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