This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I disagree. since being traded to the Redskins, Portis has averaged a scant 4.0 yards per carry, down from his 'heyday' of 5.5 per carry in Denver. He simply doesn't look like the same guy he was in Denver.
So we can expect San Diego, Rams and Chiefs all to to a RBBC because it worked for Chicago and Indy?
Resting the primary back is good. Nothing wrong with this if Portis is getting 70% or more of the carries.
you are reading into my options a little to muchSo we can expect San Diego, Rams and Chiefs all to to a RBBC because it worked for Chicago and Indy?
when is the last time a RB won the rushing title and won a superbowl?1998 and 1999, Denver with TD 2000, The rams with Faulk- not the rushing titel but the best RB in the NFLdid E. Smith win the rushing titel any of the 3 years the Boys won the SB.
If healthy, Portis will have over 300 carries this year. Easily.
Good analysis. I agree that Portis plays "harder" than his body is built to do, which is why he always is dinged. The good news is that no injury that I'm aware of has had any long term implications on his career or ability to perform, e.g. an ACL injury, degenerative condition, etc. He should theoretically enter next season at 100%. I think what you say should happen. Portis should be kept to less than 300 carries on the year. I think that's optimal. But Gibbs definitely likes to choose a horse and ride it. When he's got the ball with 4 minutes left in the game and a small lead, and he wants to run out the clock by pounding the ball, he's not the kind of guy IMHO to look at the number of carries Portis has in the game and decide to replace him with Betts based upon that. If it comes down to holding Portis to under 20 carries in the game or putting in the guy that gives him the best chance to win, he'll choose the latter all day long just as virtually any NFL coach would. Gibbs, OTOH has never had a RB tandem this good and certainly not this explosive, and that includes both Byner/Riggs in 1989-91, as well as Joe Washington/Riggins in 1981-83. Betts is also as good of a receiver out of the backfield as anyone he's coached (Joe Washington and Kelvin Bryant would be the only comparisons, and they were heavily used as receivers, especially for their era) so if any tandem figures to get more balanced use, it woudl be this one based upon those factors. This is just a really difficult thing to read. Something that occurs to me is this though: Gibbs is known for coaching teams that peak in December and January. Funny enough, that's happened all three seasons he's been back, including the 2004 6-10 season and the 2006 5-11 season. A hallmark of his teams during the month of December is to pound the ball in the cold, wet weather. To me that means that if there's a time when the carries start to skew towards Portis and away from Betts (assuming no injuries of course) it's later in the year. That's when he'll ride his horse the hardest. If that's an influence that I'm reading correctly, that would mean that Betts would have relatively more value early in the year, and Portis would have relatively more value later on. Portis may be a good "buy-low" candidate come October or early November.
6 of the 12 playoff teams did use RBBCindyNEChiDallasNYJNOSo we can expect San Diego, Rams and Chiefs all to to a RBBC because it worked for Chicago and Indy?
But the question that needs to be asked isTBD said:6 of the 12 playoff teams did use RBBCindyNEChiDallasNYJNOSo we can expect San Diego, Rams and Chiefs all to to a RBBC because it worked for Chicago and Indy?
id thse teams make the playoffs because they are a RBBC team? I'm leaning towards NO. JMHO though 
Yeah, idiots......Oh wait, LJ cut into Holmes production BIG TIME.Its about as funny as people thinking Blaylock would split carries with Holmes
only after Holmes got injuredYeah, idiots......Oh wait, LJ cut into Holmes production BIG TIME.
i say nomade it due to QBs(but for the BearsBut the question that needs to be asked isTBD said:6 of the 12 playoff teams did use RBBCindyNEChiDallasNYJNOSo we can expect San Diego, Rams and Chiefs all to to a RBBC because it worked for Chicago and Indy?
), solid DEF and coachingNumbers before Holmes got injured:LJ-75 carries for 399 yards and 4 touchdowns 5.32 ypcHolmes-119 carries for 451 yards and 6 touchdowns 3.79 ypcHolmes did have 21 catches for 197 yards and a touchdown to LJ's 6 catches for 67 yards and 0 touchdowns.Still, I would say that LJ cut into Holmes production well before the injury.only after Holmes got injuredYeah, idiots......Oh wait, LJ cut into Holmes production BIG TIME.
The situations aren't similar whatsoever except that LJ and Betts were backups. Portis >> BettsYeah, idiots......Oh wait, LJ cut into Holmes production BIG TIME.
When was the last time a QB won the passing title and won a super bowl? It’s a team sport but success is not limited to teams that split carries between two backs. It works for some teams and it’s getting a little more popular but its influence is also a little over blown. There are only a few real running back by committees and most of those last year involved young rookies who aren’t normally given the full load their first years anyway. A team using mostly one back can be just as good or better as teams using two or more. It just all depends on the situation and players.I won't believe Gibbs till I see it. Portis is better, and in the end you want your best guy out there. Gibbs is historically not a RBBC guy and I think things will look a lot like they did before Portis got hurt last year. If Betts goes over 175 carries I'd be surprised.you are reading into my options a little to muchSo we can expect San Diego, Rams and Chiefs all to to a RBBC because it worked for Chicago and Indy?
Totally agree (although I'm not a Skins fan
) I'm surprised by the # of posters on this board that are considering Betts a serious threat to Portis. Last year was a lost year for Portis which began with the shoulder injury and ended with a broken hand.Is Portis 31 years old? Is Betts a former 1st round pick? Here's another fun difference for you: Betts is actually 2 years OLDER than Portis. Completely apples and oranges.Betts is another in a long line of backup RB's that filled in when the starter went down and will now fade back to obscurity.Numbers before Holmes got injured:LJ-75 carries for 399 yards and 4 touchdowns 5.32 ypcHolmes-119 carries for 451 yards and 6 touchdowns 3.79 ypcHolmes did have 21 catches for 197 yards and a touchdown to LJ's 6 catches for 67 yards and 0 touchdowns.Still, I would say that LJ cut into Holmes production well before the injury.only after Holmes got injuredYeah, idiots......Oh wait, LJ cut into Holmes production BIG TIME.Its about as funny as people thinking Blaylock would split carries with Holmes
Totally agree (although I'm not a Skins fan) I'm surprised by the # of posters on this board that are considering Betts a serious threat to Portis. Last year was a lost year for Portis which began with the shoulder injury and ended with a broken hand.
In terms of the sum total of his talents, Betts is firmly part of the second tier of RB's in the league that, in the right situation can start and be successful, but more often is a backup to someone else. In recent years, such RB's (again, in terms of overall quality, not skillset) have included Lamont Jordan, Dominc Rhodes, Mike Anderson, Reuben Droughns, Correll Buckhalter, Najeh Davenport, Tatum Bell, etc. In other words while they have some talent, even remarkable talent, there are serious flaws or limitations in their game which hamper their abilities enough for their teams to want someone else at the position. He, like Rhodes was behind Edge, is a great guy to have in the rotation at RB, but you won't rely upon him over the course of a season if you have a better option, and the Redskins have that option in Portis.
Im glad you think Betts = LJMaybe Im delusional but I think he's closer to BlaylockYeah, idiots......Oh wait, LJ cut into Holmes production BIG TIME.
redman said:
100%
Its about as funny as people thinking Blaylock would split carries with Holmes
