Trouble in paradise?

CcHhDd · Post by **CcHhDd** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:12 pm

First all I want to say is hail to the redskins...

But one thing about the game today concerned me. No its not Jansen's injury or our lack of overall offense.

During what i believe was the third quarter.. Betts was tackled for a two yard loss on second down. He got up angrily.. and you could see him madly waving off Clinton Portis.. who was on the sidelines ready to come in. Betts angrily walked back to the huddle

I wonder if there is trouble among our great running tandem. Both of them looked great today and if we keep with this pace we have a shot at maybe two 1,000 yard rushers. But clearly Portis is the number one back.. and i'm wondering if Ladell is not as cool about it as he's said in interviews. Or do you think he just got caught up in a bad play and everything is all good?

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:18 pm

I think Betts was upset about the play that was called more than about who was in the play. They called an off-tackle run for Betts right at Jason Taylor. Betts is more of a between the tackles runner. Portis is the off-tackle speed threat. I can only guess but I think they called a play designed for Portis while Betts was in and Betts was frustrated about being tackled for a loss. Betts is still trying to take the #1 slot from Portis and don't believe any differently.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:14 am

CcHhDd wrote:First all I want to say is hail to the redskins...

But one thing about the game today concerned me. No its not Jansen's injury or our lack of overall offense.

During what i believe was the third quarter.. Betts was tackled for a two yard loss on second down. He got up angrily.. and you could see him madly waving off Clinton Portis.. who was on the sidelines ready to come in. Betts angrily walked back to the huddle

I wonder if there is trouble among our great running tandem. Both of them looked great today and if we keep with this pace we have a shot at maybe two 1,000 yard rushers. But clearly Portis is the number one back.. and i'm wondering if Ladell is not as cool about it as he's said in interviews. Or do you think he just got caught up in a bad play and everything is all good?

Why assume that when they've both said that they are fine sharing the load?? Football is a game of emotion and its hard to try and read into gestures like that...he could have been waving him off while frustrated at being stuffed for a loss on the play.

The fact that Betts resigned here before hitting Free Agency where he could have made big money should show what he's about. He knew when he resigned that he was the 2 in the 1 -2 punch. No need to assume he's unhappy all of a sudden. My 2 cents

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:42 am

One play thats all. I thought Portis was on the money the whole game. Betts was good but had a couple busted plays.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:19 am

GSPODS wrote:I think Betts was upset about the play that was called more than about who was in the play. They called an off-tackle run for Betts right at Jason Taylor. Betts is more of a between the tackles runner. Portis is the off-tackle speed threat. I can only guess but I think they called a play designed for Portis while Betts was in and Betts was frustrated about being tackled for a loss.

Agreed, I got the impression it was a "don't call that play again" gesture of understandable frustration

redskingush · Post by **redskingush** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:21 am

my question here is , who decision is it who's in the game? Is it Joe's or do the back's decide, i mean if Portis is coming on to the field, would he have been sent on and is it Betts who decides who's playing?

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:54 am

What made me think that Betts waived Portis off was that you could clearly see Portis on the field with his helmet on. Then once Betts starts to throw his tantrum Clinton starts to unbuckle his helmet looks kinda confused. lol

I took it as...I'm pissed that I didn't get any yards and I'm going to make them pay for it. Give me one more play!

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:07 am

LMAO, I didn't think anyoe caught that... But yah, that was oretty funny.. I don't think it was trouble, Betts was just trying to get warmed up, Portis was coming in to give him a towel but he said nah man I got this.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:18 am

Much was made of the load that each player would carry. Gibbs said that Betts would get the bulk but I think that the backs ended up splitting the carries down the middle.

Did anyone else think that this was HIGHLY effective and that we should continue with this way of running.

In years past Betts would only come in to spell Portis but it seems that we were swapping the guys before they were really gased and about to pass out. I think it kept both of them fresher.

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:26 am

First, I like Betts' passion - got to love a guy who gets up mad after a 2 yard loss, and wants to get the ball right back. I also love that Betts has established himself as a legit threat on the ground, and not just as a receiving threat out of the backfield. In the past, I think he was mostly used on throwing downs, which tended to telegraph the team's intent whenever he came in, but now defenses really don't know what we're going to do with Betts out there. Having two solid backs can only be a good thing, especially given our young QB - this gives so much more breathing room to JC.

rick301 · Post by **rick301** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:31 am

They both rushed 17 times each. Portis for 98 yeards and Betts for 59 yards. =D>

If they keep that up, they'll combine for 2,500 yards this season!

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:36 am

I think nicknames are in order...

everydayAskinsday · Post by **everydayAskinsday** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:51 am

I think what this game showed is Portis should be getting more of the carries.. I love Betts and think hes a great compliment to Portis but if we got the ball to CP 25 times in that game he easily could of had over 130 yards rushing and maybe even another score.. and IMO i think you will see that trend as Portis gets in a couple games and is back in top form.. you will start seein Portis with 20 to 25 and Betts around 10- 12 which is what I would like to see.. Portis is a game breaker and can score on any play

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:58 am

Portis already has one nickname for each of his 18 rushing attempts. Betts is likely to get a less than pleasant nickname if he continues to show his frustration in the huddle.

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:20 am

Maybe it's me, but I assumed he was angry that he got caught in the backfield and being a gamer, wanted to stay in to have another crack at it.

I guess I could just assume the worst though.

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:23 am

GSPODS wrote:I think Betts was upset about the play that was called more than about who was in the play. They called an off-tackle run for Betts right at Jason Taylor. Betts is more of a between the tackles runner. Portis is the off-tackle speed threat. I can only guess but I think they called a play designed for Portis while Betts was in and Betts was frustrated about being tackled for a loss. Betts is still trying to take the #1 slot from Portis and don't believe any differently.

I agree with that assessment. Here's my earlier post in this thread.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:46 am

JansenFan wrote:I guess I could just assume the worst though.

Yeah why rock the boat :shock:

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:52 am

The commentator said it was b/c of the playcalling, which I believe. You never know what kind of deal they have set up between the 1-2 punch. They could have it set for if one gets stuffed, the otehr comes in for a fresh perspective and the D can't use the same defensive mentality 2x. What will stuf Betts might not stuff CP b/c of the different back styles that they are. There's a lot fo behind the scenes that we as fans will never know.

I agree that Betts should never stop trying to excel and 'take' the 1 spot out of the 1-2 punch for the 'skins. Complacency kills...

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:27 pm

Did anyone else think that this was HIGHLY effective and that we should continue with this way of running.

Having them split carries is obviously effective, but in the future I would like to see more carries for Portis and less for Betts. Yesterday it was a 50/50 split but I'd like to see more of 75/25 split, say 20-25 carries a game for CP and like 10-15 for Betts. Against the same defense and with the same line CP managed to run for 2 more yards per carry than Betts despite not being in top game shape yet. Betts is great for spelling CP to keep both fresh but CP should get the bulk of the carries imo.

dlc · Post by **dlc** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:52 pm

As I'm sure someone has mentioned, the league is becoming one where you need two good backs. If Betts thinks that there's a better situation out there that doesn't have some split carrying, I'm sure he would've gone at the end of last year. As for CP, if he gets hurt, which carrying the load in our offense might do, he'll get labeled as injury prone. Both CP and Betts realize that at least for the next 2-3 years, both of the careers are best if they stay here.

And I'm glad for that.

CcHhDd · Post by **CcHhDd** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:32 pm

i might be wrong but i think it was on second down when he got stuffed. Maybe i'm wrong but if it was second down then it meant he wanted to stay in for third down.. which was a passing down. I'm guessing portis was going in to help block... but i don't think it was portis waving off the bad play call or the coaches.. He obviously waved off portis.. portis and lloyd were about to jog onto the field and betts waived him off

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:39 am

Chris Luva Luva wrote:Much was made of the load that each player would carry. Gibbs said that Betts would get the bulk but I think that the backs ended up splitting the carries down the middle.

Did anyone else think that this was HIGHLY effective and that we should continue with this way of running.

In years past Betts would only come in to spell Portis but it seems that we were swapping the guys before they were really gased and about to pass out. I think it kept both of them fresher.

Honestly I thought Portis should take the bulk of the carries.

Portis got us the touchdown, he also got us the critical first down in overtime. I am just not as comfortable with Betts in there as I am Portis. Sorry guys thats just the way I feel about it. I dont mind if we are up 14 and having Betts pound away. When the game is on the line though, no doubt I want Portis in there period.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:46 am

Yes I forgot to mention Betts had 17 carries for 59yards. Portis 17 carries for 98 yards.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Trouble in paradise?

Trouble in paradise?

Re: Trouble in paradise?