Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=jdlea;258381]We've actually talked about this about 1 million times. However, I'll get into this thread...

Portis is a harder runner. Portis wasn't getting the holes that Betts is now getting. Yes, Betts is looking better than Portis did, however, Portis wasn't 100% and, like I said, he didn't get the same O Line play. Up until this season, Clinton has been far more durable. Betts is a guy who can has a history of injuries. He hasn't had much of a shot to carry the load because he hasn't been reliable very often. Also, how many tds did he score? None. How many does he have this year? 2. Portis has had way more than that this year. I don't wanna hear about TJ being a goal line back because he wasn't when Clinton was healthy. Clinton was the goal line back.

I'm so sick of talking about this.[/quote]
How much harder does CP run than Betts ? How many tds does CP have in three years , less than LT has in thirteen games this year ? And , was that CP that had 5 carries inside the 4 against dallas and got ,,,, 0 ? Betts may never be CP , but CP is not bruning up the NFL either . Just be glad we have them both .

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

this is getting fucking rediculous. saying that portis wins games and betts doesnt? i mean lets be real here. i dont see how on earth betts didnt do everything he could to win that game for us...171 yards. when portis was playing last year we had a top defense and an experienced qb, something betts doesnt have right now. give the guy some credit

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Half of me likes Portis better.......because he wears silly costumes.
But the other half of me likes Betts better............because Portis wears silly costumes.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=81forHOF;258477]Half of me likes Portis better.......because he wears silly costumes.
But the other half of me likes Betts better............because Portis wears silly costumes.[/quote]
LOL...

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=Smurf85;258424]Yeah its not like Portis had 1500 yds last year and 11 tds.I have said this before and i guess i have to say it again.Look at the carries guys and wake up.Portis never got more than 23 carries in one game this year.He was getting 14 to 17 carries a game.Betts has got 24,28 and now 33.Give Portis that many carries and you will see better numbers.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that theory doesn't fly.
Portis averaged 4.1 yards a carry this season, 4.3 last season, and 3.8 two years ago. Betts is averaging 4.7 yards a carry this season after today. So obviously if you gave Portis the same amount of carries, he would not get the same numbers. Call it injuries, call it better blocking, I don't care, but betts needs to be given his props.

ps- portis had 1516 yards last season (a redskins record) on 352 carries. If Betts had the same amount of carries this year as Portis last year he'd have 1654 yards. Just a thought.
Also, if you take away his two injury games (philly and minn.) Portis averaged over 21 attempts per game. Again, just a thought.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;258425]That's a really good point. I never even thought about it.[/QUOTE]

You might want to read my earlier post, and rethink your thought of it being a good point...it's not when you examine the facts.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=SkinsLove24/7;258441]You my friend, have jumped on the Ladell Betts bandwagon big time. Not that its not a good wagon but one wagon runs this town. That would be Clinton Portis' wagon.....Which I am on.....Not Leaving.[/QUOTE]

Actually, that's not true. Look at my first post on the first page.
Portis is the better back, I just like to think outside the box. We all get into this warm and fuzzy area of our brains, and if anyone challenges us to get out of it, resistance occurs. Check out how many people got their panties in a wad over a simple thread. You can always tell who the thinkers are and who the reactors are.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Nice thread jsarno. Interesting topic and a well-backed argument. This is good old school Warpath. I like the fact that this topic stirs debate, but am a little upset about people asking for the thread to be closed or calling the topic ridiculous. I have always seen this site as one that fosters lively and interesting debate about controversial issues and I think that we should all make it our jobs to ensure that it remains that way.

With that being said, the fact that this debate can reasonably exists makes me pretty happy about our backfield and our running game for next year. Betts and Portis are both superior backs!

HTTR

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=jsarno;258514]Actually, that's not true. Look at my first post on the first page.
Portis is the better back, I just like to think outside the box. We all get into this warm and fuzzy area of our brains, and if anyone challenges us to get out of it, resistance occurs. Check out how many people got their panties in a wad over a simple thread. You can always tell who the thinkers are and who the reactors are.[/quote]

Exactly man, I like you, I've started a bunch of threads that are like this one where you make it just for debate and to brainstorm, and everyone always jumps all over them. Portis is the better back due to his better ability in the Red Zone, his more physical style of play, and his ability to block but I wouldnt mind giving Portis up and keeping Betts if the right deal came along.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=dmek25;258374]its all about wins and losses. lets talk about those numbers when betts starts, as compared to when clinton starts. its not even close[/quote]Are you saying we have a better chance to win the game when Clinton Portis runs for 100 yards than we do if Ladell Betts runs for 200 yards?

If so, I think you're way off on this one.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Jsarno presents a very simple question, and a very valid one. Is Ladell Betts a better runner for this offense than Clinton Portis is? Don't dismiss the question, answer it!

It's hard for me to see Betts being a better runner than Portis in ANY offense. Truth is that Al has had much success running the ball no matter who was in the game. When we had both Portis and Betts, we had the carries being realtively split, so neither of them collected many 100 yard games. [I]This season[/I] alone, they have been almost dead equal in effectiveness when in the game. But next year when Portis is a) healthy and b) fresh, I think that Portis will post a much better 07 than Betts will.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=Big C;258473]this is getting fucking rediculous. saying that portis wins games and betts doesnt? i mean lets be real here. i dont see how on earth betts didnt do everything he could to win that game for us...171 yards. when portis was playing last year we had a top defense and an experienced qb, something betts doesnt have right now. give the guy some credit[/quote]Amen man. The players who are real winners are the ones who play better to help their team win. If you are an inferior player who happens to be on a winning team, are you a better player than a superior player on a worse team?

Obviously you aren't because I used the terms "superior" and "inferior," but there will be arguements til the end of time which try to prove the guy on the winning team is better, even in clear cut situations.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

If JC developes and the O- Line improves , through depth and better feel for the offence , we may have two backs very capable of running over and around most defence's . Glad we have both ! Lets hope we can find a nasty DE , another cover corner and maybe we are in the hunt for the playoffs nextyear . I just hope that they do NOT pay some average cb big bucks , they better resign Taylor first .

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;258300]Betts pulled off 430 yards in 3 games.
Portis has never done that for us, in fact Portis' best 3 game streak this year was 274 yards.
In 05 was 353 yards.
In 04 was 388 yards.

Is Betts a better fit in this offense than Portis is?

Portis best receiving season was 236 yards for us, Betts already passed that with 315 yards right now with 3 games remaining.

(just for the record I do not beleive Betts is better at this point, but these numbers mean a lot.)[/QUOTE]

You kidding right?

Betts is a pretty good player....Portis is a gamebreaker. How many of those plays yesterday where Betts got to the second level of the defense only to have a DB tackle him would Portis have taken to the house. Betts doesn't make many people miss...when Portis gets to the 2nd level it's over.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Bett's improvements are a great sign, this gives us two legitimate backs for next season..........such a waste with the defense in its current state. I'm worried about Jansen however, how long can he tolerate this pain before he hangs it up for the season. But the O-line is on fire right now......bugel has got these boys rolling, I hope they carry this into next season. They are playing like they did at the end of last season, too bad the defense isnt doing the same

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Wouldn't it cost us in cap money if we traded Portis, and one other thing I wouldn't trade Portis because in the NFL you need 2 backs. This is also the first year Betts hasn't missed any time due to injury.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Wow. So Betts has a nice streak of games, and everyone wants to dismiss the fact that he's been on the team for five seasons, and never had anything close to this level of production. Yes, he's better than Portis. That's why Portis has as many yards in the last two seasons as Betts has in his career. Portis also has as many touchdowns this season, as Betts has in his career. So yeah, let's all act like Betts decent string of games makes him better than one of the most complete players in the league. Talk about a knee jerk. Stupid question, no matter whatever circumstantial scenario you want to throw out.

I do however think Betts is a nice compliment to Portis, and he might even have better vision than Portis. The problem with Betts is if the hole isn't there, he's almost completely ineffective. Portis can turn nothing into something better than most backs in the league, and his speed and big play ability are above average also. And Portis is arguably the best blocking halfback in the league; something that Betts is sub par at. While I think having both of them in the backfield will be a very nice situation next season, debating who is the better football player isn't even and argument.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=artmonkforhallofamein07;258702]Wouldn't it cost us in cap money if we traded Portis, and one other thing I wouldn't trade Portis because in the NFL you need 2 backs. This is also the first year Betts hasn't missed any time due to injury.[/quote]

Don't even worry, the trade CP talk comes from those with severe and incurable Maddenitis.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=dgack;258435]Then stop talking *shrug*. I'm a monster CP fan, but you guys act like it's heresy to suggest that he could be more productive if we weren't so busy trying to ram him down everyone's throat to prove how "tough" he is. That's insanity, and a sure way to "Earl Campbellize" our marquee player.

PS, a lot of people were down on CP's rushing TD's in '04, too. I seem to recall a lot of playcalling that looked like this:

1-5 OPP 5: Portis OT no gain.
2-5 OPP 5: Portis OT no gain.
3-5 OPP 5: Portis OT no gain.
4-5 OPP 5: John Hall 23 yd FG is good.[/QUOTE]

Nobody's acting like that at all. I was pointing out some facts about the situation. Not some hypothetical bs based on 3 starts and other limited action about a player who hasn't been healthy enough to prove anything over the course of his 5 year career other than the fact that he's a good 2nd option.

BTW, as far as telling me to "stop talking" excuse the hell outta me for not feeling talking about the same shit year after year. Wow, now I see exaclty what Daseal was saying.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=budw38;258470]How much harder does CP run than Betts ? How many tds does CP have in three years , less than LT has in thirteen games this year ? And , was that CP that had 5 carries inside the 4 against dallas and got ,,,, 0 ? Betts may never be CP , but CP is not bruning up the NFL either . Just be glad we have them both .[/QUOTE]

Oh really? The fastest guy to 6000 yards ever isn't exactly burning up the NFL?! They announced that during the Texans game. The fastest player ever to 6000. He had 11 td's last year and 7 this year in 9 games, a couple of which he was used very little. Betts has 2 this year. That's a big dropoff. That's how much harder of a runner he is.

And also, I think Tomlinson is the best runner in the NFL and maybe the best back of all time. So, I don't think saying Portis isn't as good at getting to the end zone as Tomlinson isn't exactly an insult.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=jdlea;258922]BTW, as far as telling me to "stop talking" excuse the hell outta me for not feeling talking about the same shit year after year. Wow, now I see exaclty what Daseal was saying.[/quote]

Wow, you guys talk about Betts putting together > 100 yard, career high games 3x in a row, year after year? You guys are like, precogs or something!

But hey, don't let me stand in the way of your self-righteous rantin', I mean, hell, it's all already been discussed and agreed upon, what's the purpose of even having a forum?

:sleep:

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

The only way to compare the two would be to seperate Betts shoulder and give him a moth to heal. Once he hits the holes as hard as CP does after that, there might be a discussion. Betts w/o a doubt MUST work on his blocking.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=dgack;258927]Wow, you guys talk about Betts putting together > 100 yard, career high games 3x in a row, year after year? You guys are like, precogs or something![/quote]

I'm pretty sure he was refering to the Betts > Portis threads that pop up every time Betts has a decent game...

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=dgack;258927]Wow, you guys talk about Betts putting together > 100 yard, career high games 3x in a row, year after year? You guys are like, precogs or something!

But hey, don't let me stand in the way of your self-righteous rantin', I mean, hell, it's all already been discussed and agreed upon, what's the purpose of even having a forum?

:sleep:[/QUOTE]

Oh wow, 3 whole good games? We should go out and get Kelly Holcomb or Bruce Gradkowski or AJ Feely. They all had nice 3 game stretches in their career. Apparently that makes a career. And people keep bringing up the same thing, "he runs harder...he fits the system better..." Wow, have never said that before. How about 1 td in 3 starts? Good for him and his yards.

BTW, great job not addressing anything else in my post. And don't call me self righteous when you're the one who goes "then stop talking."

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Betts is a good runner and I'm glad we have him.

But Portis is a better blocker and Portis has a lot more breakaway speed. With all due respect to Betts, Portis would have gone for 171 yards against Philly very easily. Those were gaping holes he had to run through, and Portis has the speed and elusiveness to break those for a big TD run.

Portis and Betts are both value-adding players for us, even if they're splitting carries. They're both worth the $ we're paying them. We should be talking about shedding the fat - guys on the fringe like Wynn or Daniels.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=jdlea;258931]BTW, great job not addressing anything else in my post. And don't call me self righteous when you're the one who goes "then stop talking."[/quote]

I don't need to address anything else in your post, because none of it applies to MY posts, all of which were very specifically backed up with stats.

[quote=jdlea;258931]I'm so sick of talking about this.[/quote]

I said "Stop talking" because you whined about how you were "so sick of talking about this". I mean, seriously, if people want to have the discussion, and you don't, then don't. I don't understand the problem.

Furthermore, this post is pretty well-argued throughout, backed up with stats, and people making generally good points, as opposed to some typical "OMG PORTIS SUX0RZ" thread, so I really can't understand the bitterness.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=Winskins;258531]Nice thread jsarno. Interesting topic and a well-backed argument. This is good old school Warpath. I like the fact that this topic stirs debate, but am a little upset about people asking for the thread to be closed or calling the topic ridiculous. I have always seen this site as one that fosters lively and interesting debate about controversial issues and I think that we should all make it our jobs to ensure that it remains that way.

With that being said, the fact that this debate can reasonably exists makes me pretty happy about our backfield and our running game for next year. Betts and Portis are both superior backs!

HTTR[/QUOTE]

Good post, I agree.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=dgack;258927] You guys are like, precogs or something!
[/QUOTE]

Wow, a referrance to a Tom Cruise movie, and a mediocre one at best...how can we take you seriously now? haha

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=dgack;258962]I don't need to address anything else in your post, because none of it applies to MY posts, all of which were very specifically backed up with stats.



I said "Stop talking" because you whined about how you were "so sick of talking about this". I mean, seriously, if people want to have the discussion, and you don't, then don't. I don't understand the problem.

Furthermore, this post is pretty well-argued throughout, backed up with stats, and people making generally good points, as opposed to some typical "OMG PORTIS SUX0RZ" thread, so I really can't understand the bitterness.[/QUOTE]

This is probably the third thread that's turned into a Betts vs. Portis thread since Friday. Every time Betts has a good game people say he's more fit for the system than Clinton. It's pretty much been the same thing. The stats change some, but really the agruments stay the same. I think Betts is a good runner and may have better vision than Clinton. Basically, he can find a hole, but he is usually relatively easy to bring down.

What I don't understand is how come it's not insane to question Gibbs when he sticks with Clinton, but let me question Brunell and somehow I become not a real fan. Then it's all, "trust Gibbs or you should be a Cowboys fan or something."

And I'm not really "bitter," I'm just getting sick of the discussion. The same people make the same arguments for and against each guy. The problem with arguing Betts should start is that he hasn't been healthy enough to prove anything at all in his career. That's something no one ever addresses that I always say. That's another reason I get sick of talking about it.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=jdlea;258985]This is probably the third thread that's turned into a Betts vs. Portis thread since Friday. Every time Betts has a good game people say he's more fit for the system than Clinton. It's pretty much been the same thing. The stats change some, but really the agruments stay the same. I think Betts is a good runner and may have better vision than Clinton. Basically, he can find a hole, but he is usually relatively easy to bring down.

What I don't understand is how come it's not insane to question Gibbs when he sticks with Clinton, but let me question Brunell and somehow I become not a real fan. Then it's all, "trust Gibbs or you should be a Cowboys fan or something."

And I'm not really "bitter," I'm just getting sick of the discussion. The same people make the same arguments for and against each guy. The problem with arguing Betts should start is that he hasn't been healthy enough to prove anything at all in his career. That's something no one ever addresses that I always say. That's another reason I get sick of talking about it.[/quote]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. In my own posts I've simply said that I think both of them are good, and that (IMO) I think we've been using Portis inefficiently, when we could be using Betts to do the same thing, freeing Clinton to be a game breaker. Not unlike the way the Saints use Deuce to crush the spirit of opposing teams and then Reggie scampers free for a huge, back-breaking play.

I have never addressed the idea of Betts starting over Portis because that's just stupid, but I do think they should both be used simultaneously. And I do think that though Betts has been banged up off and on over the course of his career, he has also been stuck on some crappy squads, much crappier than any Portis ever had to endure, and he didn't get many carries to work with, either. But this is just as much conjecture as any of the "Portis would have done X against Philly" threads, you can't compare conjecture ;)

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=dgack;259011]I don't disagree with anything you're saying. In my own posts I've simply said that I think both of them are good, and that (IMO) I think we've been using Portis inefficiently, when we could be using Betts to do the same thing, freeing Clinton to be a game breaker. Not unlike the way the Saints use Deuce to crush the spirit of opposing teams and then Reggie scampers free for a huge, back-breaking play.

I have never addressed the idea of Betts starting over Portis because that's just stupid, but I do think they should both be used simultaneously. And I do think that though Betts has been banged up off and on over the course of his career, he has also been stuck on some crappy squads, much crappier than any Portis ever had to endure, and he didn't get many carries to work with, either. But this is just as much conjecture as any of the "Portis would have done X against Philly" threads, you can't compare conjecture ;)[/QUOTE]

My problem is the thread title is "Betts better than Portis?" I would have to say no. Based on their careers Clinton is far better. I think Clinton has made himself into a back that will fit into this system and is still a better back than Betts. However, I think they can both play. I just hate when people try to act like Betts is better than Portis.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=jdlea;258923]Oh really? The fastest guy to 6000 yards ever isn't exactly burning up the NFL?! They announced that during the Texans game. The fastest player ever to 6000. He had 11 td's last year and 7 this year in 9 games, a couple of which he was used very little. Betts has 2 this year. That's a big dropoff. That's how much harder of a runner he is.

And also, I think Tomlinson is the best runner in the NFL and maybe the best back of all time. So, I don't think saying Portis isn't as good at getting to the end zone as Tomlinson isn't exactly an insult.[/quote]
I never said CP was not a heck of a back , just seemed like the origanal point made was that Betts does not run hard . I do not see CP running harder , not saying he does not hit the hole hard , just the fact that Betts has been running as hard as he can . He may be the fastest to 6,000 yds , and thats great , but when I watch the games , he does not seem to take them over like LJ , LT or SA . Again , I'am not questioning him as far as talent , but I watched guys like Payton , Campbell and a few others who would get the ball over and over < without a passing game > and they got stronger and stronger and were almost unstoppable . I can't think of a game where CP constantly ran for 4-5 -6-7 yds all day long dragging defenders and running them over like the others do. Not saying he is not a great back , just not the as dominant as others . Seems like unless he rips off a 25 yd plus run he does not put up big stats . Just my opinion , I give him credit , he ran and blocked very well down the stretch last year , tougher than most his size ! He may have a monster year next year , I hope he gets 1,500 & 500 rec. next year . As far as the TD's , we have been poor on short ydg , take away the 3 td's vs SF last year , thats 8 tds , think he had 3 vs houston this year. Not sure about his td' s in Denver , don't care about Denver . Again nothing against Cp , but many rookies do not get a chance to start right away , and many never lucky enough to play for Gibbs & MS to start there carreer's .

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Fair enough, the thread title is sensationalist / misleading. If it were titled, "Betts a better fit for Gibbs' gameplan than Portis?" it would be a bit more accurate.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[QUOTE=dgack;259025]Fair enough, the thread title is sensationalist / misleading. If it were titled, "Betts a better fit for Gibbs' gameplan than Portis?" it would be a bit more accurate.[/QUOTE]

Then we would not have gotten 5 pages worth.
Why is it that some of people here choose to break down the smallest of details, but fail to see the big picture. Does it really matter what the thread is titled? If you read the first post, it clarifies.

It's like titling a porno, would you title one, the adventures of Sally, or Sally's anal adventure? (ok, sorry to all the young kids around here, just trying to prove a point). I guess I am just a salesman at heart.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

It would have gotten 5 pages regardless. We here can talk about anything. See Question 3

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

you need 2 above average backs to be successful in this league.

or at least one really good one, and one average.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

Anybody who thinks Betts is better than portis needs to have their head examined.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

[quote=skins009;259072]Anybody who thinks Betts is better than portis needs to have their head examined.[/quote]

Thank God you enlightened us with a well-reasoned retort.

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

So, after six pages, who is the better back, Betts or Portis?

Re: Betts better than Portis?
 

this argument is null... we have both for the foreseeable future and we're going to use both equally in saunders' offense next year. both careers will be extended b/c of each other.