Clinton Portis (1 Viewer)

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Coaching Blindspots:

Lovie - Rex

Gibbs - RBBC

Norv - The Known Universe

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Portis fumbles often.

The last time Portis lost a fumble was November 20th, 2005. Betts has lost 4 in that time-span.

How big was Romo's fumble last year? Wasn't it a Bledsoe fumble that was the last straw and started Romo's career?

Bledsoe was on the hotseat for weeks worth of pitiful performances before that. Portis' fumble was nowhere near the magnitude of Romo's in the playoffs, not even on the same plane of existence. But that said, even with Romo's fumble being orders of magnitude BIGGER, you can bet your bottom dollar he would've been in there on the next series had they had one more shot with the ball to win the game.

You guys don't like the theory, that's fine but a coach sticking to his rules is essential to running a team.

Do you mean to claim that any time anyone on Washington fumbles they will be benched no matter the situation? That would be quite a claim. This was not Portis' third fumble of the game. This was not his third fumble in the last three weeks. These are situations where you bench a guy for fumbling. This was not even his third fumble in the last two years. Fumbles are going to happen with any player eventually, you mean to say that when they happen Gibbs will immediately bench them even with the game on the line?

Some are acting as if he put in some shmoo RB not the guy that was their leading rusher in 2006 with 1150 yards or so.

Compared to Portis, Betts is kind of a shmoo EDIT: But the main point here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that Portis was in the game in between the time he fumbled and that last goaline series. So what you're basically saying is that Portis fumbled, he let him play a little bit more, and THEN pulled him for the fumble after he had already been back in the game.

 

[Double_J]

Portis fumbles often.

The last time Portis lost a fumble was November 20th, 2005. Betts has lost 4 in that time-span.

How big was Romo's fumble last year? Wasn't it a Bledsoe fumble that was the last straw and started Romo's career?

Bledsoe was on the hotseat for weeks worth of pitiful performances before that. Portis' fumble was nowhere near the magnitude of Romo's in the playoffs, not even on the same plane of existence. But that said, even with Romo's fumble being orders of magnitude BIGGER, you can bet your bottom dollar he would've been in there on the next series had they had one more shot with the ball to win the game.

You guys don't like the theory, that's fine but a coach sticking to his rules is essential to running a team.

Do you mean to claim that any time anyone on Washington fumbles they will be benched no matter the situation? That would be quite a claim. This was not Portis' third fumble of the game. This was not his third fumble in the last three weeks. These are situations where you bench a guy for fumbling. This was not even his third fumble in the last two years. Fumbles are going to happen with any player eventually, you mean to say that when they happen Gibbs will immediately bench them even with the game on the line?

Some are acting as if he put in some shmoo RB not the guy that was their leading rusher in 2006 with 1150 yards or so.

Compared to Portis, Betts is kind of a shmoo EDIT: But the main point here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that Portis was in the game in between the time he fumbled and that last goaline series. So what you're basically saying is that Portis fumbled, he let him play a little bit more, and THEN pulled him for the fumble after he had already been back in the game.

 

[Pound]

Gibbs was trying to be cute. Nothing more. He wanted to try and trick the Giants with some run plays and thought if Portis was in there they'd be less likely to be fooled. Thats the only explination that makes sense to me. The 1st down spike was obviously ######ed. Run a play! They practice this 2-minute drill sometimes right?

 

[Bri]

Portis fumbles often.

The last time Portis lost a fumble was November 20th, 2005. Betts has lost 4 in that time-span.

How big was Romo's fumble last year? Wasn't it a Bledsoe fumble that was the last straw and started Romo's career?

Bledsoe was on the hotseat for weeks worth of pitiful performances before that. Portis' fumble was nowhere near the magnitude of Romo's in the playoffs, not even on the same plane of existence. But that said, even with Romo's fumble being orders of magnitude BIGGER, you can bet your bottom dollar he would've been in there on the next series had they had one more shot with the ball to win the game.

You guys don't like the theory, that's fine but a coach sticking to his rules is essential to running a team.

Do you mean to claim that any time anyone on Washington fumbles they will be benched no matter the situation? That would be quite a claim. This was not Portis' third fumble of the game. This was not his third fumble in the last three weeks. These are situations where you bench a guy for fumbling. This was not even his third fumble in the last two years. Fumbles are going to happen with any player eventually, you mean to say that when they happen Gibbs will immediately bench them even with the game on the line?

Some are acting as if he put in some shmoo RB not the guy that was their leading rusher in 2006 with 1150 yards or so.

Compared to Portis, Betts is kind of a shmoo EDIT: But the main point here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that Portis was in the game in between the time he fumbled and that last goaline series. So what you're basically saying is that Portis fumbled, he let him play a little bit more, and THEN pulled him for the fumble after he had already been back in the game.

nice snips

 

[Bri]

EDIT: But the main point here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that Portis was in the game in between the time he fumbled and that last goaline series. So what you're basically saying is that Portis fumbled, he let him play a little bit more, and THEN pulled him for the fumble after he had already been back in the game.

how many times did I say he was struggling in the second half?

 

[Tanner9919]

He fumbled and easy handoff and didn't have his head in the gameGibbs is old schoolIIRC Shanny did the same thing to Portis

Portis did have a fumble, but Portis played quite well in the game. He ran hard with limited holes and caught 6 balls out of the back field although he did drop an easy pass. He had a couple of huge blocks as well and Gibbs is going to regret not having him in there at the end of the game.

I don't know, 14-60 is really mundane,against a lousy defense like the giants have.Portis looks OK, but he's not going to be that 1400-1500 yard RB he used to be.at this rate, he'll barely squeak out 1,000 yards. He does run hard,but needs to get the ball more often, as in 25-30 carries/gm..then you'd see his stats go thru the roof!until that happens, I view him as a decent #2 RB, that is, as long as he keeps scoring TDs..

 

[fatness]

Washington Post

"We took a shot with our two best running plays at the end," Gibbs said, "then called those into the huddle and told Jason we'll just go two of 'em in a row, because we felt like that was our best chance."

Some players said the two running plays called for were almost identical, while others said they were identical. Ladell Betts, the ballcarrier, said the call was the same as on a running play in the first quarter, when Clinton Portis easily scored from the 1. But this time, Portis watched from the sideline.



"It didn't look as pretty as when Clinton ran it," Betts said.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

It sure looked identical to me.

 

[MaddHatter]

Coaching Blindspots:Lovie - Rex Gibbs - RBBCNorv - The Known Universe

 

[Big Score]

EDIT: But the main point here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that Portis was in the game in between the time he fumbled and that last goaline series. So what you're basically saying is that Portis fumbled, he let him play a little bit more, and THEN pulled him for the fumble after he had already been back in the game.

how many times did I say he was struggling in the second half?

Doesn't really matter how many times you said Portis was struggling to run the ball in the 2nd half, because he wasn't. While none of the 2nd half Portis runs were outstanding, all 4 runs went for positive yardage. And he DEFINITELY wasn't struggling to run the ball, compared to Betts 2nd half runs.

2nd half carries

Portis 4 rushes for 15 yards (3,3,8 & 1) = 3.75 ypc

Betts 2 rushes for -2 yards (0 & -2) = -1.0 ypc

 

[CowboyFan]

Washington Post

"We took a shot with our two best running plays at the end," Gibbs said, "then called those into the huddle and told Jason we'll just go two of 'em in a row, because we felt like that was our best chance."

Some players said the two running plays called for were almost identical, while others said they were identical. Ladell Betts, the ballcarrier, said the call was the same as on a running play in the first quarter, when Clinton Portis easily scored from the 1. But this time, Portis watched from the sideline.



"It didn't look as pretty as when Clinton ran it," Betts said.

Do you feel the diff. was the runner or the blocking? Those plays looked pretty stuffed, so unless Portis tied on his cape and flew into the endzone, it wouldn't have mattered (IMO).No one seems to care that they wasted a down spiking the ball with over a min. left?? That was the bigger mistake to me.

 

[shadyridr]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

 

[Koya]

EDIT: But the main point here, which you have yet to acknowledge, is that Portis was in the game in between the time he fumbled and that last goaline series. So what you're basically saying is that Portis fumbled, he let him play a little bit more, and THEN pulled him for the fumble after he had already been back in the game.

how many times did I say he was struggling in the second half?

LT2 has struggled in halves too.Walter Payton did at times.Their coaches werent stupid enough to bench them. Your arguements here does not hold water, why do people insist on holding onto their "arguement" in the face of so much evidence to the contrary on these boards I dont know.

 

[Righetti]

Betts looked like he tripped on himself on one of those runs.

end of the day.. Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts has a nose for the dirt right in front of the endzone.. no reasonable explanation why you run 2 running plays without your best back carrying the rock.

also.. I was surprised that they didn't have Portis in during any of the the hurry up..

this is one of those situation where the starter is clearly

1) more explosive

2) better at picking up the blitz

3) better goal-line back

4) better decoy

than the backup..

I can't think of a single part of the game where Betts outshines Portis

 

[Keys Myaths]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

Yeah, except the part where the clock stopped after 2nd down, and there was 43 seconds left after third down (more than the play clock).No time at all.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Betts looked like he tripped on himself on one of those runs.

end of the day.. Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts has a nose for the dirt right in front of the endzone.. no reasonable explanation why you run 2 running plays without your best back carrying the rock.

also.. I was surprised that they didn't have Portis in during any of the the hurry up..

this is one of those situation where the starter is clearly

1) more explosive

2) better at picking up the blitz

3) better goal-line back

4) better decoy

than the backup..

I can't think of a single part of the game where Betts outshines Portis

Betts might be a better receiver, but your point is valid. Portis should have been in there in the end.

 

[Payne]

Washington Post

"We took a shot with our two best running plays at the end," Gibbs said, "then called those into the huddle and told Jason we'll just go two of 'em in a row, because we felt like that was our best chance."

Some players said the two running plays called for were almost identical, while others said they were identical. Ladell Betts, the ballcarrier, said the call was the same as on a running play in the first quarter, when Clinton Portis easily scored from the 1. But this time, Portis watched from the sideline.



"It didn't look as pretty as when Clinton ran it," Betts said.

Really?!?

 

[shadyridr]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

Yeah, except the part where the clock stopped after 2nd down, and there was 43 seconds left after third down (more than the play clock).No time at all.

Did you see this part of my message or just glance right over it?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Betts looked like he tripped on himself on one of those runs.end of the day.. Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts has a nose for the dirt right in front of the endzone.. no reasonable explanation why you run 2 running plays without your best back carrying the rock.also.. I was surprised that they didn't have Portis in during any of the the hurry up.. this is one of those situation where the starter is clearly 1) more explosive2) better at picking up the blitz3) better goal-line back4) better decoythan the backup.. I can't think of a single part of the game where Betts outshines Portis

Betts is better than Portis at being a backup to Portis, although this is debateable.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

Yeah, except the part where the clock stopped after 2nd down, and there was 43 seconds left after third down (more than the play clock).No time at all.

Did you see this part of my message or just glance right over it?

Didn't care, quite honestly.

 

[redman]

Washington Post

"We took a shot with our two best running plays at the end," Gibbs said, "then called those into the huddle and told Jason we'll just go two of 'em in a row, because we felt like that was our best chance."

Some players said the two running plays called for were almost identical, while others said they were identical. Ladell Betts, the ballcarrier, said the call was the same as on a running play in the first quarter, when Clinton Portis easily scored from the 1. But this time, Portis watched from the sideline.



"It didn't look as pretty as when Clinton ran it," Betts said.

Do you feel the diff. was the runner or the blocking? Those plays looked pretty stuffed, so unless Portis tied on his cape and flew into the endzone, it wouldn't have mattered (IMO).No one seems to care that they wasted a down spiking the ball with over a min. left?? That was the bigger mistake to me.

The first play made no difference. What occurred to me is watching the second one, though, is that where Betts got tripped up by someone going left, the more nimble Portis might have broken that tackle and would have had more or less of a clear shot to the pylon. It's all guesswork, though. The bottom line is that the best RB was not in the lineup to run the two most critical plays in the game.

 

[teamroc]

Not exactly sure what this thread is about. Portis is clearly better then Betts. That's not even a debate.

As for the end of the game, Gibbs has largely choked in every single time management situation since he's been back. Maybe it's because he has trouble watching at the end. Whatever touch Gibbs used to have, it doesn't exist anymore. The Skins shoot themselves in the foot more then any team I've seen in recent memory. Maybe it's too many cooks in the kitchen, maybe he's too old.

I've seen 5-6 redskin games the last 2 years, and the 2nd of the half and end of the game the Skins usually look awful. Poor timeouts, poor play calling, you're not sure if they want to go for it, or play for overtime. I'm not even sure kicking that FG is overtime last week was the right move. Gibbs isn't cool under pressure, and I just don't see them doing much with him running the show.

And yes, Portis needed to be in there.

 

[redman]

Betts looked like he tripped on himself on one of those runs.

end of the day.. Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts has a nose for the dirt right in front of the endzone.. no reasonable explanation why you run 2 running plays without your best back carrying the rock.

also.. I was surprised that they didn't have Portis in during any of the the hurry up..

this is one of those situation where the starter is clearly

1) more explosive

2) better at picking up the blitz

3) better goal-line back

4) better decoy

than the backup..

I can't think of a single part of the game where Betts outshines Portis

Betts might be a better receiver, but your point is valid. Portis should have been in there in the end.

Betts is definitely a better receiver, which is not to say that Portis is bad for a RB; Portis is probably above average. Betts just looks phenomenally fluid catching the ball in motion, and his hands are better in that regard too.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Betts looked like he tripped on himself on one of those runs.

end of the day.. Portis has a nose for the endzone and Betts has a nose for the dirt right in front of the endzone.. no reasonable explanation why you run 2 running plays without your best back carrying the rock.

also.. I was surprised that they didn't have Portis in during any of the the hurry up..

this is one of those situation where the starter is clearly

1) more explosive

2) better at picking up the blitz

3) better goal-line back

4) better decoy

than the backup..

I can't think of a single part of the game where Betts outshines Portis

Betts might be a better receiver, but your point is valid. Portis should have been in there in the end.

Betts is definitely a better receiver, which is not to say that Portis is bad for a RB; Portis is probably above average. Betts just looks phenomenally fluid catching the ball in motion, and his hands are better in that regard too.

I agree. Good to see him snag six catches yesterday, though.

 

[shadyridr]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

Yeah, except the part where the clock stopped after 2nd down, and there was 43 seconds left after third down (more than the play clock).No time at all.

Did you see this part of my message or just glance right over it?

Didn't care, quite honestly.

Cared enough to respond

 

[Righetti]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits..

so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.

For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

 

[redman]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits.. so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

In theory, you should be right, but I haven't necessarily seen that actually put into practice this year. What seems to influence the lineup switches (aside from Portis' late-game absence yesterday) between the two RB's more than any other factor appears simply to be management of the number of carries for Portis. They really seem to be trying to keep Portis under 20 carries per game, which is a surprise to me frankly but it's obviously been effective at keeping him fresh and healthy so far.

 

[Wilbur Wood]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits.. so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

Portis is also a better tackler than Betts following an interception by the Skins QB.

 

[Keys Myaths]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

Yeah, except the part where the clock stopped after 2nd down, and there was 43 seconds left after third down (more than the play clock).No time at all.

Did you see this part of my message or just glance right over it?

Didn't care, quite honestly.

Cared enough to respond

Serious Business.

Besides, I was mainly referring to the 40 seconds left AFTER third down, which you didn't address. You said, "there wasn't many opportunities to take Betts out of the game", when the only time Portis was needed over Betts was the last two plays.

 

[Koya]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits.. so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

In theory, you should be right, but I haven't necessarily seen that actually put into practice this year. What seems to influence the lineup switches (aside from Portis' late-game absence yesterday) between the two RB's more than any other factor appears simply to be management of the number of carries for Portis. They really seem to be trying to keep Portis under 20 carries per game, which is a surprise to me frankly but it's obviously been effective at keeping him fresh and healthy so far.

Fresh and healthy should have NOTHING to do with a GAME TYING LAST MINUTE TD INSIDE THE 10 YARDLINE. That is not when you say "well, we want to keep this guy under "x" amount of touches" Gibbs is going to finally get himself fired by not utilizing his players. Perhaps the game has moved by him once and for all.

 

[fatness]

Do you feel the diff. was the runner or the blocking? Those plays looked pretty stuffed, so unless Portis tied on his cape and flew into the endzone, it wouldn't have mattered (IMO).

I felt it was both. The blocking on the first play (third down) wasn't good, but Portis is just quicker and more violent through a small hole than Betts is, and there's a better possibility he could have scored. The blocking on the second play (fourth down) was bad, and Betts tripped while getting started. The only way the second play would have worked would be if the RB could have bounced outside and outrun someone. Only one of them, Portis, had the ability to do that. They had the wrong RB in the game.

 

[-jb-]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits..

He LEVELED Antonio Pierce on that one pass play...and still had enough to go back and hit him again when he tried to get up. Antonio Pierce is no slouch either.

 

[tomdeck]

I am loving what he has provided so far. He is outperforming his ADP as expected, all but being in a RBBC. He is off next week, but returns week 5 against DET, then GB, ARI before taking on NE. I know GB isn't the same old pushover defense, but I still like his prospects. Anybody disagree and selling him high? I am staying put.

I am selling him high. Trading him for LJ and either WRs, S. Holmes or J. Avant. The LJ owner is HUGE skins fan and has been disappointed with LJ, but I am pulling this trigger as soon as I can.

 

[redman]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits.. so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

In theory, you should be right, but I haven't necessarily seen that actually put into practice this year. What seems to influence the lineup switches (aside from Portis' late-game absence yesterday) between the two RB's more than any other factor appears simply to be management of the number of carries for Portis. They really seem to be trying to keep Portis under 20 carries per game, which is a surprise to me frankly but it's obviously been effective at keeping him fresh and healthy so far.

Fresh and healthy should have NOTHING to do with a GAME TYING LAST MINUTE TD INSIDE THE 10 YARDLINE. That is not when you say "well, we want to keep this guy under "x" amount of touches" Gibbs is going to finally get himself fired by not utilizing his players. Perhaps the game has moved by him once and for all.

Gibbs won't get fired. He's essentially Washington's version of Lombardi in Green Bay. I agree with everything else you said, though.

 

[PantherPower]

I've never been upset at Coach Gibbs, until yesterday. There is just no excuse for having Portis on the bench. The play calling was horrible. And yes, the clock management has been a problem since his return. I love the man, I really do, but its hard to defend the 2nd half yesterday.

 

[One]

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

I read through the whole first page wondering when someone would point out that Betts is typically in on obvious passing downs. Like you said, why he didn't put him back in after they spiked the ball to stop the clock I'll never figure out.

 

[Koya]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

I read through the whole first page wondering when someone would point out that Betts is typically in on obvious passing downs. Like you said, why he didn't put him back in after they spiked the ball to stop the clock I'll never figure out.

For those of us following the Skins/Portis, it should be known that Betts is in there during the two minute drill and passing downs. But again, our issue was wtf was Portis not put in when they got close to the goaline - something which Gibbs HAD done every time previous this season (at least that I saw).

 

[Koya]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits.. so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

In theory, you should be right, but I haven't necessarily seen that actually put into practice this year. What seems to influence the lineup switches (aside from Portis' late-game absence yesterday) between the two RB's more than any other factor appears simply to be management of the number of carries for Portis. They really seem to be trying to keep Portis under 20 carries per game, which is a surprise to me frankly but it's obviously been effective at keeping him fresh and healthy so far.

Fresh and healthy should have NOTHING to do with a GAME TYING LAST MINUTE TD INSIDE THE 10 YARDLINE. That is not when you say "well, we want to keep this guy under "x" amount of touches" Gibbs is going to finally get himself fired by not utilizing his players. Perhaps the game has moved by him once and for all.

Gibbs won't get fired. He's essentially Washington's version of Lombardi in Green Bay. I agree with everything else you said, though.

I would have agreed with you up until now - and do agree that Gibbs' firing is unlikely. However, if he goes through ANOTHER mediocre or worse season where it becomes apparant that the game may very well have passed him by, I wonder how forgiving the fans and ownership will be. Because I dont remember Lombardi sucking it up for YEARS after his championship seasons in the same City that saw those championships. Gibbs will have to WORK on getting fired or even getting to the hot seat. And with stupid decisions like yesterday, he is doing just that.Curious to see how the two weeks without a game go in the DC press.

 

[redman]

One thing which really stood out yesterday is how good Portis is at blitz pickup and protection.. I have often read that this is not one of Betts' strong suits..

so although Betts maybe the better receiver the fact that Portis is so dominant in blitz pickup doesn't make Betts the obvious third down back in terms of what they bring.

For example if the SKins are going against a blitz heavy team (jim johnson's eagles for example) i expect to see Portis play on more obvious passing plays while on more of the bend-don't-break defenses are situation where you can see Betts getting more 3rd down looks

In theory, you should be right, but I haven't necessarily seen that actually put into practice this year. What seems to influence the lineup switches (aside from Portis' late-game absence yesterday) between the two RB's more than any other factor appears simply to be management of the number of carries for Portis. They really seem to be trying to keep Portis under 20 carries per game, which is a surprise to me frankly but it's obviously been effective at keeping him fresh and healthy so far.

Fresh and healthy should have NOTHING to do with a GAME TYING LAST MINUTE TD INSIDE THE 10 YARDLINE. That is not when you say "well, we want to keep this guy under "x" amount of touches" Gibbs is going to finally get himself fired by not utilizing his players. Perhaps the game has moved by him once and for all.

Gibbs won't get fired. He's essentially Washington's version of Lombardi in Green Bay. I agree with everything else you said, though.

I would have agreed with you up until now - and do agree that Gibbs' firing is unlikely. However, if he goes through ANOTHER mediocre or worse season where it becomes apparant that the game may very well have passed him by, I wonder how forgiving the fans and ownership will be. Because I dont remember Lombardi sucking it up for YEARS after his championship seasons in the same City that saw those championships. Gibbs will have to WORK on getting fired or even getting to the hot seat. And with stupid decisions like yesterday, he is doing just that.

Curious to see how the two weeks without a game go in the DC press.

It'll be brutal - the worst time for this to have happened. They'll take at least a week to remember that they're 2-1 and still ahead of Philly and the Giants in the division.

 

[kncks12]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

I read through the whole first page wondering when someone would point out that Betts is typically in on obvious passing downs. Like you said, why he didn't put him back in after they spiked the ball to stop the clock I'll never figure out.

For those of us following the Skins/Portis, it should be known that Betts is in there during the two minute drill and passing downs. But again, our issue was wtf was Portis not put in when they got close to the goaline - something which Gibbs HAD done every time previous this season (at least that I saw).

This is not entirely true. Portis was in a lot on passing downs yesterday. On one blitz he drilled the blitzing linebacker an protected Campbell so he was able to get out of pocket and go for big gain by run. Portis also caught a few balls on third down. He dropped the one in third quarter on big third down which put him on bench. I own portis, and clearly he was in another world in 2nd half and the reason he sat a bit. He still should have been in there at the end of the game.

 

[Koya]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

I read through the whole first page wondering when someone would point out that Betts is typically in on obvious passing downs. Like you said, why he didn't put him back in after they spiked the ball to stop the clock I'll never figure out.

For those of us following the Skins/Portis, it should be known that Betts is in there during the two minute drill and passing downs. But again, our issue was wtf was Portis not put in when they got close to the goaline - something which Gibbs HAD done every time previous this season (at least that I saw).

This is not entirely true. Portis was in a lot on passing downs yesterday. On one blitz he drilled the blitzing linebacker an protected Campbell so he was able to get out of pocket and go for big gain by run. Portis also caught a few balls on third down. He dropped the one in third quarter on big third down which put him on bench. I own portis, and clearly he was in another world in 2nd half and the reason he sat a bit. He still should have been in there at the end of the game.

From my observations, Betts seems to get most of his play on passing downs, especially in the two minute offense. Portis is there on some passing downs but that is Betts' primary role as I have seen it, in addition to being the backup.Regardless, no excuse to have the lesser player in during the games most important set of downs.

 

[kensat30]

I think that for whatever reason Gibbs had Betts in there cuz he likes him as his 3rd down back. And since the Redskins were in a hurry and had no more timeouts there wasnt many opporunities to take Betts out of the game. Then ther skins got down to the 1 yd line and the Giants had to call a time out so Gibbs couldve put Portis into the game but for some reason it slipped his mind. Bad coaching right there.

I read through the whole first page wondering when someone would point out that Betts is typically in on obvious passing downs. Like you said, why he didn't put him back in after they spiked the ball to stop the clock I'll never figure out.

For those of us following the Skins/Portis, it should be known that Betts is in there during the two minute drill and passing downs. But again, our issue was wtf was Portis not put in when they got close to the goaline - something which Gibbs HAD done every time previous this season (at least that I saw).

This is not entirely true. Portis was in a lot on passing downs yesterday. On one blitz he drilled the blitzing linebacker an protected Campbell so he was able to get out of pocket and go for big gain by run. Portis also caught a few balls on third down. He dropped the one in third quarter on big third down which put him on bench. I own portis, and clearly he was in another world in 2nd half and the reason he sat a bit. He still should have been in there at the end of the game.

From my observations, Betts seems to get most of his play on passing downs, especially in the two minute offense. Portis is there on some passing downs but that is Betts' primary role as I have seen it, in addition to being the backup.Regardless, no excuse to have the lesser player in during the games most important set of downs.

I'll agree with this. I think Betts was in there simply because he is part of the passing/2 minute/hurry up offense. Betts seems to be a little more involved in the passing game in general unless they gameplan to get Portis involved (this week obviously he was). The error in judgement came when they had 1 minute left in the game, they are inside the 5 yard line, with the game on the line, and Portis is still standing on the sidelines. There is no reason whatsoever that Portis should have been on the sidelines on 2nd down after they spiked the ball there. My belief is that Betts' was in there because 2nd down was a designed passing play and Betts is the normal RB in that situation. Then to leave Betts in the game for the 3rd down (and call a run to him), was probably a game losing mistake. I mean you've got Betts in there because you want to pass, and then you run him twice on 3rd and 4th = stupid.

 

[WiDDoW_MaKeR]

And why would the Redskins have him on the sideline and give the ball to Betts twice at the end of the game ?? What a blunder...

I was disgusted when they did that. I actually jumped up and down in enjoyment when Betts was stuffed twice. The redskins deserved that for having Portis on the sidelines.