Has Portis developed a bad case of fumbleitis?

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:09 am

He sure has been puttin' the ball on the ground a lot lately. He better knock it off or he's gonna start costing us more games than he contributes.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:12 am

1) Even for a made-up word, that doesn't make sense
2) No
3) Thanks for trying to find the cloud on a sunny day

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:22 am

Fios wrote:1) Even for a made-up word, that doesn't make sense
2) No
3) Thanks for trying to find the cloud on a sunny day

Portis had 10 rushing attempts yesterday.
Portis had 72 yards yesterday on 10 rushing attempts.
There has never been, and will never be a running back in football at any level that does not fumble at all. I've seen running backs fumble in touch football and in flag football.
31 point victory, total domination from beginning to end, and yet some people can always find something to criticize.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:27 am

Grampi... you should find a new set of drinking glasses... yours all seem to be half-empty.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:30 am

per Fios...

1) Even for a made-up word, that doesn't make sense

Clearly, you have never had an infection of the fuble. Quite disabling. :wink:

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:55 am

Countertrey wrote:per Fios...
1) Even for a made-up word, that doesn't make sense

Clearly, you have never had an infection of the fuble. Quite disabling.

......I'm lost....

Nope, no sir, I did notice he wasn't as explosive as the first game, he looked like he was slowed by the knee injury. But even so, he was carving it up out there.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:02 am

Not the dreaded fubleitis!

GSPODS wrote:
Fios wrote:1) Even for a made-up word, that doesn't make sense
2) No
3) Thanks for trying to find the cloud on a sunny day

Portis had 10 rushing attempts yesterday.
Portis had 72 yards yesterday on 10 rushing attempts.

18 rushing attempts. 72 yards on 18 rushing attempts.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:30 am

I thought Portis looked 'tentative' a lot yesterday.

... but I agree that running backs are going to put the ball on the ground occasionally.

Portis didn't have a great game IMO... but it didn't matter... Campbell and Big Mike made up for it.

GSPODS · Post by **GSPODS** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:32 am

PulpExposure wrote:Not the dreaded fubleitis!

GSPODS wrote:
Fios wrote:1) Even for a made-up word, that doesn't make sense
2) No
3) Thanks for trying to find the cloud on a sunny day

Portis had 10 rushing attempts yesterday.
Portis had 72 yards yesterday on 10 rushing attempts.

18 rushing attempts. 72 yards on 18 rushing attempts.

Type-O

jmooney · Post by **jmooney** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:15 am

If we can only run left, it makes it a whole lot easier to stop the run. Until we can gain some ability to run off the right side, dont expect any of our backs to rack it up. 1 game where Portis puts the ball on the ground twice , Im not ready to string him up yet. If anyone knows about what fumbles can cost you, its our RB's coach. If Earnest byner thinks its a problem then be concerned, until then, just be happy with this win.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:17 pm

BossHog wrote:I thought Portis looked 'tentative' a lot yesterday.

... but I agree that running backs are going to put the ball on the ground occasionally.

Portis didn't have a great game IMO... but it didn't matter... Campbell and Big Mike made up for it.

I agree. Our rushing attack as a whole was solid, but Portis hasn't hit full stride quite yet this season. Good, but not great. I don't see any reason why he won't warm up as the season goes along. In 2005 it took until mid-November for Portis to really explode.

Portis was also credited with a fumble that was really just a bad snap. The one he lost was unfortunate, but that kind of thing happens to every back in this league. He's still averaging over 4 yards per carry, which is impressive since he's had very few breakaway runs so far this season.

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:27 pm

If we were discussing betts, it would be a problem, but since we are discussing portis it is not. Portis is not allowed to be criticized as far as i can tell.

I don't really care at this point cuz he's running the best he has since he's been here, and every rb will fumble and usually its caused by the d rather than the rb being careless.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:31 pm

brad7686 wrote:If we were discussing betts, it would be a problem, but since we are discussing portis it is not. Portis is not allowed to be criticized as far as i can tell.

Who, precisely, is preventing criticism of him?

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:34 pm

The overwhelming amount of people who go up in arms as soon as someone makes a slight negative comment about him.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:47 pm

You still didn't answer my question, this is a message board, if you post an opinion, as you are clearly free to do, others, even in large numbers, are free to respond and -- god forbid -- even disagree with that opinion. So, again, explain to me how it is "not allowed."

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:51 pm

You're proving my point for me, this is a message board, and i should be allowed to say what i want without you questioning me. I was simply making an observation, I don't really mean anybody is preventing anything, maybe it was poor word choice.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:53 pm

Well, if your point is that you totally misunderstand the difference between censorship and disagreement, yes, I've done a masterful job.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:13 pm

brad7686 wrote:You're proving my point for me, this is a message board, and i should be allowed to say what i want without you questioning me. I was simply making an observation, I don't really mean anybody is preventing anything, maybe it was poor word choice.

So how come you can say whatever you want but nobody else can? We have the right to say whatever we want too... It just happens that what I want to say may question your opinion. :lol:

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:15 pm

What i really mean is that i made what i considered to be a rhetorical and unimportant statement, and I don't feel like dragging it out even though i should have known some people would have a qualm with it. Maybe the fact that no one can let that go proves my point that people are over sensitive about anti-portis comments. In addition, you both have dragged the thread off topic into a personal attack on me.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:32 pm

brad7686 wrote:You're proving my point for me, this is a message board, and i should be allowed to say what i want without you questioning me. I was simply making an observation, I don't really mean anybody is preventing anything, maybe it was poor word choice.

You should be able to 'say what you want without someone questioning you'?

ROTFALMAO

You can say whatever you want as long as it's within the confines of the rules... Just like anyone is free to respond accordingly. Sorry you see that as inconvenient, but this is a MESSAGE board... not a brad7686 myspace page. If you want to dictate and mandate, then I suggest you start looking for some web space. Doreo.com is a great place to start.

And now you're accusing people of personal attacks when not a SINGLE thing has been said about YOU as opposed to your POST?

Sorry, that just shows a complete lack of understanding of the rule itself. At no point did anyone attack you personally, and people are perfectly welcome to VEHEMENTLY attack your posts as long as they don't bring you into it personally.

And they didn't.

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:32 pm

brad7686 wrote:What i really mean is that i made what i considered to be a rhetorical and unimportant statement, and I don't feel like dragging it out even though i should have known some people would have a qualm with it. Maybe the fact that no one can let that go proves my point that people are over sensitive about anti-portis comments. In addition, you both have dragged the thread off topic into a personal attack on me.

Bah, it's the internet, people will always have something to say whether they agree or disagree... You should say what you mean and mean what you say. Feel free to speak your mind, don't take personal attacks (if any) too hard, other people are only speaking their minds too. Remember, arguing in the internet (message boards in general) is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, it's still retarded...

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:39 pm

SKINFAN wrote:
brad7686 wrote:What i really mean is that i made what i considered to be a rhetorical and unimportant statement, and I don't feel like dragging it out even though i should have known some people would have a qualm with it. Maybe the fact that no one can let that go proves my point that people are over sensitive about anti-portis comments. In addition, you both have dragged the thread off topic into a personal attack on me.

Bah, it's the internet, people will always have something to say whether they agree or disagree... You should say what you mean and mean what you say. Feel free to speak your mind, don't take personal attacks (if any) too hard, other people are only speaking their minds too. Remember, arguing in the internet (message boards in general) is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, it's still retarded...

Well i really have no problem arguing on this message board as im sure others have noticed, but this is pretty off topic and unnecessary.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:43 pm

Portis doesn't have an issue with fumbling. He rarely does it and it's going to happen from time to time.

Even though he didn't have 100 yards rushing, he didn't need to. He did more than enough to keep the Lions defense honest. The line opened some big holes for him

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:57 pm

Pretty easy to look at the thread and see exactly where it went south... right when you made the statement that, 'Portis is not allowed to be criticized as far as i can tell.'

The word 'allowed' means that it has something to do with 'permission' which would fall on those that ADMINISTER the board and it's rules. So a moderator quickly pointed out to you that it had nothing to do with 'permission' and everything to do with opinion... because we truly believe in NOT censoring people and need people to know that what you had said was completely incorrect. Even if you 'meant something else

Off-topic? yes.

Unnecessary? Completely incorrect. Whether you understand the value of the community as a whole knowing what their bounds are or not, has no bearing on it's 'necessity'.

It's necessary so that ambiguous comments like yours, don't cause any misconceptions. That's IMPERATIVE to running the board effectively.

So I'm sorry that you see this as something personal, because it isn't, but if someone is going to put comments out there that can be misconstrued by the community as a whole, they HAVE to be addressed publicly.

My 2 cents

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:06 pm

I shy away from arguing, I learned long ago to never argue with a fool coz people reading or watching cannot tell who's the fool....

Back on top.
Portis missed a chip block on a rushing DE, on the 3rd QTR (i think it was the 3rd) He did seem a little diff than the CP we know, and the Fumbleia, well it happened and at least 1 of which was his fault IMO.. Was it excusable, NO, but it's "forgivable" (lack of a better word) coz he does so many things above and beyond that a one maybe two off-games is somewhat OK, specially with us enjoying the depth at that particular position. I'm sure he'll get drilled in holding on to the ball all this week.