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

It seems to me that Portis could use another blocker/occasional runner in the backfield. I don't trust our OL to open necessary holes for so small a back as Portis and would like to send a back ahead of him to pick off any missed tacklers first.
My question to you all: Would this tend to slow Portis up or create new opportunites for reading breaks and rapid cuts?

Portis is a GREAT open field back but he does not consistentley show the power necessary for short yardage. They need a power runner (ie. Riggins, Riggs, Davis) to get those tough yards near the goal line.

I think the O-line will be better this year, but Portis may be getting a FB weather he wants or "needs" one.

Gibbs has said he would be retooling the scheme, then he brought in Bill Mustgrave (westcoast Off. uses a FB) and the dead give away was when Gibbs drafted 2

crazyhorse1 wrote:It seems to me that Portis could use another blocker/occasional runner in the backfield. I don't trust our OL to open necessary holes for so small a back as Portis and would like to send a back ahead of him to pick off any missed tacklers first.
My question to you all: Would this tend to slow Portis up or create new opportunites for reading breaks and rapid cuts?

The H-back is a Blocker and decoy. He's good.

Well we drafted a short yardage back didn't we? He should help out a lot and should be fun to watch when Portis is taking a breather.

The H-back is a Blocker and decoy. He's good.

Exactly the point that made Joe Gibbs, Dan Henning, and Don Breaux invent the H-back.

They figured that a tight-end would be a better blocker and better receiver than a typical fullback. Also that a small halfback (Joe Washington) would be a weak blocker when they handed the ball to their regular fullback (John Riggins). Their solution was to switch between Washington and Riggins, the lightning bolt and the sledge-hammer, but always to have someone like Doc Walker as lead blocker.

Thanks for the football and history lessons, but perhaps much of the problem is that I have not expressed myself well.
What I am wondering is whether or not the Skins should use a full back, as well as an H Back, not just on short yardage plays, but on typical plays. I simply don't believe we have a strong enough blocking OL to keep sending Portis into the line from the present formation. I'm actually for trading the guy if we can't figure out how to use him or acquire the personnel needed for his type of running game pretty much pronto. Otherwise, we'll waste his career and our chances.

What I am wondering is whether or not the Skins should use a full back, as well as an H Back, not just on short yardage plays, but on typical plays.

Maybe. Think of Gerald Riggs, designated TD scorer, matched with Rickie Ervins. And Ernest Byner the general-purpose runner.

Or George Rogers and Kelvin Bryant.

Just to revisit this thread, what do you guys think of it now?

We have Broughton and White who have been drafted and are bulky guys.

I envision a few scenarios if one or both of them are drafted.

1. Backups to Portis and Betts.
2. Learning the H-back position. This would allow us to use ey at the TE position in certain plays. I think this would definately add more confusion to the defense.
3. Short yardage.
4. A traditional fullback to Portis
5. Dual RB formation with ey and Royal at TE.

I think these two kids bring us that short yardage power we need on crucial 3rd down and redzone conversions. If the o-line is blocking well enough then Portis will be able to get in but if he tries once and can't punch it in, twice at the most...lets bring in the heavy hitters to push that line.

I like the fact Portis will have a lead back...I think this part of our offense is the least of our concerns.

damimac1 wrote:I like the fact Portis will have a lead back...I think this part of our offense is the least of our concerns.

I absolutely agree with you. The O could use some help in other places. I am excited to see what they bring tonight.

I think its way to early to consider using an H back and fullback because our o line has a lot of prove. There are potential pro bowlers in at least 3 out of 5 positions along the line and I did indeed see some large holes being opened up for CP in the few moments that Gibbs acutally showed something of what he might have up his sleeve this year.

ummmmm no. Portis's system throughout college and especially in Denver was not running behind anyone. It was running alone and finding holes.

He is not taught to run behind people and that is why he is still somewhat struggling in our system. The last thing he needs is another lead blocker

Cooley47 wrote:ummmmm no. Portis's system throughout college and especially in Denver was not running behind anyone. It was running alone and finding holes.

He is not taught to run behind people and that is why he is still somewhat struggling in our system. The last thing he needs is another lead blocker

You bring up an excellent point, one that was made a lot during this Sundays game. I think we're still trying to run a little bit of those systems.

I wonder if we need to stick to one and perfect it. If we're going to keep Portis for the long haul then we need to put him in a system that utilizes him the best. I love Gibbs running schemes but I still feel that Portis isn't the back to run it effectively. If Ricky wasn't so weird and we didn't have Portis, I'd snatch him up and I can only imagine how well he'd run it!

I think the O-line will be better this year, but Portis may be getting a FB weather he wants or "needs" one.

Gibbs has said he would be retooling the scheme, then he brought in Bill Mustgrave (westcoast Off. uses a FB) and the dead give away was when Gibbs drafted 2

On the INSIDE & OUTSIDE ZONE plays that Portis ran in Denver AND Washington (& prefers), the RB has a LOT of complex "READS" to make (on pre-designated down linemern). With a big FB in front of him - he CAN'T SEE the READS! Riggins made the same complaint (I can't SEE for the FB).

Especially one that's as big as a lineman

GIBBS: `SKINS ONE-BACK OFFENSE IS REALLY TWO

Chalk-talk time, sports fans.
Inquiring minds want to know, when is a one-back offense really not a one-
back offense?
When is an offense predictable?
Joe Gibbs, coach of the Redskins, played answer man for these questions
yesterday.
Gibbs has heard so many questions about his one-back offense and had it
called predictable so many times, he went to the extraordinary step yesterday
to call a press conference to explain his reasoning behind the Redskins'
offense. Gibbs even used a chalkboard to draw diagrams.
"Most of the teams you see in the NFL are predictable," Gibbs said. "You
look at the teams that line up with two backs, like the (Los Angeles) Raiders
and the (New York) Giants. Ninety percent of the time, you know who's going to
get the ball. Marcus Allen (Raiders) and Joe Morris (Giants).
"What frosted me about the 1983 Super Bowl (actually in January of 1984
against the Raiders) was that they lined up in three formations and didn't
move once they got into one of them. Talk about predictable, that's 1912. And
they beat us, and nobody said a word to them."
All right, fine. What's that got to do with the one back offense?
Plenty.
As Gibbs explained it, the Redskins' one back is no different, really,
from other teams' two-backs. All the Redskins do is put their blocking back
closer to the line of scrimmage, put him in motion at times and give him a
better blocking angle on his opponent.
"He's (Don Warren in this case for the Redskins) doing the same thing as
the blocking back for the other team," Gibbs said. "What we need to do is
put a 20 number on him.
"We've got a saying in football, `That's a good way to get your neck
shortened.' That's what you do when you run a long way to make a block,
especially on someone like Lawrence Taylor (the Giants' premier linebacker and
author)."
A predictable offense, Gibbs said, is one that isn't producing. And the
Redskins, he said, are producing yards and points.
"People ask about putting George (Rogers) and Kelvin (Bryant, both running
backs) in at the same time. If one of them was a blocker, that would be
fine," Gibbs said. "But they're runners, and I think it would almost be a
sin to ask either one of them to be a blocking back.
"We're better off putting one over here."
And Gibbs drew an arrow on the chalkboard to a rectangle he'd drawn on the
side.
"On the bench," he said.