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

Check out this youtube vid. Before jumping to conclusions compare what happens to left guard #66 on the Betts run vs. the Portis run. I'd be interested in thoughtful comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uoJaO7njjc

DarthMonk

Way too much penetration. Portis wouldn't have scored either. O-line got manhandled.

Not sure if Ladell would've scored if he had followed Sellers because the line got manhandled, but he would've had a better chance if he hadn't cut inside like he did.

No way. Its a good video and makes ya think but it was a cut back play. CP cut back also, just not as quick as LB. I dont think LB could have gotten all the way to the edge.

I think Portis has better vision and would've stayed outside by hurdling the lineman's legs. If he didn't stay outside, I still think he had a better chance of making the cutback due to his style of running. Either way, all that video shows me is that Portis should've been in there with the game on the line.

Oh my goodness!!!! That video says it all! I am not a Ladell Betts fan at all...he is a great receiver out the backfield...but his running style leaves much to be desired. He took out Randy Thomas during our 2005 playoff run with his reckless abandon running style. And he cost us three games last year due to his fumbling...now he couldn't even follow his lead block back to the endzone. Portis would have hit the hole waaaay faster even if he did cut back like Betts did. So I guess the moral of the story here is...

WHY WASN"T PORTIS IN THE FREAKING GAME!!!!!!

ICEMAN wrote:Oh my goodness!!!! That video says it all! I am not a Ladell Betts fan at all...he is a great receiver out the backfield...but his running style leaves much to be desired. He took out Randy Thomas during our 2005 playoff run with his reckless abandon running style. And he cost us three games last year due to his fumbling...now he couldn't even follow his lead block back to the endzone. Portis would have hit the hole waaaay faster even if he did cut back like Betts did. So I guess the moral of the story here is...

WHY WASN"T PORTIS IN THE FREAKING GAME!!!!!!

The play could have went either way. I honestly don't think either Portis or Betts would have made it, however seeing now for the first time that it was only one guy making the tackle....Sellers would have been the only guy that would have made that a TIE score.

Um.....it was painful to watch live the first time. That is one painful moment I do not wish to revisit.

I think the play is made to go outside...with the optin to cut is back. LB did, I think it was the wrong choice. Sellers destroyed him man while Kendall got blown up. I think CP scores on 3rd down

I"m not going to point fingers at anybody in particular. Betts did all he could. So did our team. I know they played like complete crap in the second half, but at least they fought hard until the end and almost came back to win it. Remember Norv or Spurrier? They didn't do crap like that! They would give up. At least we have a team that doesn't stop believing and doesn't stop fighting.

DarthMonk wrote:Check out this youtube vid. Before jumping to conclusions compare what happens to left guard #66 on the Betts run vs. the Portis run. I'd be interested in thoughtful comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uoJaO7njjc

DarthMonk

Truly a waste of commentary in any case since only the Redskins know the actual play called. Just because the run went to the same side and looked similar to the Portis run earlier in the game does not mean the play call was the same. The Betts run appeared to be a different formation, with different personnel and may have been designed to be run through a different gap. The offensive line blocking assignments may not have been the same. Since we don't have the playbook and to most fans, one rushing attempt to the left looks nearly identical to another, watching the tape is of no help except to confirm that the Gnats were already in the backfield before Betts attempted to turn upfield.

Attempting to blindly speculate as to who would or would not have been tackled is pointless. Any one of us might have scored on that play. Any one of us might also have been seriously injured or killed trying to make that play. Since we don't play for the Redskins, none of us will ever know. As long as we are blindly speculating after the fact, I speculate that if the Redskins offense had produced at all in the second half we would not be wasting time discussing this play in the first place.

the naked bootleg the other way sure looked awesome had they run it but hindsight is 20/20 right...all that time and they panicked..oh well.painful indeed.

Well in defense of Betts he tried to cut back, it just wasn't there. Now with that said, it looks like the play was designed to go left. He didn't read Sellers block obviously. the question remains "WHERE WAS PORTIS". He is our best offensive weapon, the game is on the line ... Many coaching errors on that last series, mainly the playcalling.... We need to move on, let's get Caldwell up to speed as #3 receiver and see what we have, and shore up that right side of the O-line...

I have to disagree with those who think Betts should have run further left before he cut back. When he cut back inside hole was apparently open, the outside was apparently not. He didn't have a crystal ball to tell him what was going to happen. More than that, he wouldn't have scored anyway. The penetration was extremely deep because our left linemen were slow off the ball. In such a situation neither he nor Portis could have scored wide, in my opinion. The only reason the blocks seem to be holding on the left is that Betts had already cut inside and the defensive players had no reason to fight through the blocks. If he had continued left, he would have had plenty of time to converge on it (in a pack). He made the right move. Portis was facing much less penetration when he ran the play.

You must strongly disagree since you posted the same response 4 times. Or maybe your computer froze up? I do agree, it looked to me like a different playcall with different personnel.

I think we should have a 48 hr speculation window.... after that, it's all moot. This has been discussed many times with many different points and the bottom line is this: We lost. We hope (god we hope) that the coaches learn from this conservative crap and cut it out.

GSPODS wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:Check out this youtube vid. Before jumping to conclusions compare what happens to left guard #66 on the Betts run vs. the Portis run. I'd be interested in thoughtful comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uoJaO7njjc

DarthMonk

Truly a waste of commentary in any case since only the Redskins know the actual play called. Just because the run went to the same side and looked similar to the Portis run earlier in the game does not mean the play call was the same. The Betts run appeared to be a different formation, with different personnel and may have been designed to be run through a different gap. The offensive line blocking assignments may not have been the same. Since we don't have the playbook and to most fans, one rushing attempt to the left looks nearly identical to another, watching the tape is of no help except to confirm that the Gnats were already in the backfield before Betts attempted to turn upfield.

Attempting to blindly speculate as to who would or would not have been tackled is pointless. Any one of us might have scored on that play. Any one of us might also have been seriously injured or killed trying to make that play. Since we don't play for the Redskins, none of us will ever know. As long as we are blindly speculating after the fact, I speculate that if the Redskins offense had produced at all in the second half we would not be wasting time discussing this play in the first place.

Gibbs said on Redskins Radio that is was the same play they ran for a TD in the first half.

Up here in BFE New York I don't get Redskins Radio. Obviously, however, it was not exactly the same play because the personnel was not the same.

GSPODS wrote:Up here in BFE New York I don't get Redskins Radio. Obviously, however, it was not exactly the same play because the personnel was not the same.

Gibbs said he considers CP and LB the same...interchangable?? So yes in his mind it was the same play.

DEHog wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Up here in BFE New York I don't get Redskins Radio. Obviously, however, it was not exactly the same play because the personnel was not the same.

Gibbs said he considers CP and LB the same...interchangable?? So yes in his mind it was the same play.

That explains everything. If Gibbs considers CP and LB to be the same personnel he really does need to go back to NASCAR.

i will never understand why CP isnt in on all goal line plays. when we had duckett it should have been he who was on all goal line stands. both cases we didnt put in the right players. CP has a nose for the end zone. betts does not. hes interchangable as far as splitting carries to keep CP sharp but when we need somthing done you go with the proven guy not the guy who helps share the load.

DEHog wrote:I think the play is made to go outside...with the optin to cut is back. LB did, I think it was the wrong choice. Sellers destroyed him man while Kendall got blown up. I think CP scores on 3rd down

I am with you brother. No question about it. I watched the youtube video linked above and several others and I am with you here. We ran to the LEFT because, in light of recent injuries, that was supposed to be our "better" side of the OL. After all, it had worked earlier in the game, right? Well, this was a case of one too many times to the well without the right bucket.

Betts did not have enough patience to see the development of the play. This can be over-analysed perhaps even unfairly with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. Most other RBs may have also failed to be patient too. But I feel in my heart that Portis would have scored in- or -outside.

Joe and Al decided to go with the bigger guy rather that with the more skilled one. Bad choice. Hopefully, good lesson.

so does this finally end the debate about whether Portis or Betts is better or should start I should say ? and I dont ask that question based off that one run.. you cant put all the blame on Betts for that but in general this season if you compare the stats Portis is avegaring 4.7 ypc to Betts 2.7 ..

its like having 2 starting pitchers.. you cant put one into the reliever role and expect him to perform the same.. I like Betts and think he could start somewhere but hes not a good back when it comes to splitting time.. he needs to be able to get going not just get 10 to 15 carries and hes just not going to be able to do that with Portis here who is clearly better IMO

crazyhorse1 wrote:When he cut back inside hole was apparently open, the outside was apparently not.

I agree with this. A step or two after Betts is handed the ball, a large hole opens over the guard. A soon as Betts makes his cut, the LB fills the hole and makes a great play. A further misfortune is that Rabach is cut immediately, whereas if he had been able to keep his feet and move left, he may have gotten enough of a chip on the LB to allow Betts to squeak through.

So I don't think Betts made a bad cut, but it wasn't the best option available. He should know to keep his eyes on the '45' on Sellers back and follow it. And it still doesn't explain why our best back wasn't in there with the game on the line.

Truly a waste of commentary in any case since only the Redskins know the actual play called. Just because the run went to the same side and looked similar to the Portis run earlier in the game does not mean the play call was the same. The Betts run appeared to be a different formation, with different personnel and may have been designed to be run through a different gap. The offensive line blocking assignments may not have been the same. Since we don't have the playbook and to most fans, one rushing attempt to the left looks nearly identical to another, watching the tape is of no help except to confirm that the Gnats were already in the backfield before Betts attempted to turn upfield.

Gibbs, Saunders, and Portis have all said that it was the same play that CP ran earlier in the game. Gibbs' reasoning for having Betts in there instead of CP has been rather unconvincing. He said that he considers the two backs "interchangeable" (total nonsense btw) and then yesterday he said that it was Byner's decision to have Betts in there instead of CP. Saunders hasn't given a clear answer to the question that I have seen and it didn't seem like it was his decision as to which back was in the game (kind of strange since he is supposedly calling the plays). And CP said that he had no idea why he wasn't in on those plays from the 1.