Page 1 of 2

Portis and Betts in same backfield

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:12 am
by num1skinsfan
I like it as a situation lineup, maybe not as a steady diet on first and second down. That would have to be based on success and defenses. Betts and Portis are both decent pass receivers, with blocking ability. It could even work out of the shotgun, both holding in to block and either or releasing for another option for JC.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:56 am
by GSPODS
Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach) and Ammonium Nitrate (Ammonia) can also be mixed, and with the same toxic results.

The combination of Portis and Betts, and the misguided impression that the two are "interchangeable" gives off a noxious odor and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And like the above combination, it leaves the audience with one hell of a bad headache.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:28 am
by ChocolateMilk
GSPODS wrote:Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach) and Ammonium Nitrate (Ammonia) can also be mixed, and with the same toxic results.

The combination of Portis and Betts, and the misguided impression that the two are "interchangeable" gives off a noxious odor and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And like the above combination, it leaves the audience with one hell of a bad headache.
so basically you're saying that this is a bad idea.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:50 am
by GSPODS
I think the results of attempting to utilize Betts in the same manner as Portis last season speak volumes. Betts isn't Portis, doesn't have the same running style as Portis, has no consistency as a backup, and couldn't locate, get to, or run through a secondary gap in the defense if given a BillICheat film clip.

As a secondary running back, Betts can't find his keyster with both hands, a flashlight and a map.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:38 pm
by SkinsFreak
GSPODS wrote:I think the results of attempting to utilize Betts in the same manner as Portis last season speak volumes. Betts isn't Portis, doesn't have the same running style as Portis, has no consistency as a backup, and couldn't locate, get to, or run through a secondary gap in the defense if given a BillICheat film clip.

As a secondary running back, Betts can't find his keyster with both hands, a flashlight and a map.


:roll: That's the biggest mischaracterization of any player I've ever read.

Attempting to utilize Betts in the same manner as Portis? Joke. That's not the case at all. They're both running backs. They are specific plays designed for both players. You don't think the coaches know these two have different running styles? Please.

Having two different style backs in the backfield increases your options, not limits them. What wouldn't make sense would be to have two identical style backs on the field at the same time. Two different backs with two different skill sets leaves the defense guessing. For example, in the "I" formation, you typically have a fullback and a tailback, two different style of running backs. Fullbacks, by the way, are prevalent in the WCO, as are receiving backs. Both Betts and Portis are great receivers out of the backfield as well. Much more options with these two.

By the way, last year at this time, the entire fan base and media world were blown away by the unleashed talent in Betts, that came to fruition as a result of the injuries sustained by Portis. This site alone had numerous threads suggesting we could afford to trade Portis because Betts was awesome, evident by the new contract awarded to Betts. (I never agreed with the notion of trading Portis, btw) Due to the injuries to the o-line this year, neither back had any running lanes and Portis was the primary back utilized this past year. That alone suggests you can't blame Betts for low numbers this past year.

We now have two former running back coaches on our staff, Mitchell and Smith. I'm quite confident they will know how to best utilize our RB's in the new west coast system.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:05 pm
by yupchagee
GSPODS wrote:Sodium Hypochlorite (Bleach) and Ammonium Nitrate (Ammonia) can also be mixed, and with the same toxic results.

The combination of Portis and Betts, and the misguided impression that the two are "interchangeable" gives off a noxious odor and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. And like the above combination, it leaves the audience with one hell of a bad headache.


I think you mean Sadium Hypochlorite & Ammonium Hydroxide which does result in toxic fumes. Sodium Hypochlorite & Ammonium Nitrate is likely to explode.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:24 pm
by HEROHAMO
I dont like the idea.

I think Betts is a decent backup , but is inconsistent. Well if he continues to improve that could change things. I would say last year was a drop off from his previous year. So if he could put in some hard work in the off season and come back a beast he could maybe even take over as the starter. I doubt it though.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:38 pm
by Countertrey
HEROHAMO wrote:I dont like the idea.

I think Betts is a decent backup , but is inconsistent. Well if he continues to improve that could change things. I would say last year was a drop off from his previous year. So if he could put in some hard work in the off season and come back a beast he could maybe even take over as the starter. I doubt it though.


The issue wouldn't be Betts' running ability. He is a known down-hill runner, and once he is through a hole, his speed takes over. Despite his size, however, he is not much of a banger.

That leads to the real issue of having him team with Portis in the same backfield... he is not much of a blocker... he is soft when he engages, resulting in a loss of benefit for the runner. I believe this is the reason he did not get a lot of time in the backfield this season... the problems with the line meant that giving up an incredible backfield blocker (Portis) was a luxury that we couldn't afford.

The opposite is not true, however... Portis would be a monster as a lead blocker. So... Betts does ok if Portis is the lead blocker, but Portis gets a less effective lead blocker if that role is held by Betts. Portis looses out if the lead blocker is not Sellers...

Result... you won't see much of Portis or Betts playing fullback.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:35 pm
by SkinsFreak
Countertrey wrote:Result... you won't see much of Portis or Betts playing fullback.


That's exactly right. I mentioned fullback was prevalent in the WCO, but I wasn't implying that Portis or Betts would be playing that position. You're correct with regard to Betts being a poor blocker. I see them being used on scat plays or on play action; fake a hand-off to Portis up the middle and roll Betts out into the flat for a screen or a check-down, giving Campbell numerous options. Something like that maybe.

That would force the defense to truly respect every player on the field and they couldn't focus on just one or two guys, like they've been able to do the last 4 years. The last 4 years, everyone in the world knew the ball was going to Portis or Moss the vast majority of the time, and sometimes Cooley.

Off play action, Campbell could dump it off to Portis in the middle, throw it downfield to Moss or Cooley, dump it off to Betts on a screen or hit ARE on a crossing route or a hook pattern. As long as the line can block, this offense could be explosive. Just add a big WR and, well, look out folks, it could get scary. 8-[

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with. Stump Mitchell and Sherman Smith are reported to have innovative designs and ideas from the RB position. This might be the first time either of those guys has had two quality backs to work with.

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:41 am
by andyjens89
The new coach said he could envision occasionally using tailbacks Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts in the backfield at the same time next season.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202836.html

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:40 pm
by Countertrey
andyjens89 wrote:
The new coach said he could envision occasionally using tailbacks Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts in the backfield at the same time next season.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202836.html


Note the operative word.

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:19 am
by VetSkinsFan
SkinsFreak wrote:
GSPODS wrote:I think the results of attempting to utilize Betts in the same manner as Portis last season speak volumes. Betts isn't Portis, doesn't have the same running style as Portis, has no consistency as a backup, and couldn't locate, get to, or run through a secondary gap in the defense if given a BillICheat film clip.

As a secondary running back, Betts can't find his keyster with both hands, a flashlight and a map.


:roll: That's the biggest mischaracterization of any player I've ever read.

Attempting to utilize Betts in the same manner as Portis? Joke. That's not the case at all. They're both running backs. They are specific plays designed for both players. You don't think the coaches know these two have different running styles? Please.

Having two different style backs in the backfield increases your options, not limits them. What wouldn't make sense would be to have two identical style backs on the field at the same time. Two different backs with two different skill sets leaves the defense guessing. For example, in the "I" formation, you typically have a fullback and a tailback, two different style of running backs. Fullbacks, by the way, are prevalent in the WCO, as are receiving backs. Both Betts and Portis are great receivers out of the backfield as well. Much more options with these two.

By the way, last year at this time, the entire fan base and media world were blown away by the unleashed talent in Betts, that came to fruition as a result of the injuries sustained by Portis. This site alone had numerous threads suggesting we could afford to trade Portis because Betts was awesome, evident by the new contract awarded to Betts. (I never agreed with the notion of trading Portis, btw) Due to the injuries to the o-line this year, neither back had any running lanes and Portis was the primary back utilized this past year. That alone suggests you can't blame Betts for low numbers this past year.

We now have two former running back coaches on our staff, Mitchell and Smith. I'm quite confident they will know how to best utilize our RB's in the new west coast system.



Betts thrived when CP wasn't in the line up at all, not when they were sharing time in the backfield. Notice all the recaps of tha t situation, they say "in the last seven games," or similar references. Nowhere do was it mentioned, short of JG, saying that they are a good tandem or <gasp> interchangeable. And if you haven't figured it out, Betts low numbers where due to him being a BACK UP in a 1 HB set.

Also, to have 2 different style backs means that there is porentially 2 sets of schemes the O-line has to deal with. To maximize your potential, or to "keep them guessing," you have to work to each back's strengths. This might or might not work.

To put Betts and CP in the backfield, for me, at least, would show play action. This could play to our advantage initially, at least, due to Zorn never calling plays, but WCO is WCO, after all.

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:57 pm
by langleyparkjoe
I'm in agreement with Skinsfreak on this 100%. I think with the WCO they'll both have opportunities to showcase their skills.

Hero, I disagree with your statement bout Betts being inconsistent. I mean, he is the number 2 RB behind CP and last time I checked, CP will get more carries. If your basing it on last season, please still keep in mind our O-line wasn't doing well until later on in the season. Just because the guy didn't break a big play, alot of people say he isn't good, he's no CP or whatever. I repeatedly say that Betts is a good backup to CP as was the case when CP was out.

Skinsfreak, how soon they forget huh bruh?

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:42 am
by VetSkinsFan
langleyparkjoe wrote:I'm in agreement with Skinsfreak on this 100%. I think with the WCO they'll both have opportunities to showcase their skills.

Hero, I disagree with your statement bout Betts being inconsistent. I mean, he is the number 2 RB behind CP and last time I checked, CP will get more carries. If your basing it on last season, please still keep in mind our O-line wasn't doing well until later on in the season. Just because the guy didn't break a big play, alot of people say he isn't good, he's no CP or whatever. I repeatedly say that Betts is a good backup to CP as was the case when CP was out.

Skinsfreak, how soon they forget huh bruh?



See bold. The problem I have is the salary cap implication for a dedicated back up. Ultimately, it falls upon the health and talent of our O-line. Pray to your respective gods that we have a healthy year upcoming and let the talent do the talking.

HTTR

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:24 am
by SkinsFreak
VetSkinsFan wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:I'm in agreement with Skinsfreak on this 100%. I think with the WCO they'll both have opportunities to showcase their skills.

Hero, I disagree with your statement bout Betts being inconsistent. I mean, he is the number 2 RB behind CP and last time I checked, CP will get more carries. If your basing it on last season, please still keep in mind our O-line wasn't doing well until later on in the season. Just because the guy didn't break a big play, alot of people say he isn't good, he's no CP or whatever. I repeatedly say that Betts is a good backup to CP as was the case when CP was out.

Skinsfreak, how soon they forget huh bruh?



See bold. The problem I have is the salary cap implication for a dedicated back up. Ultimately, it falls upon the health and talent of our O-line. Pray to your respective gods that we have a healthy year upcoming and let the talent do the talking.


Dedicated back up? You're right, teams these days never utilize 2 quality backs. Yes, it's wise to only have one RB on the roster who might be worth anything. Then have one RB that is paid very little because he sucks. Good plan. :roll:

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:59 pm
by CanesSkins26
I doubt that the Skins are even considering this, but I would shop Betts if I was them. Betts is a solid back, this season's free agent class is pretty weak, and his nice run in 2006 is still pretty fresh in peoples' minds. I think that we could get a 3rd rounder for him and that would enable us to further address both lines in the draft. Re-sign Rock and let him and Mason battle it out for the backup job. Having a good backup is important, but I would prefer us to have a backup who complements what Portis does and doesn't do the same thing as CP, only not as well. Having a speed guy like Mason as the backup would give us a nice change of pace from CP. Again, not sure how feasible this is, but I think it is something the team should consider, provided that they think that Rock and/or Mason would make a suitable backup.

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:01 pm
by VetSkinsFan
SkinsFreak wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:I'm in agreement with Skinsfreak on this 100%. I think with the WCO they'll both have opportunities to showcase their skills.

Hero, I disagree with your statement bout Betts being inconsistent. I mean, he is the number 2 RB behind CP and last time I checked, CP will get more carries. If your basing it on last season, please still keep in mind our O-line wasn't doing well until later on in the season. Just because the guy didn't break a big play, alot of people say he isn't good, he's no CP or whatever. I repeatedly say that Betts is a good backup to CP as was the case when CP was out.

Skinsfreak, how soon they forget huh bruh?



See bold. The problem I have is the salary cap implication for a dedicated back up. Ultimately, it falls upon the health and talent of our O-line. Pray to your respective gods that we have a healthy year upcoming and let the talent do the talking.


Dedicated back up? You're right, teams these days never utilize 2 quality backs. Yes, it's wise to only have one RB on the roster who might be worth anything. Then have one RB that is paid very little because he sucks. Good plan. :roll:



OUR team hasn't thrived running tandems. Is this the NFL discussion board? No, hence why we're talking about BETTS AND CP. WE'VE not run a tandem (close to ) 50/50 with Betts and CP with any success. He's getting a lot more than he should for ONLY BACK UP status. Take my post out of context and :roll: if you want to with all the sarcasm you like.... Monkey

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:31 pm
by langleyparkjoe
I'm not the salary cap expert like some of you guys but I really don't see how Betts could be killing us with the salary. I mean I know we gave him a new contract or extension or whatever, but it didn't at the time seem like we overpaid for the guy. I definitely don't wanna get rid of him for a 3rd rounder, especially when you consider we may have to pay him higher than Betts? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, I have no flippin clue how da whole sal. cap thing works) I'm just saying, we have alot of other needs to worry about besides our backfield and I'm sorry, I don't think any other RB on our squad can step in and fulfill the role that Betts has done the last couple of seasons. Not saying they won't, IMO I just don't see it. However though, if we get rid of Betts, THEY BETTER NOT USE A DRAFT PICK TO GET ANOTHER RB or I'll be ticked and kick Danny in the boom-boom.

Whatever though, I'm a sucker fan, no matter what happens or who's in there, I'm gonna root for um. LOL

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:35 pm
by langleyparkjoe
Hey Vet, you gonna delete the "Lloyd Is A Bust" reference now dat his tail is outtie? LOL

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:41 pm
by SkinsFreak
VetSkinsFan wrote: Take my post out of context


Oh, well, sorry then. Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said...

The problem I have is the salary cap implication for a dedicated back up.


...because every team wants a quality back-up and Betts cap implication is very little. But nevertheless, are you suggesting they use a 3rd tier RB to save on the cap? Larry Johnson and Priest Holmes quickly come to mind.

OUR team hasn't thrived running tandems.


Nowhere did I mention anything about "tandems".

WE'VE not run a tandem (close to ) 50/50 with Betts and CP with any success.


That's because Joe Gibbs style of offense utilizes a single back set, that is, if you're talking about multiple back sets. Otherwise, since Gibbs entered this league, he uses ONE predominant back and Gibbs never intended on having a 50/50 split in carries. They haven't had any success in tandem formations because they don't use them. And when our predominant back went down with an injury, thankfully, Betts stepped in and performed extremely well.

The new WCO is different and utilizes many formations with multiple back sets, so they need more than one quality back. And further, Betts cap number has never been that significant.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Having a good backup is important, but I would prefer us to have a backup who complements what Portis does and doesn't do the same thing as CP, only not as well.


First, I'm a huge fan of Marcus Mason and would love to see him get a chance. But in my opinion, I don't think CP and Betts do the same thing or have the same style or skill set. In the WCO, you need 2 different style backs. I had this discussion with one of my good friends just the other day. He is a Philly fan and we talked about the differences in Westbrook and Buckhalter, and how they are used in different ways, predominant in the WCO. In addition to Westbrook and Bulkhalter, they also use a couple of FB's. But I do agree with you that Mason could be dynamic in this system.

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:08 am
by HEROHAMO
langleyparkjoe wrote:I'm in agreement with Skinsfreak on this 100%. I think with the WCO they'll both have opportunities to showcase their skills.

Hero, I disagree with your statement bout Betts being inconsistent. I mean, he is the number 2 RB behind CP and last time I checked, CP will get more carries. If your basing it on last season, please still keep in mind our O-line wasn't doing well until later on in the season. Just because the guy didn't break a big play, alot of people say he isn't good, he's no CP or whatever. I repeatedly say that Betts is a good backup to CP as was the case when CP was out.

Skinsfreak, how soon they forget huh bruh?


Well me I am all about "What have you done for me lately?" :)

Hey I like Betts I really do. I just am not as comfortable with him carrying the ball as I am Portis carrying it. I would like him to get a little faster and Quicker as well as bigger and stronger. I think with a good off season training program he can be even better. To me the main thing about a RB is can he convert third downs into first downs? Give me three out of four times and I will be happy with that. Yes I do remember our O line was banged up last year. Betts looked pretty good with a healthy O line. So I am hoping the" dirt bags" come back full strength.

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:58 am
by VetSkinsFan
SkinsFreak wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote: Take my post out of context


Oh, well, sorry then. Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said...

The problem I have is the salary cap implication for a dedicated back up.


...because every team wants a quality back-up and Betts cap implication is very little. But nevertheless, are you suggesting they use a 3rd tier RB to save on the cap? Larry Johnson and Priest Holmes quickly come to mind.

OUR team hasn't thrived running tandems.


Nowhere did I mention anything about "tandems".

WE'VE not run a tandem (close to ) 50/50 with Betts and CP with any success.


That's because Joe Gibbs style of offense utilizes a single back set, that is, if you're talking about multiple back sets. Otherwise, since Gibbs entered this league, he uses ONE predominant back and Gibbs never intended on having a 50/50 split in carries. They haven't had any success in tandem formations because they don't use them. And when our predominant back went down with an injury, thankfully, Betts stepped in and performed extremely well.

The new WCO is different and utilizes many formations with multiple back sets, so they need more than one quality back. And further, Betts cap number has never been that significant.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Having a good backup is important, but I would prefer us to have a backup who complements what Portis does and doesn't do the same thing as CP, only not as well.


First, I'm a huge fan of Marcus Mason and would love to see him get a chance. But in my opinion, I don't think CP and Betts do the same thing or have the same style or skill set. In the WCO, you need 2 different style backs. I had this discussion with one of my good friends just the other day. He is a Philly fan and we talked about the differences in Westbrook and Buckhalter, and how they are used in different ways, predominant in the WCO. In addition to Westbrook and Bulkhalter, they also use a couple of FB's. But I do agree with you that Mason could be dynamic in this system.



I'm not going to defend my opinions line by line. I stand by my thought of our back up is getting paid too much for the production of last year. 3.4m I think was the total hit for our back up.

Comparing CP/Betts to Buckhalter/Westbrook is a little different. They like to spell BW b/c they're afraid of him actually blowing out a knee b/c he's always questionable/probable due to his knees.

Maybe I used to wrong word in "tandem," as I meant splitting carries. Regardless, they are NOT interchangeable. Maybe b/c Gibbs didn't run WCO and that's what I'm comparing, not speculating on exactly how the next season's going down.

I'd like to see Mason do his thing, too, b/c I liked him last pre-season.

CP thrived in WCO in Denver IIRC. Maybe with a little luck and a healthy O-line, we'll see it happen WITHOUT killing CP with 350 carries.....

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:05 am
by VetSkinsFan
HEROHAMO wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:I'm in agreement with Skinsfreak on this 100%. I think with the WCO they'll both have opportunities to showcase their skills.

Hero, I disagree with your statement bout Betts being inconsistent. I mean, he is the number 2 RB behind CP and last time I checked, CP will get more carries. If your basing it on last season, please still keep in mind our O-line wasn't doing well until later on in the season. Just because the guy didn't break a big play, alot of people say he isn't good, he's no CP or whatever. I repeatedly say that Betts is a good backup to CP as was the case when CP was out.

Skinsfreak, how soon they forget huh bruh?


Well me I am all about "What have you done for me lately?" :)

Hey I like Betts I really do. I just am not as comfortable with him carrying the ball as I am Portis carrying it. I would like him to get a little faster and Quicker as well as bigger and stronger. I think with a good off season training program he can be even better. To me the main thing about a RB is can he convert third downs into first downs? Give me three out of four times and I will be happy with that. Yes I do remember our O line was banged up last year. Betts looked pretty good with a healthy O line. So I am hoping the" dirt bags" come back full strength.



I think Betts is a starter or nothing. When CP went on IR, we saw what he's capable of doing full time with a healthy line. Any time he's spelled CP, he's underperformed compared to this. I believe this is due to incompatibility of CP/Betts in play to play swapping. Betts needs to play full time.

The only thing I worry about is the way JG liked the power running game and just play tire out the opposing defense. JG was killing CP with attempts. In the three years he started 15 or more games, he has attempts of 343, 352, and 325. That's a lot of wear and tear in a JG power running game.

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:14 am
by VetSkinsFan
langleyparkjoe wrote:Hey Vet, you gonna delete the "Lloyd Is A Bust" reference now dat his tail is outtie? LOL



Eventually. :twisted:

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:18 pm
by Klanko
yupchagee wrote:
I think you mean Sadium Hypochlorite & Ammonium Hydroxide which does result in toxic fumes. Sodium Hypochlorite & Ammonium Nitrate is likely to explode.


This post is awesome. Sorry, just had to get it out there.