On The Rocks
Evil Conservative
I have him listed at #4 on my RB's for next year. Does anyone else have him that high? And does anyone have him higher?
Really? You don't think that SA not getting signed in Sea or some serious changes to the KC Oline could have a large impact on that?That being said, I don't think you can put him above LT, SA, and LJ in any scenario.
I guess I shouldnt have said "any", instead should have said " any likely" - I see SA leaving Seattle as highly unlikely, and I also assume the KC line will be intact. If SA was a Cardinal, or 2/5 of the KC line retired, I would reconsider.Really? You don't think that SA not getting signed in Sea or some serious changes to the KC Oline could have a large impact on that?That being said, I don't think you can put him above LT, SA, and LJ in any scenario.
I say no. However, I would say that Saunders+Gibbs >>> Gibbs.Saunders>Gibbs?
Not necessarily. Gibbs and Saunders made it clear why Saunders was brought in to be the OC. Being a HC today involves some different things than it did during Gibbs 1.0. Gibbs used to be able to just sit in his office all day and scheme an offense. Now, he is much more involved in player evaluation and other stuff like contracts and the salary cap. Gibbs, without Saunders, took his offense from almost dead last in 2004 to the top third of the league in 2005. Gibbs realized his offense probably wouldn't make another great leap without some help because he also needs to dedicate much of his time this offseason to things other than retooling the offense.Saunders>Gibbs?
Pretty much everyone who's a candidate as a top 5 RB is in the same boat except LJ. In other words, it doesn't concern me at all. If it did, I'd also have to have the same conerns for SA, LT, Tiki, Edge, etc..Looking at his numbers, my top concern would be the number of carries he is getting. He's had 343 and 352 in his first two years with Washington. Hard to find many guys that keep that up. That doesn't mean he will get hurt, but he may just wear down a little have a year where his numbers are a little lower.
On the other hand, maybe it should concern you because the top 5 RBs vary quite a bit from year to year. Repeat placement in top 5 yardage:Pretty much everyone who's a candidate as a top 5 RB is in the same boat except LJ. In other words, it doesn't concern me at all. If it did, I'd also have to have the same conerns for SA, LT, Tiki, Edge, etc..Looking at his numbers, my top concern would be the number of carries he is getting. He's had 343 and 352 in his first two years with Washington. Hard to find many guys that keep that up. That doesn't mean he will get hurt, but he may just wear down a little have a year where his numbers are a little lower.
So you're not going to put SA, LT, and LJ in your top 5?On the other hand, maybe it should concern you because the top 5 RBs vary quite a bit from year to year. Repeat placement in top 5 yardage:Pretty much everyone who's a candidate as a top 5 RB is in the same boat except LJ. In other words, it doesn't concern me at all. If it did, I'd also have to have the same conerns for SA, LT, Tiki, Edge, etc..Looking at his numbers, my top concern would be the number of carries he is getting. He's had 343 and 352 in his first two years with Washington. Hard to find many guys that keep that up. That doesn't mean he will get hurt, but he may just wear down a little have a year where his numbers are a little lower.
2005: 3/5
2004: 0/5
2003: 2/5
2002: 1/5
2001: 0/5
Looking at the last 5 seasons of top 5 RBs (by rushing yards), only 6 of the 25 have repeated as a top 5 back. In two of the years, none did.
Good thing that he was the #6 back last year then.On the other hand, maybe it should concern you because the top 5 RBs vary quite a bit from year to year. Repeat placement in top 5 yardage:Pretty much everyone who's a candidate as a top 5 RB is in the same boat except LJ. In other words, it doesn't concern me at all. If it did, I'd also have to have the same conerns for SA, LT, Tiki, Edge, etc..Looking at his numbers, my top concern would be the number of carries he is getting. He's had 343 and 352 in his first two years with Washington. Hard to find many guys that keep that up. That doesn't mean he will get hurt, but he may just wear down a little have a year where his numbers are a little lower.
2005: 3/5
2004: 0/5
2003: 2/5
2002: 1/5
2001: 0/5
Looking at the last 5 seasons of top 5 RBs (by rushing yards), only 6 of the 25 have repeated as a top 5 back. In two of the years, none did.
As a Portis owner and Redskins fan, that's my hope. I can only remember a couple traditional RB screens the past two years and they were usually blown up because of missed blocks. They've thrown a couple screens to him split out wide like a WR. I remember he did very well with one against SD.I think what this will do will get Portis more involved in the passing game with tosses and screen passes. Get him out in space where his quickness can be used to make people miss. Less pounding will be good for him. More catches will make him worth more in FF and worthy of a top spot in the draft.
that's true. After all, the Ravens had great QB play when Jamal Lewis went for over 2,000 yardsUntil they find an answer at QB, i think he drops a notch or 2. Top ten? yes, top 5? Nope.
I've never been able to figure out why Lewis was so successful that season. Everybody knew the Ravens couldn't pass yet Lewis still got his yards, granted he was lucky enough to get 4 games versus Cleveland and Cincinnati. However despite his accomplishments, I think it's usually a safe bet to knock a RB with no passing game down a peg or two. If Brunell starts I hardly think you can say the Skins have no passing game. However if Campbell is given the reisn I could see Portis regressing the same way McGahee did this year.Even with Brunell, I still think I'd take Tiki Barber over Portis. I'd consider Rudi Johnson too.that's true. After all, the Ravens had great QB play when Jamal Lewis went for over 2,000 yardsUntil they find an answer at QB, i think he drops a notch or 2. Top ten? yes, top 5? Nope.
and here i thought your sig line was about LT. (yes..i know...Eph. 3:20)I think this is mainly misunderstood. How many times has LT been a top 3 RB? Still, we gladly draft him 1.01. Why? He is most likely to be a top 3-5 RB. We take this too far that the top back should produce exactly where drafted. I think the part missing is the risk exposure. Even with LT missing late in the season and disappointing his owners, he still will be drafted in the top two in almost every draft. Most would agree that, at this time, he offers less risk that one of, or both, LJ or SA.