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

How does that make him more likely to be healthy in the future? In 2005 he was very banged up at the end of the season, and he couldn't stay on the field in 2006. I'm not trying to knock Portis, but only two 16 game seasons out of five isn't that impressive. Although I'm more than willing to concede Betts has had injury problems of his own, to say the least.

In your original post you said that Portis is oft-injured, a reference to past injuries and not to his prospects for staying healthy in the future. I was just pointing out that your claim that Portis is oft-injured was 100% wrong.

PLAYER A:
127 carries
523 yards
7 touchdowns
4.1 ypc
3 20+ runs
29 first downs

PLAYER B:
245 carries
1154 yards
4 touchdowns
4.7 ypc
6 20+ runs
59 first downs

A few more stats for you. Player A had no fumbles this season and lead the NFC in rushing td's when he got hurt. Player B had 6 fumbles, second in the NFL despite starting in only half of his team's games. Player B also has a career long run of 27 yards and has as many career fumbles (11) and he does td's (11). Despite rushing for 1154 yards, Player B still only managed to score 4 td's, which means that 34 NFL running backs had more td's than him this season.

1niksder wrote:Gibbs brought CP in with him, along with Brunell. Remember how long it took for him to bench Mark. Trading Portis is probably not on Gibbs mind.

Especially not when you consider who is making the decisions and what they think of who can help this team better - players available through free agency or draft picks. Gibbs and co are not trading Portis, they will find a way to address the defensive issues through free agency and the draft IMO will provide some help.

From our experience, this group (our FO) do not rate high draft picks as being that valuable and I certainly cannot see them looking at much difference in this draft between #6 and #2

I'm sure there will be a lot of speculation in the coming months but I think Gibbs will have a few players he wants to build around and I think Portis is one of those guys - everybody says that RBs are easy to find but there are very few RBs like Portis and this just does not make that much sense.

SkinzCanes wrote:

How does that make him more likely to be healthy in the future? In 2005 he was very banged up at the end of the season, and he couldn't stay on the field in 2006. I'm not trying to knock Portis, but only two 16 game seasons out of five isn't that impressive. Although I'm more than willing to concede Betts has had injury problems of his own, to say the least.

In your original post you said that Portis is oft-injured, a reference to past injuries and not to his prospects for staying healthy in the future. I was just pointing out that your claim that Portis is oft-injured was 100% wrong.

PLAYER A:
127 carries
523 yards
7 touchdowns
4.1 ypc
3 20+ runs
29 first downs

PLAYER B:
245 carries
1154 yards
4 touchdowns
4.7 ypc
6 20+ runs
59 first downs

A few more stats for you. Player A had no fumbles this season and lead the NFC in rushing td's when he got hurt. Player B had 6 fumbles, second in the NFL despite starting in only half of his team's games. Player B also has a career long run of 27 yards and has as many career fumbles (11) and he does td's (11). Despite rushing for 1154 yards, Player B still only managed to score 4 td's, which means that 34 NFL running backs had more td's than him this season.

That is all true, but your argument is biased. The .6 difference in ypc is just as important as any of those stats except maybe the fumbles. That is something that definitely needs to be worked on. And you didn't mention how much better a receiver Betts is. However, im going to have to say this is not probably the most value they could get for portis. They should test the waters a little more. Maybe get someone better than bly plus a second rounder. That would be more fair.

Portis and Betts make a pretty good one-two punch while either could be the "change up" back. Portis carried the ball for 5 straight weeks with a less talented QB and got us to the post season in 2005. Betts had the same opportunity this year and we were done after two games.

The .6 difference in ypc is just as important as any of those stats except maybe the fumbles.

Portis also constantly faced 8 and 9 man fronts, played with an ineffective qb and a terrible passing game, had Saunders calling different types of runs for him than he did for Betts, and had an oline that wasn't sold on Saunders' run calls and wasn't blocking as well. Plus Betts has mostly faced very mediocre run defenses this season.

SkinzCanes wrote:

The .6 difference in ypc is just as important as any of those stats except maybe the fumbles.

Portis also constantly faced 8 and 9 man fronts, played with an ineffective qb and a terrible passing game, had Saunders calling different types of runs for him than he did for Betts, and had an oline that wasn't sold on Saunders' run calls and wasn't blocking as well. Plus Betts has mostly faced very mediocre run defenses this season.

Got any more excuses for him?

Got any more excuses for him?

Those aren't excuses, they're facts. In all your posts about Betts I also haven't seen you be able to refute any of those statements.

SkinzCanes wrote:

Got any more excuses for him?

Those aren't excuses, they're facts. In all your posts about Betts I also haven't seen you be able to refute any of those statements.

Ok, so basically you are saying that jason campbell is the best quarterback in the league and that when he is in the game the other team feels the need to double cover every receiver, and that is much more important to them then stopping the runningback that is trampling their asses.

And i don't even have to refute your argument that the line "won't block for Portis" and that saunders didn't "call the right plays" Betts was able to run outside as well as inside and do both quite effectively in spite of saunders.

Did the dog eat his homework too?

Is this now a real trade? Earlier it said Rumor, now it says Breaking News, but I didnt see anything saying it was, so did I miss read something or what?

I think that the coach will do what he needs to do to get this team back. I don't have an opinion on this at all. If all of the coaches feel that this or any move is best for the team, what do I know. I don't have access to inside information. It isn't helping Portis' cause being that he came out this week with his interview on the JThomson show.

InsaneBoost wrote:Is this now a real trade? Earlier it said Rumor, now it says Breaking News, but I didnt see anything saying it was, so did I miss read something or what?

Next we'll hear that this "news" is out of SI

Obviously this comes from some people who do not know Gibbs very well.

IT"S a RUMOR and will never happen

Ok, so basically you are saying that jason campbell is the best quarterback in the league and that when he is in the game the other team feels the need to double cover every receiver, and that is much more important to them then stopping the runningback that is trampling their asses.

And i don't even have to refute your argument that the line "won't block for Portis" and that saunders didn't "call the right plays" Betts was able to run outside as well as inside and do both quite effectively in spite of saunders.

Did the dog eat his homework too?

Jason Campbell isn't the best qb in the NFL but he has been much more effective than Boonell in leading our offense. He has thrown the ball downfield and as a result teams aren't stacking the box they way they were earlier in the season. If you don't believe me go back and rewatch the games and look at the 8 and 9 man fronts that Portis faced.

Can you read?? I never said that the line "won't block for Portis." What I said that earlier in the season Saunders was calling different runs (mostly outside) for Portis than he did when Betts came in because Gibbs decided that we needed to go back to smash mouth Redskins football. Our oline is much more suited for the type of running game that we ran towards the end of the season than they are for a Saunders' type running attack, and as a result they started blocking better because the runs were geared toward their strenghts.

But I guess you're right, we really should trade a running back that last year set the Redskins single season rushing mark and replace him full time with a guy that fumbled twice more than he scored this season. That would make our offense unstoppable.

Bly is due $4.2 Million in salary next year (the last year of his contract) Couple that with the $8.2 in dead money we'd carry for trading Portis and you don't even have to bring up the fact that a #2 pick will cost more than a million a year more than a #6 or the fact that there or 45 guys on the team and we are ALREADY over next years cap.


This all points to NO DEAL

SkinzCanes wrote:

Ok, so basically you are saying that jason campbell is the best quarterback in the league and that when he is in the game the other team feels the need to double cover every receiver, and that is much more important to them then stopping the runningback that is trampling their asses.

And i don't even have to refute your argument that the line "won't block for Portis" and that saunders didn't "call the right plays" Betts was able to run outside as well as inside and do both quite effectively in spite of saunders.

Did the dog eat his homework too?

Jason Campbell isn't the best qb in the NFL but he has been much more effective than Boonell in leading our offense. He has thrown the ball downfield and as a result teams aren't stacking the box they way they were earlier in the season. If you don't believe me go back and rewatch the games and look at the 8 and 9 man fronts that Portis faced.

Can you read?? I never said that the line "won't block for Portis." What I said that earlier in the season Saunders was calling different runs (mostly outside) for Portis than he did when Betts came in because Gibbs decided that we needed to go back to smash mouth Redskins football. Our oline is much more suited for the type of running game that we ran towards the end of the season than they are for a Saunders' type running attack, and as a result they started blocking better because the runs were geared toward their strenghts.

But I guess you're right, we really should trade a running back that last year set the Redskins single season rushing mark and replace him full time with a guy that fumbled twice more than he scored this season. That would make our offense unstoppable.

Okay, lets just use the "record" as a lame excuse again.

In 2005, Portis had 352 rushes for 1516 yards and 4.3 ypc, which don't get me wrong, is very good.

However, in 2006, Betts ran for 1154 on 254 carries and 4.7 ypc. If he had had 352 attempts like portis did last year, He would have around 1655 yards. Which would have been the new record.

I'm not sayin it is guaranteed that Betts would do that, but it is likely. It also isn't guaranteed that Portis is going to be the best runningback ever just because Jason Campbell is in instead of Brunell. The only real point im making is that the difference that everyone thinks there is between betts and portis is not as glaring as everyone thinks and might not exist.

Lets not forget that they were drafted only 5 spots away from each other in 02. One of them needs to go and i would argue it should be the one that complains about practice, thinks he is above the org., refers to himself in the third person, isn't patient enough to wait for blocks, won't cooperate with coaches, has dropped over a yard per carry since leaving denver, can't catch, and is often "nicked up" and feels he has to leave the game whenever that happens.

SkinzCanes wrote:In your original post you said that Portis is oft-injured, a reference to past injuries and not to his prospects for staying healthy in the future. I was just pointing out that your claim that Portis is oft-injured was 100% wrong.

If you say so. He hasn't finished a full, sixteen game season healthy since his rookie season. Prior to this season, he has held up well for a running back. But betting on a player with his injury history and the abuse he takes as both a runner and blocker to stay healthy in the future is a big risk.

Just so I'm being clear, I would rather have Portis than Betts in 2007 in a vacuum. Unfortunatley, this team has a long list of needs, and running back is position of strength. If we could deal Betts, I'd be all for that as well - I just think Portis would fetch a lot more.

[quote="brad7686]
However, in 2006, Betts ran for 1154 on 254 carries and 4.7 ypc. If he had had 352 attempts like portis did last year, He would have around 1655 yards. Which would have been the new record.

I'm not sayin it is guaranteed that Betts would do that, but it is likely. [quote]

Who cares how many yards Betts would have had or even did have? If you're going to fumble the ball, it might as well negate all those yards because nothing came of them, other than the other team stopping a potential score.

There are better statisticians than me here, so I'll lay this one on one of them...

How many fumbles per carry does Portis have as opposed to Betts? That is a stat I would care about. TD's per carry wouldn't be a bad one either.

How many fumbles per carry does Portis have as opposed to Betts? That is a stat I would care about. TD's per carry wouldn't be a bad one either.

Portis for his career has 1385 carries and 158 receptions with 56 td's and 16 fumbles. Therefore Portis fumbles once every 96 times that he touches the ball and scores once every 27 times that he gets the ball. In terms of td's per game, Portis scores once for every 1.2 games that he plays in.

Betts for his career has 671 total touches with 11 td's and 11 fumbles. Therefore he fumbles once in every 61 carries and scores once every 61 times that he touches the ball. Betts scores once for every 5.8 games that he plays in.

SkinzCanes wrote:

How many fumbles per carry does Portis have as opposed to Betts? That is a stat I would care about. TD's per carry wouldn't be a bad one either.

Portis for his career has 1385 carries and 158 receptions with 56 td's and 16 fumbles. Therefore Portis fumbles once every 96 times that he touches the ball and scores once every 27 times that he gets the ball. In terms of td's per game, Portis scores once for every 1.2 games that he plays in.

Betts for his career has 671 total touches with 11 td's and 11 fumbles. Therefore he fumbles once in every 61 carries and scores once every 61 times that he touches the ball. Betts scores once for every 5.8 games that he plays in.

Yea but how many games has Betts started? It's hard to score a td if you are given one touch in a game. Portis has started his whole career.

SkinzCanes wrote:

How many fumbles per carry does Portis have as opposed to Betts? That is a stat I would care about. TD's per carry wouldn't be a bad one either.

Portis for his career has 1385 carries and 158 receptions with 56 td's and 16 fumbles. Therefore Portis fumbles once every 96 times that he touches the ball and scores once every 27 times that he gets the ball.

And since becoming a Redskin, Portiis has 909 touches, 25 touchdowns and eight fumbles. He's fumbled once every 113.63 touches, and scored once every 36.36 touches. Not that it changes your point, but I think it's clear Clinton Portis the Bronco and Clinton Portis the Redskin are two different players - at least in terms of production.

DO IT!!

DO IT!!

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

SkinzCanes wrote:

How many fumbles per carry does Portis have as opposed to Betts? That is a stat I would care about. TD's per carry wouldn't be a bad one either.

Portis for his career has 1385 carries and 158 receptions with 56 td's and 16 fumbles. Therefore Portis fumbles once every 96 times that he touches the ball and scores once every 27 times that he gets the ball.

And since becoming a Redskin, Portiis has 909 touches, 25 touchdowns and eight fumbles. He's fumbled once every 113.63 touches, and scored once every 36.36 touches. Not that it changes your point, but I think it's clear Clinton Portis the Bronco and Clinton Portis the Redskin are two different players - at least in terms of production.

Thanks for being the only other person to notice

I'm not disagreeing that Portis played better in Denver. I'm arguing that he's more valuable than Betts. Going by SkinzCanes stats, I feel that my opinion is correct, just as I thought.

If this trade goes down, I will be very disappointed, but then again, it won't be the first time that this team has made bad decisions and ruined my winter.

If the Lions need a RB so bad why not get this guy?

And they wouldn't have to trade their top corner