What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Clinton Portis (1 Viewer)

I asked this in another thread but I don't anyone answered it. Those of you that attribute a large portion of Portis' success to the Denver offensive line, do you think it's the personnel or the system? A little of both? One more than the other? I've been looking for a breakdown of the Denver offensive line by year but haven't found anything yet. I would think they've had some turnover at the positions. Just curious.
The backs that have succeeded th emost in the Denver system are the backs who can make fast cutbacks and can accelerate through the hole. Take that as you will - the system is like SF's where you can plug a monkey in back there and he'll get 1200/8, get the right back in there, and you have the system to allow that back to get 1500/15.Chicken and egg - each make the other better.
 
Second, I never claimed he was the 5th best back, you mixed me up with someone else.
My bad, I saw a post where you had him top 5 but it mysteriously disappeared. I found one where you had him 2nd. Did this season change something? switz Posted: Apr 30 2003, 10:51 AM FootballguyGroup: MembersPosts: 1146Member No.: 1104Joined: 14-April 03 1. Tomlinson2. Portis3. James4. McCallister5. J Lewis6. Henry7. R Williams8. Faulk9. Holmes10. Alexander11. A Green12. F Taylor13. S Davis14. Garner15. Barber16. Hearst17. Dillon18. Staley19. Womack20. Martin21. OSmith22. Shipp23. CBrown24. Pittman25. W Green26. Dunn27. J Stewart28. Barlow29. Canidate30. AThomas
 
Second, I never claimed he was the 5th best back, you mixed me up with someone else.
My bad, I saw a post where you had him top 5 but it mysteriously disappeared. I found one where you had him 2nd. Did this season change something?
If he has him as the #2 back, he still has him top-5, and he does NOT have him as the 5th best back. Nes pa?
 
No vision? Flop?The reason he was a second round pick had 100% to do with size and that's it... if he had no vision AND was smallish he wuold have been a 4th or 5th round pick  :rolleyes: Seems to me all the people jealous b/c they don't got Portis on their squad are jumping out to knock him. Fae it, you screwed up in your rookie drafts.
Sorry switz but I saw him play at Miami too. I also grabbed him in the 2nd rd of my dynasty draft that year. I also traded him last year. I'll be here this time next year when he's no longer the top 3 back you envision. I don't have anything against Portis but go ahead and just negate where he plays and tell us all how he's a stud and you always knew it. Just make sure you remember it next year.
You're changing your tune already?First, I never said top-3, you said sub-950 yardsSecond, you go from saying he has no vision to now saying he's in a bad situation...classic :rolleyes:
Nes pa? I believe you should read the post before you come to the rescue. Or just stay out of it.
 
Why is it that you are only looking at Portis' performace vs. Indy rather than the entire teams? That was the worst Playoff performance I have ever seen by a team as a hole in that game by Den. The whole team looked like they were lost. So how was that game all Portis' fault?
I don't blame Portis for the pathetic D. But, he was the missing element on the O. Actually he wasn't the missing element, the line for running was. Without them opening chasms, Portis wasn't spinning, cutting, or anything. He was simply denied, lending credence that w/o the line, he cannot get it done. Portis carried the ball 17 times for 68 yards with a long of 11. Plummer completed 23 of 30 passes for 181 yards with one touchdown, two interceptions and a rating of 74.4. What was Portis missing? The long runs. Why? Because the line wasn't opening gaping holes. He was far below his average, while Jake was Jake. If Portis has his average game, the Broncos are maybe in the game, and the D plays with a bit of confidence. Yes, this is picking one game, out of what was a remarkable season. I'm just offering the counter argument that Portis is this great back. He's not. He's an above average back, in a system that makes any back in the system better. Oh yeah. Compare Griffons stats 2 weeks prior against that stellar Indi D. He carried the ball 28 times for 136 yards with a long of 22 and a 4.9 average gain per rush. That week, Jake was 14 of 17 passes with one touchdown pass and one interception. Plummer also had 2 rushing TD's that week, as the Broncos put up 31. Notice the main difference is the lack of a running game in the rematch, with Portis in?
 
I don't blame Portis for the pathetic D. But, he was the missing element on the O. Actually he wasn't the missing element, the line for running was. Without them opening chasms, Portis wasn't spinning, cutting, or anything. He was simply denied, lending credence that w/o the line, he cannot get it done. Portis carried the ball 17 times for 68 yards with a long of 11. Plummer completed 23 of 30 passes for 181 yards with one touchdown, two interceptions and a rating of 74.4. What was Portis missing? The long runs. Why? Because the line wasn't opening gaping holes. He was far below his average, while Jake was Jake. If Portis has his average game, the Broncos are maybe in the game, and the D plays with a bit of confidence. Yes, this is picking one game, out of what was a remarkable season. I'm just offering the counter argument that Portis is this great back. He's not. He's an above average back, in a system that makes any back in the system better. Oh yeah. Compare Griffons stats 2 weeks prior against that stellar Indi D. He carried the ball 28 times for 136 yards with a long of 22 and a 4.9 average gain per rush. That week, Jake was 14 of 17 passes with one touchdown pass and one interception. Plummer also had 2 rushing TD's that week, as the Broncos put up 31. Notice the main difference is the lack of a running game in the rematch, with Portis in?
I supose you think that Griffin made all of those runs by himself huh. Den Dominated that game the first time around on both sides of the ball and it started at the LOS. Griffin was running through huge holes that first game, holes that simply were not there in the 2nd game. Yeah Portis had only 68 yards on 17 carries and thats not great. It is however 4 YPC and if you were to tell me that on my RBs worst day he will get me 4 yards a pop, I would be jumping around that how happy it would make me. To put that in contrast to Griffin who you seem to think is so much better than Portis. Griffin all of last year only had a YPC of 3.7. So even in the game you site as Portis' worst all year, he still managed more efficiency then Griffin did over the the course of the year. Plus that Plummer comparison you put up there was terrible. Here are his stats from the game in week 16.... 14/17 (83%), 238yds 1/1. Playoff game.... 23/30 (77%), 181yds 1/2. If you can't see the difference in efficiency there, then I don't know what to say. On 12 less attempts he threw for 57 more yds. (so 6 yds per att vs. 14!) hardly the same! Not to mention 1 pick vs. 2.You know there is a saying in football that you can't beat a good team twice. Well in the 2nd game, Indy made the right ajustments and proved that theory correct. Because they controled that game even more so than the Broncos did the first time around. Dungy clearly had the Colts ready to play and learned from that meating in week 16. Den on the other hand appeared complacent and paid the ultimate price. The were sent home. I still don't see how this is to be on the shoulders of Portis alone. :thumbdown:
 
Quite a few people have stated, in this thread and others, that Bailey is a much more valuable player in the NFL than Portis.If this is so, why don't we see cornerbacks routinely picked in the top 5-10 positions in the draft, when that's where "sure-fire" RBs go?

 
Quite a few people have stated, in this thread and others, that Bailey is a much more valuable player in the NFL than Portis.If this is so, why don't we see cornerbacks routinely picked in the top 5-10 positions in the draft, when that's where "sure-fire" RBs go?
In the last 10 years, I count 10 RBs and 10 CBs that have gone in the top 10 picks of the draft.
 
Quite a few people have stated, in this thread and others, that Bailey is a much more valuable player in the NFL than Portis.

If this is so, why don't we see cornerbacks routinely picked in the top 5-10 positions in the draft, when that's where "sure-fire" RBs go?
In the last 10 years, I count 10 RBs and 10 CBs that have gone in the top 10 picks of the draft.
Ok, how many in the top 3-5?My point is that it seems to be only recently, with the whole Bailey deal, that people are saying a sure-fire CB is worth more than a sure-fire RB.

My question:

Since when?

 
Quite a few people have stated, in this thread and others, that Bailey is a much more valuable player in the NFL than Portis.

If this is so, why don't we see cornerbacks routinely picked in the top 5-10 positions in the draft, when that's where "sure-fire" RBs go?
In the last 10 years, I count 10 RBs and 10 CBs that have gone in the top 10 picks of the draft.
Ok, how many in the top 3-5?My point is that it seems to be only recently, with the whole Bailey deal, that people are saying a sure-fire CB is worth more than a sure-fire RB.

My question:

Since when?
I disagree with that statement. A sure fire CB can not do it alone, as he can be very easily take out of the game by not throwing to that side. He is only worth his money if you have a solid guy opposite him to force people to throw at both sides of the field IMO. Having two sure fire CBs in far more valuable than a sure fire RB (or anything else in the league as far as I can see), but I still see the guy who gets to touch the ball 15-25 times a game as of far greater value then a guy who may see 10 plays come his way if he is lucky.
 
Quite a few people have stated, in this thread and others, that Bailey is a much more valuable player in the NFL than Portis.

If this is so, why don't we see cornerbacks routinely picked in the top 5-10 positions in the draft, when that's where "sure-fire" RBs go?
In the last 10 years, I count 10 RBs and 10 CBs that have gone in the top 10 picks of the draft.
Ok, how many in the top 3-5?My point is that it seems to be only recently, with the whole Bailey deal, that people are saying a sure-fire CB is worth more than a sure-fire RB.

My question:

Since when?
Probably in the last 5 years teams have shifted from "you must stop the run" to "you must stop the pass". I've seen a ton of football people say "all you need is DE's and CB's and you have a good D". Steve Young blurts it out quite a bit.
 
I supose you think that Griffin made all of those runs by himself huh. Den Dominated that game the first time around on both sides of the ball and it started at the LOS. Griffin was running through huge holes that first game, holes that simply were not there in the 2nd game.
I think I said that with this line. Actually he wasn't the missing element, the line for running was. Without them opening chasms, Portis wasn't spinning, cutting, or anything. He was simply denied, lending credence that w/o the line, he cannot get it done.My argument is that Portis success is BECAUSE THE LINE OPENS CHASMS, allowing him to show his speed.
Yeah Portis had only 68 yards on 17 carries and thats not great. It is however 4 YPC and if you were to tell me that on my RBs worst day he will get me 4 yards a pop, I would be jumping around that how happy it would make me. To put that in contrast to Griffin who you seem to think is so much better than Portis. Griffin all of last year only had a YPC of 3.7. So even in the game you site as Portis' worst all year, he still managed more efficiency then Griffin did over the the course of the year.
That wasn't Portis worst game of the year, but the most important game for the Broncos all year. Portis worst game was actually week 6 against Pittsburgh where he gained only 47 yards on 15 carries with a long of 10. The Indi game is cited only because of the lack of a dominating line, freeing Portis from contact until he's 8 years down the field. I don't believe Griffing is 'so much better than Portis'. My premise is that if Portis leaves, there will be a negligable drop off in RB production w/ Griffin, or anybody, in there. Again. I don't believe Portis sucks. I actually believe he's a top 15 NFL back. I just believe that they system is as responsible for his gaudy numbers as he is. When there are chasms to run through, he produces. When there aren't, he doesn't. Whoever follows him in this system will meet the same fate. I believe his biggest asset is his speed. I believe that Griffin matches him in speed, allowing both to capitalize on the outstanding line blocking, and 2 of the best downfield blocking receivers I've witnessed (Hines Ward is IMHO the best), in Smith and Eddie Mac. With the blocking on that team, speed becomes the #1 asset to exploit that blocking. Both Griffin and Portis have that.
Plus that Plummer comparison you put up there was terrible. Here are his stats from the game in week 16.... 14/17 (83%), 238yds 1/1. Playoff game.... 23/30 (77%), 181yds 1/2. If you can't see the difference in efficiency there, then I don't know what to say. On 12 less attempts he threw for 57 more yds. (so 6 yds per att vs. 14!) hardly the same! Not to mention 1 pick vs. 2.
He connected on a 60 yard hail mary to Lelie (also used against the Browns a week or 2 earlier), as well as week 2. He heaves it up, and Lelie makes a catch. I didn't say Plummer had a great game, but 77% is a decent day for a QB. With a running game, the QB keeps them in. I wasn't making any other point other than Plummer did not suck in the playoff game.
You know there is a saying in football that you can't beat a good team twice.
Really? I've heard the cliche. But, I'd swear the Pats beat the 'fins, Colts and Titans each 2x last season. I consider all 3 to be very good teams. I will repeat again. The basis of my argument is not that Portis sucks, but that his success is more a result of the scheme/team, that he is in/on, that maximizes his #1 asset, which is speed. Because of this FACT, I believe that Griffin can fill the role, with minimal, if any, dropoff from Portis production. My other knock on Portis is that he's a sissy. He seems to sit out unless he's 100%. And, to top it off, my whole argument is wrapped in the premise that I feel getting Portis for Bailey and a top 50 pick is a great deal for the Broncos, and well worth parting with Portis and taking a chance on somebody else. Essentially you're getting a 1 and 2 for Portis, or a 2nd round pick. It's a no brainer to me.
 
Well PEMEN I am starting to understand your point a little better. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this. Because I think that Portis' skills have much more to do with his success than you and that clearly will not change. Something you have to realize though is that there have been very few RBs to have ever been able to put up big stats without a line opening up nice holes for them. The exceptions that come to mind first would be Barry and LT currently. I don't see you saying these things about the other guys like Holmes or Green who have got clearly better lines then Portis. I know the worst game of the season for Portis was the Steeler game as I myself happen to be a Steeler fan. That game was a joke on both ends as I recall though. Griese was out hurt and Buerline was playing QB. The Steelers showed absolutly no respect to the Den passing game and did nothing but consetrate on Portis. Pitt. almost won the game because of this strat., but couldn't pull it off thanks to no one on our D being able to catch. But hey you can't look back I guess. I will say that generally that cliche holds true, if you have two teams of similar levels that is. Therefor I don't think that you can use it in comparison to the Pats, as they were clearly IMO the best team last year. It wasn't even close. So yes they did best several good teams twice. But they did it because while those teams were good, they were great. That was not the case for either Den. or Indy though.I have posted this question before and no one would answer it, but maybe you will. Why is it that Portis gets taged as injury prone. Yes he missed time last year. But the times he did not play where coaches decisons not his own. As I recall he tried playing through the injury week 4 vs. Oak but got taken out by Shanny. Last year was the only time he has ever missed time for injury, so why all of a sudden after jsut one season missing a few games is this a fact about him. He was healthy through his 1st year in the league and had no history of this before entering the league. Does one occurance tag him for life. Several other RBs have overcome injuries so why can he not. Seems like if he just puts a little more work into it during the off-season by getting a bit bigger and stronger this could be a non issue.

 
Haven't read this whole thread but my opinion from watching Portis is that he is a flatout stud... at worst top 5 talent in the league. His size might be an issue but I think he will be able to stay healthy, and he runs with plenty of power between the tackles. I think he will be a difference maker in Washington.

 
Second, I never claimed he was the 5th best back, you mixed me up with someone else.
My bad, I saw a post where you had him top 5 but it mysteriously disappeared. I found one where you had him 2nd. Did this season change something? switz Posted: Apr 30 2003, 10:51 AM FootballguyGroup: MembersPosts: 1146Member No.: 1104Joined: 14-April 03 1. Tomlinson2. Portis3. James4. McCallister5. J Lewis6. Henry7. R Williams8. Faulk9. Holmes10. Alexander11. A Green12. F Taylor13. S Davis14. Garner15. Barber16. Hearst17. Dillon18. Staley19. Womack20. Martin21. OSmith22. Shipp23. CBrown24. Pittman25. W Green26. Dunn27. J Stewart28. Barlow29. Canidate30. AThomas
Yeah moron, April 2003 - obviously a projection for LAST season, not this season :rolleyes:
 
Second, I never claimed he was the 5th best back, you mixed me up with someone else.
My bad, I saw a post where you had him top 5 but it mysteriously disappeared. I found one where you had him 2nd. Did this season change something? switz Posted: Apr 30 2003, 10:51 AM FootballguyGroup: MembersPosts: 1146Member No.: 1104Joined: 14-April 03 1. Tomlinson2. Portis3. James4. McCallister5. J Lewis6. Henry7. R Williams8. Faulk9. Holmes10. Alexander11. A Green12. F Taylor13. S Davis14. Garner15. Barber16. Hearst17. Dillon18. Staley19. Womack20. Martin21. OSmith22. Shipp23. CBrown24. Pittman25. W Green26. Dunn27. J Stewart28. Barlow29. Canidate30. AThomas
Yeah moron, April 2003 - obviously a projection for LAST season, not this season :rolleyes:
I noted that moron. Seems when you lose any ground in your argument you go for the personal attack. So my basis was it was the system and you said his great vision and ability. Now since last year he has lost that great vision or have you dropped him because he left that great system? All that to say nothing. You might wanna go delete a few more of your old posts. :rotflmao: You funny.
 
I noted that moron. Seems when you lose any ground in your argument you go for the personal attack. So my basis was it was the system and you said his great vision and ability. Now since last year he has lost that great vision or have you dropped him because he left that great system? All that to say nothing. You might wanna go delete a few more of your old posts. :rotflmao: You funny.
It wasn't a personal attack because I lost ground, it was just noting your obvious inablity to read...No I haven't dropped him because of the system, I haven't even done my rankings for thi year. Even if I said he was still the #2 RB on my board, he would not be my #5 as you claimed. You were wrong, face it.P.S. I don't delete posts.Now if you have a valid argument, proceed.
 
I noted that moron. Seems when you lose any ground in your argument you go for the personal attack. So my basis was it was the system and you said his great vision and ability. Now since last year he has lost that great vision or have you dropped him because he left that great system? All that to say nothing. You might wanna go delete a few more of your old posts. :rotflmao: You funny.
It wasn't a personal attack because I lost ground, it was just noting your obvious inablity to read...No I haven't dropped him because of the system, I haven't even done my rankings for thi year. Even if I said he was still the #2 RB on my board, he would not be my #5 as you claimed. You were wrong, face it.P.S. I don't delete posts.Now if you have a valid argument, proceed.
Deja-Hearst.You will never convince Slider that Portis is anything more than a 2nd round upright runner with no vision. I think that speaks for itself with the vast majority of people on the board, so why bother?I have two funny things to look at when I read his posts about Portis - his words and his avatar: I think about hamster golf every time I see that dang Quiznos commercial.
 
:rotflmao: Everytime you posted in this I've thought of 2 things: You must be switz' puppy and you're still not smart enough for the avatar thing. :rotflmao: Thanks for your contribution.

 
1) I was praising your avatar for being funny, not dissing it.2) I laid out your own argument and let it speak for itself. I think it still does, especially since you can't defend it. 3) As for the "puppy" comment, Switz and I happen to see the same way on three touchstone issues that he's reknowned for: OSmith, GHearst v. Barlow for the 2003 season, and that Portis is significantly better than your assertion of a 950 yard back, with no vision (always had been one of his strongsuits as a runner, and you claim he doesn't have it, so whatever . . . )Wish I could say thanks for your contribution, but you don't contribute anything useful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it that Portis gets taged as injury prone. Yes he missed time last year. But the times he did not play where coaches decisons not his own. As I recall he tried playing through the injury week 4 vs. Oak but got taken out by Shanny.
I don't think he's injury prone. I think he's a sissy. If he runs more than 10 yards, he heads to the sideline, to rest. This peaves Shanny, and I've seen the coaches send him back on the field. Apparantly Clinton thinks he gets to rest when he does anything. And, if he is the slightest bit dinged (3 weeks to a chest bruise) he will not play. Locally, the belief is that if he's not 100%, he wont play. This didn't start with the holout threat, but last season. I like his talent. I don't like his attitude, or the 'me first' mentality that exudes from him. And again, the only reason I feel they should move him is the bounty they're receiving, combined with the RB history in the system at Denver..
 
Quite a few people have stated, in this thread and others, that Bailey is a much more valuable player in the NFL than Portis.

If this is so, why don't we see cornerbacks routinely picked in the top 5-10 positions in the draft, when that's where "sure-fire" RBs go?
In the last 10 years, I count 10 RBs and 10 CBs that have gone in the top 10 picks of the draft.
Ok, how many in the top 3-5?My point is that it seems to be only recently, with the whole Bailey deal, that people are saying a sure-fire CB is worth more than a sure-fire RB.

My question:

Since when?
Spike, I think you are answering your own question.Top flight RB's come around much more often than top flight CB.

BTW the kid from Dallas was a top 5 pick last year.

 
I don't think he's injury prone. I think he's a sissy. If he runs more than 10 yards, he heads to the sideline, to rest. This peaves Shanny, and I've seen the coaches send him back on the field. Apparantly Clinton thinks he gets to rest when he does anything. And, if he is the slightest bit dinged (3 weeks to a chest bruise) he will not play. Locally, the belief is that if he's not 100%, he wont play. This didn't start with the holout threat, but last season. I like his talent. I don't like his attitude, or the 'me first' mentality that exudes from him.
What are you talking about. He got that chest injury in week 2 vs. SD and did not finish that game because there was no need for him to as they were in complete control of it (by the way you say he missed this game, but mysteriously put up over 120 yds.). Then he came back in week 3 and again tried to play through the injury when he was clearly not 100% like you say he should be or he would not have been out there. He missed only 1 week with that injury. The week 4 game and again this was the coaches decision not his own. As the season-long goal of having him overcome the injury and be 100% down the stretch were far more imortant than having him for that week 4 matchup vs. the vaunted Det. Lions. After the weeks rest to get back to 100% he then goes out and slaps 200+ yds and a TD on KC in a game they should have won. With out that week off to be healthy again this prob isn't possible. Sounds like Den. and Portis made the right decision to me. Where does this "me first attitude" you talk about come from too. When has Portis ever been a distraction to his team. He has been taken advantage of the last 2 years in Den. He puts up 2 Pro Bowl seasons and gets paid like a ST player. He voiced his concerns about this and PLAYED anyway. Sounds like a team guy to me. As for him coming out when tired or whatever you are trying to say. Again I would say this is a team action not me action. If it were only himself he cared about he would want all of the stats and all of the opps (ala Owens). He however seems to understand that if he is tired and needs a blow that he should take it and trust his fellow teammates to do the job as if he is not 100% HE may cost the TEAM. Every other RB in the league does this as well, so why get on Portis for it. Green for instance has the liberty to take himself out whenever he feels fit. Its funny how he will take those breaks up untill GB hits the Readzone.
 
Here is my rankings for a redraft league.

Portis still in Denver:

1. Holmes

2. Portis

3. Tomlinson

4. A Green

5. McCallister

6. Alexander

7. R Williams

8. J Lewis

9. F Taylor

10. James

11. Faulk

12. Henry

13. S Davis

Portis in Washington:

1. Holmes

2. Tomlinson

3. A Green

4. McCallister

5. Alexander

6. R Williams

7. J Lewis

8. F Taylor

9. Portis

10. James

11. Faulk

12. Henry

13. S Davis

I just don't think you can afford to take a chance on a guy changing his situation if you have a top 5 pick. He may be a stud or he may be a product of his situation in Denver. I'll let somebody else figure that out.

 
Everytime you posted in this I've thought of 2 things: You must be switz' puppy and you're still not smart enough for the avatar thing.
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: And you say I resort to personal attacks
 
So what IS the result of all of this?
Code:
Year    Team                            G      GS     Att     Yards    Avg      Lg     TD2002    Denver Broncos            16      12     273    1508    5.5        59     152003    Denver Broncos            13      13     290    1591    5.5        65     142004    Washington Redskins     15      15     343    1315    3.8        64     52005    Washington Redskins     16      16     352    1516    4.3        47     11
Where is the 950 yards for the RB with no vision?
 
Where's the 5.5 per? Where are the 15 TD's? Over 2 years he has the 70 catches, for 451 yards. Not the 70/700 predicted. I don't think anybody was 'right'. Those who said his performance would drop off were right, but not to the same extent they predicted. those who said their would be no dropoff were wrong. My opinion of Portis has not changed. This is a bad year to talk about backs, because so many were hurt, but there are many that I'd take above him. Alexander, LJ, LT, McGahee, Deuce, Rudy, Caddy, Sjax, Edge, and that's just about it. So, IMHO, he's about 9th. In the thread I called him top 15. These backs may not have put up the same stats, but stats are a team output. Put Sjax on a team that actually can block, and throw, and has the #2 defense, and he's far better. These are just guys I'd rather have than Portis in any given situation. YOu also have to remember that the context of the thread was during the trade when people were calling the Broncos fools for giving up Portis. Those minimizing Portis' skills were doing so in the context of what the Donkeys were getting in return. I still think player for player it was even. But, Denver also got a second rounder, which IIRC was Tatum Bell. Bottom line, Denvers run game didn't falter w/o Portis, but Portis stats did fall when he left Denver.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top