¡¡¡¡Interesting Rumor!!!

[Deadskins]

Also, like I said before, big backs take more big hits than little backs. That is one of the reasons there aren't many big backs these days.

The trend toward smaller backs is because they are faster, not because big backs are more likely to be injured/beaten up by more/harder hits.

You are basically saying small backs are more durable than big backs. Not saying you are wrong, (because I have not done any actual research on the subject), but this is counter to conventional logic. Why did CP say he put on weight this past off season? So he could withstand more punishment. He wore down at the end of 2004.

The NFL has turned much more into a speed league. It is very difficult to find a back who is big AND has speed. This is part of the reason they are so valuable.

I think you have it backwards, Portis put on weight so that he could dish out more punishment, not so that he could withstand more. Looking at it from a pure physics viewpoint, the player whose mass and speed is greater is exerting more energy into any collision. The player on the short end of the equation gets the worst of the hit. But smaller backs are harder to hit, and have a lower center of gravity, and therefor, are harder to bring down. Look at Emmitt Smith for a perfect example. The all time rushing leader is that only because he rarely got hit squarely. Smaller backs take less punishment, but dish out less as well.

[kkryan]

Also, like I said before, big backs take more big hits than little backs. That is one of the reasons there aren't many big backs these days.

The trend toward smaller backs is because they are faster, not because big backs are more likely to be injured/beaten up by more/harder hits.

You are basically saying small backs are more durable than big backs. Not saying you are wrong, (because I have not done any actual research on the subject), but this is counter to conventional logic. Why did CP say he put on weight this past off season? So he could withstand more punishment. He wore down at the end of 2004.

The NFL has turned much more into a speed league. It is very difficult to find a back who is big AND has speed. This is part of the reason they are so valuable.

I think you have it backwards, Portis put on weight so that he could dish out more punishment, not so that he could withstand more. Looking at it from a pure physics viewpoint, the player whose mass and speed is greater is exerting more energy into any collision. The player on the short end of the equation gets the worst of the hit. But smaller backs are harder to hit, and have a lower center of gravity, and therefor, are harder to bring down. Look at Emmitt Smith for a perfect example. The all time rushing leader is that only because he rarely got hit squarely. Smaller backs take less punishment, but dish out less as well.

Tell Christian Okoye that the bigger player exerts more energy on the smaller player.

[Steve Spurrier III]

In those years Clinton Portis will be 27 and 28, respectively. I think that's a bit early to think that he won't still be producing--he may even be in his prime in those years.

Terrell Davis broke down in his fifth year at the age of 27. Once these running backs get in three, four or five years of heavy duty, it's really tough to stay healthy, especially if you play the game the way Clinton Portis does.

[skinsRin]

In those years Clinton Portis will be 27 and 28, respectively. I think that's a bit early to think that he won't still be producing--he may even be in his prime in those years.

Terrell Davis broke down in his fifth year at the age of 27. Once these running backs get in three, four or five years of heavy duty, it's really tough to stay healthy, especially if you play the game the way Clinton Portis does.

You do have a point and by 30 almost all RB really start tailing off, even without injuries. I don't think Portis is gonna breakdown anytime soon, for some reason I see him having a good 4 more highly productive years, baring a big injury.

[Irn-Bru]

In those years Clinton Portis will be 27 and 28, respectively. I think that's a bit early to think that he won't still be producing--he may even be in his prime in those years.

Terrell Davis broke down in his fifth year at the age of 27. Once these running backs get in three, four or five years of heavy duty, it's really tough to stay healthy, especially if you play the game the way Clinton Portis does.

That may be true, and you've cited an example of a running back who's broken down. But what about Curtis Martin? Emmitt Smith? Walter Payton? Corey Dillon? Eric Dickerson? Tony Dorsett? Warrick Dunn? Franco Harris? Jerome Bettis? Shawn Alexander? Barry Sanders? Marcus Allen? Priest Holmes? Tiki Barber? Thurman Thomas? Jim Brown? Marshall Faulk? O.J. Simpson? Edgerrin James?


John Riggins?


A lot of the guys I just listed had their best years as 27,28, and 29 year-olds in the league. Some of them didn't peak as running backs until they were in their late 20's or early 30's.

Sure, some backs break down after a few years in the league. It happens. But all of the great backs have longevity, and I don't see why we should wager against Portis having the potential to be one of the greats. Because it's hard? Well, so is making the NFL, or rushing for 6,000 yards in your first four seasons.

I'd need some kind of argument based on his history, or persuasive evidence that he's somehow likely to drop significantly in performance. The only argument I can really think of is that he may have a freak injury that will hamper or end his career.

But, if it can happen to Portis, why is it not just as likely that it will happen to the (2 year older) Johnson?

Your original point that I'm debating was that LJ has a better chance of producing in '07 and '08. I just don't see it. I think Portis has a far better chance of being the better back in those 2 years.

[Deadskins]

Also, like I said before, big backs take more big hits than little backs. That is one of the reasons there aren't many big backs these days.

The trend toward smaller backs is because they are faster, not because big backs are more likely to be injured/beaten up by more/harder hits.

You are basically saying small backs are more durable than big backs. Not saying you are wrong, (because I have not done any actual research on the subject), but this is counter to conventional logic. Why did CP say he put on weight this past off season? So he could withstand more punishment. He wore down at the end of 2004.

The NFL has turned much more into a speed league. It is very difficult to find a back who is big AND has speed. This is part of the reason they are so valuable.

I think you have it backwards, Portis put on weight so that he could dish out more punishment, not so that he could withstand more. Looking at it from a pure physics viewpoint, the player whose mass and speed is greater is exerting more energy into any collision. The player on the short end of the equation gets the worst of the hit. But smaller backs are harder to hit, and have a lower center of gravity, and therefor, are harder to bring down. Look at Emmitt Smith for a perfect example. The all time rushing leader is that only because he rarely got hit squarely. Smaller backs take less punishment, but dish out less as well.

Tell Christian Okoye that the bigger player exerts more energy on the smaller player.

Well, what I said was "from a pure physics viewpoint, the player whose mass and speed is greater is exerting more energy into any collision." So, you can tell Albert Einstein that his E=Mc^2 equation is false due to the "Christian Okoye" exception.

[Irn-Bru]

Tell Christian Okoye that the bigger player exerts more energy on the smaller player.

Since speed has so much to do with the physics of a big hit, it's relatively easy to figure out how Okoye could punish people. Small backs can use their speed and, in addition, can "explode" into hits. If the LB isn't putting as much "umph" into the hit, he's probably going to lose the battle. Especially if Okoye has better positioning (a lower center of gravity), etc.

There's my as-high-tech-as-I-can-get explanation. Any more and I'd be lost. . .

[wormer]

Also, like I said before, big backs take more big hits than little backs. That is one of the reasons there aren't many big backs these days.

The trend toward smaller backs is because they are faster, not because big backs are more likely to be injured/beaten up by more/harder hits.

You are basically saying small backs are more durable than big backs. Not saying you are wrong, (because I have not done any actual research on the subject), but this is counter to conventional logic. Why did CP say he put on weight this past off season? So he could withstand more punishment. He wore down at the end of 2004.

The NFL has turned much more into a speed league. It is very difficult to find a back who is big AND has speed. This is part of the reason they are so valuable.

I think you have it backwards, Portis put on weight so that he could dish out more punishment, not so that he could withstand more. Looking at it from a pure physics viewpoint, the player whose mass and speed is greater is exerting more energy into any collision. The player on the short end of the equation gets the worst of the hit. But smaller backs are harder to hit, and have a lower center of gravity, and therefor, are harder to bring down. Look at Emmitt Smith for a perfect example. The all time rushing leader is that only because he rarely got hit squarely. Smaller backs take less punishment, but dish out less as well.

What?!?! He put on weight to help deal with the week to week pounding he was taking. Don't take my word for it either, lets go to the horses mouth:

"Portis admits he wore down in the second half last season. He was not carrying as much weight and did not fully participate in the club's offseason workout program. Portis finished with 1,315 yards, but had a weak 3.8-yard average per carry, well below the NFL average and nowhere near his 5.5 average in Denver. Portis also scored just five rushing touchdowns, a third of his seasonal output with the Broncos.

"Last year, I think I was beat down," Portis said.

This season, he has averaged two fewer carries per game, and was spelled considerably more in the early months, with his workload growing as the weather has turned colder. Portis ran 29 times against San Diego and 27 times against St. Louis -- his highest totals of the season -- and is fourth in the NFC with 1,079 rushing yards, on pace to surpass 1,400. He is averaging a solid 4.3 yards per carry with seven touchdowns, and feels he is primed to peak down the stretch after bulking up considerably in the summer and averaging 115 yards in his past four games.

"From the beginning of the season, I've been enduring for this stretch," Portis said. "We've got four games left, and whatever is asked of me, I'm ready. Last year, I couldn't have taken this challenge. You notice my carries have been up the last few weeks and if it continues to go up or if it stays where they're at, I'm prepared for that." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01877.html

[Steve Spurrier III]

That may be true, and you've cited an example of a running back who's broken down. But what about Curtis Martin? Emmitt Smith? Walter Payton? Corey Dillon? Eric Dickerson? Tony Dorsett? Warrick Dunn? Franco Harris? Jerome Bettis? Shawn Alexander? Barry Sanders? Marcus Allen? Priest Holmes? Tiki Barber? Thurman Thomas? Jim Brown? Marshall Faulk? O.J. Simpson? Edgerrin James?

John Riggins?

Two points:

1: I can post a long list like yours just as easily, and I could come up with plenty of guys who were just as talented but weren't able to stay healthy. You are assuming that these guys had long careers because they were great, as opposed to being great because they had long careers.

2: Some of these guys you cited were not able to be effective for long periods of time. Holmes did not become a fulltime starter until 2001, but hasn't played a full season since 2003. Faulk was only a 1300+ back (like Portis) from 1998-2001. Even John Riggins didn't start getting 300+ carriers until 1983, and was out of the league by 1986.

[SkinsFanInHawai'i]

Kinetic Engery=(.5)MV^2

so velocity has more effect on Energy than Mass.

[Steve Spurrier III]

Tell Christian Okoye that the bigger player exerts more energy on the smaller player.

Since speed has so much to do with the physics of a big hit, it's relatively easy to figure out how Okoye could punish people. Small backs can use their speed and, in addition, can "explode" into hits. If the LB isn't putting as much "umph" into the hit, he's probably going to lose the battle. Especially if Okoye has better positioning (a lower center of gravity), etc.

There's my as-high-tech-as-I-can-get explanation. Any more and I'd be lost. . .

Okoye was actually a gigantic back (6'1", 260), and that quote is in reference to Okoye being lit up by the considerably smaller Steve Atwater. Your point still stands, but you have it backwards.

[wormer]

Wow! All this physics talk... Its been a while for me but I think you all are refering to "momentum".

Momentum = mass x velocity

Or p=m*v.

In this case the v (velocity) is relatively close. Who is the faster player? I don't know but probably not much difference. This makes the m (mass) much more important.

I have no idea what this has to do with CP vs. LJ.... )

[Irn-Bru]

Tell Christian Okoye that the bigger player exerts more energy on the smaller player.

Since speed has so much to do with the physics of a big hit, it's relatively easy to figure out how Okoye could punish people. Small backs can use their speed and, in addition, can "explode" into hits. If the LB isn't putting as much "umph" into the hit, he's probably going to lose the battle. Especially if Okoye has better positioning (a lower center of gravity), etc.

There's my as-high-tech-as-I-can-get explanation. Any more and I'd be lost. . .

Okoye was actually a gigantic back (6'1", 260), and that quote is in reference to Okoye being lit up by the considerably smaller Steve Atwater. Your point still stands, but you have it backwards.

Uh, yeah. . .what he said. . .

[Irn-Bru]

Two points:

1: I can post a long list like yours just as easily, and I could come up with plenty of guys who were just as talented but weren't able to stay healthy. You are assuming that these guys had long careers because they were great, as opposed to being great because they had long careers.

Your list could be longer. It takes longevity plus talent to equal greatness, not just longevity. My point is that Portis has talent, and that it isn't inevitable that he'll fail to display the longevity. Or, more specifically, he has as good (if not a better) chance of being a long-term back than LJ.

2: Some of these guys you cited were not able to be effective for long periods of time. Holmes did not become a fulltime starter until 2001, but hasn't played a full season since 2003. Faulk was only a 1300+ back (like Portis) from 1998-2001. Even John Riggins didn't start getting 300+ carriers until 1983, and was out of the league by 1986.

The list is a bit sloppy, but I think even if you clean it up to match the criteria (sustained productivity even with a large number of carries over many years), it'll still show that it won't be a miracle if Clinton is productive for us into the next decade. (Assuming that we keep him, there isn't a career threatening injury, etc.)

I agree that this makes for a lot of "ifs," but again I don't see a better prospect than Portis for our RB situation long-term--otherwise we'd draft a new RB every few years--and, at the least, LJ certainly isn't the best candidate to outdo him.

[SkinsJock]

Fortunately for me this team will never consider losing players that put the team first while Joe Gibbs is in charge. From some of these posts it is obvious that some here judge a potential acquisition on talent first almost like a Fantasy Team pick! Fortunately for me Gibbs does not so I'm glad we have a team player like Thrash instead of a whole bunch of "better" WRs and to think that LJ could be even a fraction of the value to this team that Portis is shows a complete lack of real understanding of what has been happening here and at Redskins Park over the last 2 years.

The speculation of transactions is fine but Gibbs wants team players with talent not talented players who he might make into a team player. There are a lot of talented players out there that will never be a team player or a Redskin.

[Steve Spurrier III]

My point is that Portis has talent, and that it isn't inevitable that he'll fail to display the longevity. Or, more specifically, he has as good (if not a better) chance of being a long-term back than LJ.

You are absolutley right that there is no guarantee that Portis will break down anytime soon. But again, I just don't see how one can say that he is in better shape for the long term compared to Johnson. Portis just plays the game so hard. At the same time, so did Walter Payton, so your point isn't lost on me.

Just for fun, I took a look at the number of carries the guys you listed had amassed in their first four years in the league (yes, I am ommitting their college careers):

Dickerson 1465
Martin 1327
Smith 1262
Portis 1258
Sanders 1189
James 1184
Payton 1179
Bettis 1116
Allen 1081
Dillon 1073
Faulk 1065
Dorsett 1018
Alexander 994
Brown 964
Dunn 912
Harris 846
Simpson 776
Riggins 690
Barber 463
Holmes 459

Obviously, a high workload early in the career doesn't neccessarily mean an early retirment, but let's not underestimate the effect either.

[hkHog]

My point is that Portis has talent, and that it isn't inevitable that he'll fail to display the longevity. Or, more specifically, he has as good (if not a better) chance of being a long-term back than LJ.

You are absolutley right that there is no guarantee that Portis will break down anytime soon. But again, I just don't see how one can say that he is in better shape for the long term compared to Johnson. Portis just plays the game so hard. At the same time, so did Walter Payton, so your point isn't lost on me.

Just for fun, I took a look at the number of carries the guys you listed had amassed in their first four years in the league (yes, I am ommitting their college careers):

Dickerson 1465
Martin 1327
Smith 1262
Portis 1258
Sanders 1189
James 1184
Payton 1179
Bettis 1116
Allen 1081
Dillon 1073
Faulk 1065
Dorsett 1018
Alexander 994
Brown 964
Dunn 912
Harris 846
Simpson 776
Riggins 690
Barber 463
Holmes 459

Obviously, a high workload early in the career doesn't neccessarily mean an early retirment, but let's not underestimate the effect either.

Hmm, let's look at that list and go down it one by one. Dickerson's career lasted eleven years, Martin is still playing in his eleventh year and only now is he starting to wear down after never missing a game the first ten. Emmit Smith played in the league for thirteen years. Barry Sanders played for ten years and then retired with plenty left in the tank. James is in his fifth year and is still one of the best RBs in the game despite major knee surgery early in his career. Walter Payton played for thirteen seasons and was just as much the punishing runner AND blocker that Portis is despite being SMALLER (5'10" and 200 lbs) than Portis. Bettis is in his 13th seaon and Corey Dillon his ninth! Faulk is in his 12th year and only missed ten games through his first nine years and he only hit his prime in his fifth season through his ninth when he was the best player in football again despite the fact he is smaller than Portis. Dorsett played for twelve seasons. Alexander is the best player in the game in his fifth season. Jim Brown played for nine seasons and then left the game prematurely. Warrick Dunn is in his ninth year, made the Pro Bowl and again despite being smaller than Portis he puts his body on the line every game blocking and never takes a play off. Franco Harris played thirteen years. O.J. played for eleven years. John Riggins played for fourteen years! The last two guys didn't carry the ball much in their first four seasons but Tiki is in his ninth year and is better than he has ever been and Holmes is in his ninth year even though he has had injuries the last two.

So what does your list prove? Well it shows that most likely Portis is going to play for AT LEAST TEN YEARS!!! It also shows that size and the willingness to throw punishing blocks makes no difference to the length of a RBs career. I'm sorry SSIII but your arguments are going nowhere. In fact, everything you throw out just does more to affirm that Portis is probably going to have a very long career!

[Steve Spurrier III]

So what does your list prove? Well it shows that most likely Portis is going to play for AT LEAST TEAN YEARS!!! It also shows that size and the willingness to throw punishing blocks makes no difference to the length of a RBs career. I'm sorry SSIII but your arguments are going nowhere. In fact, everything you throw out just does more to affirm that Portis is probably going to have a very long career!

Wow man. The list (which I didn't even create) wasn't supposed to prove anything, other than the fact that Portis's workload has been very high, even compared to the great backs.

But since the list is of people who have had long careers, it's completley ridiculous to look at that list alone and conclude that Portis will have a long career. A study that would do a much better job proving your point would be to look at all runningbacks who have had over 1200 carries in their first four seasons, and then see what the average career length was. You will still have all those guys, but you would also have people like Terrell Davis (1343 carries), who weren't able to sustain that produciton.

[hkHog]

A study that would do a much better job proving your point would be to look at all runningbacks who have had over 1200 carries in their first four seasons, and then see what the average career length was. You will still have all those guys, but you would also have people like Terrell Davis (1343 carries), who weren't able to sustain that produciton.

Oh sorry, I thought that was what you were doing.

Let's do that though because TD is the only specific example of a great back breaking down prematurely that I can think of.

[Steve Spurrier III]

After some looking around, I have found seven players that have eclipsed the 1200+ carries mark in their first four seasons. (This could be an incomplete list, and remember that the 1200 carry threshold is an arbitrary cutoff.)

Eric Dickerson 1465
Earl Campbell 1404
LaDainian Tomlinson 1363
Terrell Davis 1343
Curtis Martin 1327
Emmitt Smith 1262
Clinton Portis 1258

Obviously, Portis and Tomlinson have to be discarded because their careers are in years five and six, respectivley. That leaves us with three men who were able to remain very productive (300 carries, 1000 yards) deep into their careers.

Dickerson: Elite from 1983-1989, 8 seasons
Martin: Elite from 1995-2004, 10 seasons
Smith: Elite from 1990-1999, 10 seasons

Then we have two players who weren't able to sustain the production:

Campbell: Elite from 1978-1983, 6 seasons
Davis: Elite from 1995-1998, 4 seasons

Make of that what you will. Obviously, five data points do not make a significant sample size, and one could easily manipulate the parameters to get a different result. If someone had access to better data, they should take the players with the top 50 rushing attempt totals through five seaons, and then look at the average period of "eliteness".

[Redskin in Canada]

Kinetic Engery=(.5)MV^2

so velocity has more effect on Energy than Mass.

The "effect" that you talk about is not due to kinetic energy alone.

It is the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM that is key. Back to Physics 101:

Click: Lesson 2: The Law of Momentum Conservation

The law of momentum conservation can be stated as follows.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/m ... U4L2b.html

[Irn-Bru]

Make of that what you will. Obviously, five data points do not make a significant sample size, and one could easily manipulate the parameters to get a different result. If someone had access to better data, they should take the players with the top 50 rushing attempt totals through five seaons, and then look at the average period of "eliteness".

SSIII, your point isn't lost on me either. Certainly I wouldn't bet any substantial money on Portis having amazing years in 2008 or 09. But if I'm going to choose a back somewhere in the NFL to have on my team in 3 years time, he'll be near the top (if not at the top) of my list.

But, there's also a reason why only a handfull of backs in the history of the NFL have had long, productive careers.

This is starting to be a whole lot off of the relatively small point of who's more reliable--LJ or Portis. I'll just leave it at "I do see your point," having made my own, and stop it there.