the carries. The fact is if the season was split as you say 8 for Portis, which means that would leave 8 for betts, [at this point you may get out a calculater and check the math if your having trouble following] then who had more yards? I believe it was Betts. Didn't Betts almost set a Skins record when he took over full time for most consecutive 100 yard games? Didn't I see Portis doing damage control saying he wants to be able to run downhill just like betts was? We didn't run downhill with portis because he can't. He's to slow to the hole, Betts on the other hand hits the hole with everthing he has, unlike Portis who hesitates looking for a big gap, because he knows he ain't knocking anyone backwards. If you think the coaches didn't notice the difference in the running game in it's consistancy with Betts in there your sadly mistaken, you do not make the type of commitment to a back when you have a huge money in another back in Portis if you didn't see something better in Betts, and that something better is his ability to move the chains and get the tough yards, which is more important than the occasional big run.

Betts in 7 starts had 1,154 rushing yards on 245 carries, a 4.7 yards-per-carry average

In 9 starts Portis had 127 carries for 523yds for a 4.1 avg.

Who was more effective? Obviously Betts!

And for the record Betts 4.7 avg. is more than any average that Portis has had since he's arrived in DC, 4.3 was the best Portis could deliver. So if you want to cry injury go ahead I am sure there was a span in Portis's tenure here that he was healthy and couldn't touch maybe the most important stat of all for a RB, YARDS PER CARRY!

[offiss]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well the defense was certainly the problem this year, but it's not like they didn't cost us a few games last year. It was inconsistent in 2005 (which beats completely crappy).

Our offense was very consistent for most of 2005 and was every bit as good as the defense. People remember the playoff games. People don't remember the games that we lost because our opponents scored way above their season average PPG.

Portis wasn't anymore responsible for the above average offense in 2005 than Brunell or Moss, but he was certainly every bit as important as either.

I really have to say you must have been watching a different team than I.

How you can knock our defense in 2005 is beyond me, for a defense to just flat out carry that team into the playoffs and win a playoff game for us was above and beyond what we could have hoped for. Couple that with the fact that the offense left them on the field all year makes thier accomplishment even more impresive. The problem last year was the defenses inability to bail out the offense which put a big spot light on our problems offensively and we could no longer hide Brunell, that is why the teachers pet fianlly got the hook, the defense stopped winning games for him, and Brunell wasen't about to start winning games! He's all about not losing them!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by offiss

And for the record Betts 4.7 avg. is more than any average that Portis has had since he's arrived in DC, 4.3 was the best Portis could deliver. So if you want to cry injury go ahead I am sure there was a span in Portis's tenure here that he was healthy and couldn't touch maybe the most important stat of all for a RB, YARDS PER CARRY!

Do you really believe that? YPC is the most important stat? Especially in a ball control offense?

[hooskins]

Also Offiss, what about all the fumbles that have plagued Betts? How about the one that cost us the game towards the end of last year.

Sorry to ruin your hard-on for Betts but Portis is better talented too. That is an ex-factor. He isn't just a straight N-S runner, but he can be if he wants to. Also Al was using him wrong in the beginning of the season and when Gibbs took control towards the end of the season he called the runs that Betts had.

Perhaps if Gibbs took control earlier Portis would have had monster numbers too.

[MTK]

Just for the record:

Steven Jackson's career YPC = 4.4

Clinton Portis YPC = 4.7

I guess the numbers don't lie

[brent]

Skins need to have a balanced offense this year: 1500 yards for Portis and 1500 yards for Betts!