Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Portis (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sandbox
- Start date
Phlash
Footballguy
I can agree. He is a top 5 talent for sure, and if he can manage through the season you will get some amazing value out of him. I don't care if the Redskins offense isn't looking all-world, it won't have to be for him to be a key part of it and get a bunch of touches.Portis will be money this year. When I think of Portis 2007, I can't help but think of A. Green 2003. His value has dropped to a RB2 and he will be top 5 if healthy.
The knee news scared me a little, but I hope that gets cleared up by training camp. It was a good sign to see him ahead of schedule a few weeks ago.
Lots of people write about his injured season in 2006, but he hurt his shoulder making a crazy tackle and then didn't give it enough time to recover. He then hurt his hand, which can happen to any RB no matter how strong or weak they are.
I expect him to be ready to prove the doubters wrong in 07. The guy will only be 26 on opening day.
Lots of people write about his injured season in 2006, but he hurt his shoulder making a crazy tackle and then didn't give it enough time to recover. He then hurt his hand, which can happen to any RB no matter how strong or weak they are.
I expect him to be ready to prove the doubters wrong in 07. The guy will only be 26 on opening day.
einstein2u
Footballguy
if he is there in the 2nd i will take him.
bcr8f
Footballguy
I've seen him late 2nd round.Portis will be money this year. When I think of Portis 2007, I can't help but think of A. Green 2003. His value has dropped to a RB2 and he will be top 5 if healthy.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Not "All-world", like the Bengals or Colts, but IMO, the Redskins Offense will be among the most improved this year (another being Buffalo). Top 10 is a real possibility, if everyone stays healthy. Portis is probably this year's biggest value of the early picks.I can agree. He is a top 5 talent for sure, and if he can manage through the season you will get some amazing value out of him. I don't care if the Redskins offense isn't looking all-world, it won't have to be for him to be a key part of it and get a bunch of touches.Portis will be money this year. When I think of Portis 2007, I can't help but think of A. Green 2003. His value has dropped to a RB2 and he will be top 5 if healthy.
wannabee
Footballguy
Having Saunders for another year should help some as wellNot "All-world", like the Bengals or Colts, but IMO, the Redskins Offense will be among the most improved this year (another being Buffalo). Top 10 is a real possibility, if everyone stays healthy. Portis is probably this year's biggest value of the early picks.I can agree. He is a top 5 talent for sure, and if he can manage through the season you will get some amazing value out of him. I don't care if the Redskins offense isn't looking all-world, it won't have to be for him to be a key part of it and get a bunch of touches.Portis will be money this year. When I think of Portis 2007, I can't help but think of A. Green 2003. His value has dropped to a RB2 and he will be top 5 if healthy.
flooredyas
Footballguy
While I can see an improved Portis this year, I doubt I will have a chance to get him in either of my 12 team
redraft leagues this year. Drafting from the #6 and #7 slot, he likely won't be there for me in round 2. But that doesn't really bother me, the Betts factor does. Even with a complete recovery, I can't see him pushing Betts out of the picture.
redraft leagues this year. Drafting from the #6 and #7 slot, he likely won't be there for me in round 2. But that doesn't really bother me, the Betts factor does. Even with a complete recovery, I can't see him pushing Betts out of the picture.
Phlash
Footballguy
I can agree with that. Their defense lacks a good pass-rush which leads me to believe that their offense will favor the pass a bit more this season, however that does not worry me as Portis is a very solid pass catcher and Jason Campbell should have no remorse dumping off screens and short routes to Portis. I don't worry about Ladell Betts one bit for a few reasons:1) He was playing the latter half of the season, and was not as dinged up as everyone else and was thus able to run at full steam against defenses who were getting beaten down from the course of the season as is the norm for the NFL.Not "All-world", like the Bengals or Colts, but IMO, the Redskins Offense will be among the most improved this year (another being Buffalo). Top 10 is a real possibility, if everyone stays healthy. Portis is probably this year's biggest value of the early picks.I can agree. He is a top 5 talent for sure, and if he can manage through the season you will get some amazing value out of him. I don't care if the Redskins offense isn't looking all-world, it won't have to be for him to be a key part of it and get a bunch of touches.Portis will be money this year. When I think of Portis 2007, I can't help but think of A. Green 2003. His value has dropped to a RB2 and he will be top 5 if healthy.
2) Saunders historically will go with 1 RB and no more. He had Larry Johnson as his benchwarmer for a few years in KC and gave him no carries worth mentioning when Priest was healthy, and I have no doubt that he views Portis as another elite talent at RB for him to push to the statistical maximum ala Marshall Faulk and Priest Holmes.
3) The Redskins offense, while I've said will not be all-world, will absolutely be improved. Now if Campbell can keep defenses from crowding the box constantly, Portis should be able to run wild. I've been a believer in Santana Moss for a while, and they have some other nice targets there as well (Chris Cooley comes to mind), so Portis won't be doing this alone in any case.
While I know that stats aren't necessary in this thread, I'll post my projections for the heck of it.
Clinton Portis, RB, Washington Redskins
315/1400/14 rushing
35/300/1 receiving
Last edited by a moderator:
Block
Footballguy
A telling stat from last season...In 144 total touches, CLinton Portis scored 7 touchdowns.In 298 total touches, Ladell Betts scored 5.
lions327
Footballguy
Betts is a decent player and has played well on occasion. But before last year, he never did anything special. He is not a great talent. He is a decent player who is suited to be a backup. Portis is an elite talent and a gamebreaker. He is clearly better than Betts by a wide margin. The Redskins would have to be foolish to not have him on the field as much as possible. He is a threat every time he touches the ball and him just being on the field opens up the passing game. With a young QB, they need him on the field. His first 4 seasons were as good as anyones. The only issue with Portis is his health. I am not worried about Betts.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
This is the thing most people are ignoring. Portis is by far a better RB, he'll be in on important downs and close games.Betts will get touches, but not on the goaline or in close games when the carries matter.Betts is a better reciever, but not blocker, so he'll be in on 3rd and mid/long situations.
The Man with the Plan
Footballguy
While Clinton Portis' abilities can't be denied (Four straight seasons of 1300+ rushing yards), it would be foolish to ignore what Ladell Betts was able to accomplish last season (1100+ rushing yards, 1500+ total yards). I see Joe Gibbs trying to get as much as he can out of Betts as well as Portis. To do otherwise as a head coach just wouldn't be smart.
I think it's more likely they'll both get a decent amount of touches and both should be productive players. I have a hard time believing that Clinton Portis will get his usual 1500 rushing yards while Ladell Betts has like 300 as a backup. As appealing as that may seem to fantasy owners that's not what'll help make the Washington Redskins a better team.
I think it's more likely they'll both get a decent amount of touches and both should be productive players. I have a hard time believing that Clinton Portis will get his usual 1500 rushing yards while Ladell Betts has like 300 as a backup. As appealing as that may seem to fantasy owners that's not what'll help make the Washington Redskins a better team.
-OZ-
Footballguy
They gained about 2300 total yards last year. I'd use that mark as a starting point.1500 total for Portis and 800 for Betts seems possible.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Betts is just too good to be kept on the bench. 9 starts last year for over 1100 yards on the ground. Of his 9 starts, he had more than 10 carries in 7 games and surpassed 100 yards rushing in 5 of them. In one of the other 2 he had 92 yards. 4.7 average on year end. He can catch the ball well too, with 53 catches last year.
Portis is still the man in Washington, and he has a better scoring efficiency, but Betts will seriously limit his upside IMO. I'm predicting a Priest/LJ type split.
Portis is still the man in Washington, and he has a better scoring efficiency, but Betts will seriously limit his upside IMO. I'm predicting a Priest/LJ type split.
Block
Footballguy
With Priest and LJ you had an older guy and a younger guy. Here the younger guy is also the big dawg. I don't think they compare.
Phlash
Footballguy
I disagree. Ladell Betts is the second coming of Nick Goings, albeit slightly more talented IMO. Portis will not be losing any important touches to him, and nearly any at all in that case.
Phlash
Footballguy
The big thing people are forgetting - Priest lost almost NO touches to LJ when he was healthy that season - he rushed for 800 yards and 14 TDs in 8 games, got injured, and then LJ/Blaylock/Priest all split carries at the end of the year to help out Priest (who was getting old at that point).
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
LJ was too talented to keep on the bench. His talent was the reason he saw the field, not his age IMO. Same thing here. Betts is just too good to leave him sitting on the bench.
Possibly. We'll see this year. I just can't see it though.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
75 touches through 7 games. At that rate, he would have lost 171 touches over a full season. Losing 171 touches over a full season can really limit upside IMO.
lions327
Footballguy
I don't see Betts being so good that he absolutely has to be on the field. Prior to last season, he was nothing more than a good backup. Portis is too good to not be on the field, and Betts is not good enough to change that, not even close. Comparing him to LJ is crazy. The only thing they have in common is they both have been stuck playing behind supreme talents. But LJ is an elite talent and Betts is not.
Whiplash Inc.
Footballguy
My only concern with Portis is health, although that's a bit overrated as well, since he's never had a real injury to either of his legs. It baffles me how he's being undervalued and underestimated by experts and regulars alike.
If he's healthy, there's no way he won't get you at least 1300 rushing yards and 12 rushing TDs.
If he's healthy, there's no way he won't get you at least 1300 rushing yards and 12 rushing TDs.
Rounders
Footballguy
A lot of people are comparing the Portis/Betts situation to Holmes/LJ.....I see it more like a comparison to Edge/Rhodes....Edge tore his knee up and Rhodes filled in very well for Edge, but when Edge was 85% he was back in there the next year.
Betts = Rhodes (and not LJ)
Now I'm not naive enough to recognize that Betts will get some carries next year. As a previous poster said Gibbs would be an idiot to not save his number 1 RB. To me that means that Portis isn't going to rush the ball 350+ times this season. Last year Betts and Portis combined for 372 attempts. I see that number the same this year and I see the breakdown as an 80/20 split, resulting in 297 carries for Portis (18 per game) and 75 for Betts (4 per game).
But to me the main point here, is that Portis is the "homerun pick" in the 2nd round. He's got the ability to WIN YOU A FANTASY CHAMPIONSHIP. If he plays like the Portis we know he can, 1500/12 is very very possible and to grab that in the 2nd round is damn good. Now he could split time with Betts and be in a RBBC, but for my tastes I try to win championships and Portis is the type of player I salivate over. I'm hoping that he's there in the 2nd round for me to grab.
Just my :02:
Betts = Rhodes (and not LJ)
Now I'm not naive enough to recognize that Betts will get some carries next year. As a previous poster said Gibbs would be an idiot to not save his number 1 RB. To me that means that Portis isn't going to rush the ball 350+ times this season. Last year Betts and Portis combined for 372 attempts. I see that number the same this year and I see the breakdown as an 80/20 split, resulting in 297 carries for Portis (18 per game) and 75 for Betts (4 per game).
But to me the main point here, is that Portis is the "homerun pick" in the 2nd round. He's got the ability to WIN YOU A FANTASY CHAMPIONSHIP. If he plays like the Portis we know he can, 1500/12 is very very possible and to grab that in the 2nd round is damn good. Now he could split time with Betts and be in a RBBC, but for my tastes I try to win championships and Portis is the type of player I salivate over. I'm hoping that he's there in the 2nd round for me to grab.
Just my :02:
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Poor comparison. Rhodes missed the entire following season.
Code:
Date Days Out InjuryAug 26, 2002 159 Knee
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
If Betts was "too good to leave him sitting on the bench", would he have never exceeded 90 rushes or 371 yards in a season prior to 2006? You can choose to think one 6 game stretch means more than 4 years, but most reasonable people won't see it that way.The comparison to Betts is NOT LJ, it's Derrick Blaylock. I'd love to hear why anyone thinks Betts is different than Blaylock.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
IMO, most reasonable people would recognize the first time Betts was given an opportunity, he took it and ran rather than looking at how he did when he wasn't given an opportunity.
You can choose to think one 6 game stretch means more than 4 years, but most reasonable people won't see it that way.
The comparison to Betts is NOT LJ, it's Derrick Blaylock. I'd love to hear why anyone thinks Betts is different than Blaylock.
As for Blaylock, maybe it's because Blaylock never broke 1000 yards, 50 catches, and has just one 100 yard game in his entire career.Very poor comparison IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rounders
Footballguy
My point wasn't to the fact that Rhodes was hurt, it was more to the fact that when Edge was relatively healthy he was the man.....just like this year will be with Portis.
Rounders
Footballguy
He did do quite well with the opportunity, but I do seem to recall him having a problem holding on to the football? Do you think that Gibbs will tolerate a 2nd team RB putting the ball on the ground? I don't.To me Betts is not even a concern. I will draft Portis is the 2nd round, and then look to handcuff him with Betts in the case that Portis goes down with an injury. That's my thinking.IMO, most reasonable people would recognize the first time Betts was given an opportunity, he took it and ran rather than looking at how he did when he wasn't given an opportunity. :X As for Blaylock, maybe it's because Blaylock never broke 1000 yards, 50 catches, and has just one 100 yard game in his entire career.If Betts was "too good to leave him sitting on the bench", would he have never exceeded 90 rushes or 371 yards in a season prior to 2006?
You can choose to think one 6 game stretch means more than 4 years, but most reasonable people won't see it that way.
The comparison to Betts is NOT LJ, it's Derrick Blaylock. I'd love to hear why anyone thinks Betts is different than Blaylock.
Very poor comparison IMO.
Whiplash Inc.
Footballguy
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
But if Rhodes had been around, would Edge still have gotten all the carries while Rhodes just sat on the bench? Coming off an 1100/9 rookie season I think he would have cut into Edge's numbers some. Just to clarify, my point isn't that Portis will be the number 2 this year, or that Betts will take over, just that Betts will steal enough touches from Portis to limit his upside. Personally, I would not take Portis at #13 overall (FBG ADP).
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
He's been in the league 5 years now, do you really think the Redskins wouldn't have started him if he earned the spot?They thought so much about his talent that they traded a Hall of Fame Cornerback away for Portis after 2003.IMO, most reasonable people would recognize the first time Betts was given an opportunity, he took it and ran rather than looking at how he did when he wasn't given an opportunity.
You can choose to think one 6 game stretch means more than 4 years, but most reasonable people won't see it that way.
The comparison to Betts is NOT LJ, it's Derrick Blaylock. I'd love to hear why anyone thinks Betts is different than Blaylock.As for Blaylock, maybe it's because Blaylock never broke 1000 yards, 50 catches, and has just one 100 yard game in his entire career.
Very poor comparison IMO.
Of course, this was after Betts couldn't beat out Trung Canidate.
But, you're right, he never given an oppotunity.
Maybe because he never earned it?
Blaylock may not be a perfect example, but Betts is closer to him than LJ.
fatness
Footballguy
Ladell Betts doesn't approach Larry Johnson's ability as a RB. Betts is a good, solid RB who could start for some teams, a talent probably equivalent to Chester Taylor. Larry Johnson is a clear step or 2 up from him in talent, as is Portis. Portis will get the bulk of the work in DC. Betts will see the field all year, on 3rd downs and spelling Portis on complete drives now and then to keep him rested. But Portis is the big talent and main RB.
The Man with the Plan
Footballguy
I think a better example would be 2002 Fred Taylor. In the 2001 season he was hurt and Stacey Mack became the starting running back. He had a decent year (1042 yds, 10tds). It was clear that Fred Taylor would be the workhorse coming into 2002 but you'd had to figure that Mack would be a factor as well.
Taylor went on to have a very good season in 02 (1700+yards ,8tds). What kept it from being an absolutely fantastic season however was Stacey Mack taking 9 touchdowns from him. So even as a backup player his presence was felt and Fred Taylor's numbers were ultimately hurt because of that. Now I know Joe Gibbs isn't Tom Coughlin but it just goes to show that a coach will try to get the ball into the hands of their playmakers as much as possible.
Taylor went on to have a very good season in 02 (1700+yards ,8tds). What kept it from being an absolutely fantastic season however was Stacey Mack taking 9 touchdowns from him. So even as a backup player his presence was felt and Fred Taylor's numbers were ultimately hurt because of that. Now I know Joe Gibbs isn't Tom Coughlin but it just goes to show that a coach will try to get the ball into the hands of their playmakers as much as possible.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Absolutely. I didn't mean that Betts is as good as LJ. I meant they situations are very similar IMO. LJ was behind a stud RB (arguably best in the league then) and because of it wasn't his team's starter. Priest got hurt and LJ got a chance to shine though. He took the opportunity and ran with it, showing he can help his team to win games. Priest came back the next year and resumed the RB1 role, but LJ still got his touches.Similarly, Portis is a stud RB. Betts is a good RB stuck playing behind him. He doesn't have LJs talent, but he's shown he can help his team win games and be a significant factor in the offense.ETA: For everyone that disagrees with me, would you take Portis at #13 overall (FBG ADP)?
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
In most formats, yes. I'm in a 14 team redraft league drafting right now, 2 QBs start, I'm in the 11 spot. I won't take Portis @ 11, but I'm hoping he falls to 2.04 (#18).ETA: Just did
Last edited by a moderator:
Rounders
Footballguy
But like I said, I think Portis is the type of player that can win a FF championship for you in the 2nd round. I play in a 10 team league and I'm drafting from the 9 spot, and I have started thinking about drafting him in round 1 because I'm not sure if he will make the turn.
doughboydeluxe
Footballguy
In 2004 Priest had 215 touches through 8 games, on pace for 430. You really think anyone would have wanted Priest to see any part of those 171 touches Johnson would have been projected for? Nope. The touches LJ was getting before Priest got hurt were not at the expense of Priest, but to help take some of the load off him.
DWidmar
Footballguy
This is exactly right. Saunders loves to run he ball. His backs could see 400 touches. 300 to Portis and 100 to Betts sounds about right. I think we saw the coming out party for Saunders offense finally clicking more so than a coming out party for Betts.
H.K.
Footballguy
Before Portis got hurt for the year, Betts was still getting plenty of action:
In games where both RB's played -
Portis averaged 15.5 PPG in PPR: 127 carries 523 rush yds (4.1 YPC) & 7 TD's with 26 targets for 17 recepts & 170 rec yards
Betts averaged 9.9 in PPG in PPR: 71 carries 326 rush yards (4.6 YPC) & 1 TD with 27 targets for 23 recepts and 174 rec yards
In games Portis did not play -
Betts averaged 20.1 PPG in PPR and his YPC actually went up to 4.8
Betts was playing when both were available, so he was getting a decent amount of work already. Whether that was happening due to Portis being banged up is issue for debate, but Betts performed extremely well before and after Clinton was put on the shelf.
From a PPR perspective, I would expect Betts to continue to vulture receptions in a 3RB role which will drive down Portis' value in that format. I would also expect the 'Skins to opt for Betts for a few series during games to keep Portis fresh. Betts will have more of a role in the offense this season and Portis will have a reduced workload in 2007, so obviously, it will hurt Portis' numbers.
In games where both RB's played -
Portis averaged 15.5 PPG in PPR: 127 carries 523 rush yds (4.1 YPC) & 7 TD's with 26 targets for 17 recepts & 170 rec yards
Betts averaged 9.9 in PPG in PPR: 71 carries 326 rush yards (4.6 YPC) & 1 TD with 27 targets for 23 recepts and 174 rec yards
In games Portis did not play -
Betts averaged 20.1 PPG in PPR and his YPC actually went up to 4.8
Betts was playing when both were available, so he was getting a decent amount of work already. Whether that was happening due to Portis being banged up is issue for debate, but Betts performed extremely well before and after Clinton was put on the shelf.
From a PPR perspective, I would expect Betts to continue to vulture receptions in a 3RB role which will drive down Portis' value in that format. I would also expect the 'Skins to opt for Betts for a few series during games to keep Portis fresh. Betts will have more of a role in the offense this season and Portis will have a reduced workload in 2007, so obviously, it will hurt Portis' numbers.
redman
Footballguy
There is a definite pattern on this board among Redskins fans (me included) that everyone with Betts/Portis questions should pay attention to. It can be summarized as follows:
1) Portis' past injuries are not of great concern because they do not indicate any particular pattern and notably they don't involve his legs, aside from the recent and resolved minor bout of tendonitis in the knee.
2) Betts was a pleasant surprise as a runner and is an excellent receiver and teammate, but he in no way has the talent to supplant Portis as the primary RB in the lineup.
3) Saunders' second year in one place has historically been marked by pronounced offensive production, not least at RB. This is reinforced by the unanimously positive reports out of minicamps regarding Campbell's development.
4) Portis stands to gain most from the above and figures to have a strong season.
As far as I can tell, the known serious Redskins fans on this board are all unanimous on all four of the above points (please correct me if I'm wrong, 'Skins fans). That should be noteworthy to people with questions like those posed in the OP.
1) Portis' past injuries are not of great concern because they do not indicate any particular pattern and notably they don't involve his legs, aside from the recent and resolved minor bout of tendonitis in the knee.
2) Betts was a pleasant surprise as a runner and is an excellent receiver and teammate, but he in no way has the talent to supplant Portis as the primary RB in the lineup.
3) Saunders' second year in one place has historically been marked by pronounced offensive production, not least at RB. This is reinforced by the unanimously positive reports out of minicamps regarding Campbell's development.
4) Portis stands to gain most from the above and figures to have a strong season.
As far as I can tell, the known serious Redskins fans on this board are all unanimous on all four of the above points (please correct me if I'm wrong, 'Skins fans). That should be noteworthy to people with questions like those posed in the OP.
DWidmar
Footballguy
I would also take him gladly with that pick and even sooner as I see him outperforming other guys on that list in front of him.
lions327
Footballguy
Thanks for this great info.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Not following the thinking on Priest LJ there. That would make sense if LJ's projected 171 was 2004, but it wasn't. It was 2005. In 05, Holmes was on pace for 272 carries. So as for if anyone would have wanted Priest to see any of those 171 carries, I'd have to say yes. His fantasy owners probably could have stood him getting another 60 or so carries, bringing his total up from 272 to 332. Seems like a better number.
Rounders
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
I think people that keep pointing to Betts' success last year are forgetting that NFL coaches don't play fantasy football like we do (at least not that we know of). Their concern is winning games, not stats and 100 yd games.
Betts won't get to see more of the field in the past with a healthy Portis just because of the number of 100 yd games and YPC he had. I could see the argument if Betts clearly outperformed Portis (like Chester Taylor did with Jamal Lewis a couple years ago), but that's not even close to the case. The fact that he was able to perform as well speaks to both the quality of the system they've setup and the talent that Betts has as a BACKUP for the Redskins. Maybe Betts has the talent to be a starter ELSEWHERE, but the fact of the matter is that Portis is the starter and is clearly the better RB. Portis gives the Redskins the best chance to win the more that he's on the field and Betts won't cut into that. Yes, he will take some carries just like virtually every other RB in the league, but Portis is THE #1 RB in Washington and the coaches will use him as such.
The only reason I would shy away from Portis is for an injury concern, not because of Betts. I recently passed on Portis in the 2nd round of a new dynasty league and think I might be regretting that decision. And Betts had 0 input into my passing him and more to do with his health concerns.
For those of you that are arguing that Betts is as good as LJ or Portis must not watch much football at all. In the NFL, there are some clear elite talented players and both LJ and Portis are among them. Those guys could go anywhere and succeed. Betts is nowhere near that class and the Washington coaching staff knows this and won't be blinded by fantasy stats like some of us are.
Betts won't get to see more of the field in the past with a healthy Portis just because of the number of 100 yd games and YPC he had. I could see the argument if Betts clearly outperformed Portis (like Chester Taylor did with Jamal Lewis a couple years ago), but that's not even close to the case. The fact that he was able to perform as well speaks to both the quality of the system they've setup and the talent that Betts has as a BACKUP for the Redskins. Maybe Betts has the talent to be a starter ELSEWHERE, but the fact of the matter is that Portis is the starter and is clearly the better RB. Portis gives the Redskins the best chance to win the more that he's on the field and Betts won't cut into that. Yes, he will take some carries just like virtually every other RB in the league, but Portis is THE #1 RB in Washington and the coaches will use him as such.
The only reason I would shy away from Portis is for an injury concern, not because of Betts. I recently passed on Portis in the 2nd round of a new dynasty league and think I might be regretting that decision. And Betts had 0 input into my passing him and more to do with his health concerns.
For those of you that are arguing that Betts is as good as LJ or Portis must not watch much football at all. In the NFL, there are some clear elite talented players and both LJ and Portis are among them. Those guys could go anywhere and succeed. Betts is nowhere near that class and the Washington coaching staff knows this and won't be blinded by fantasy stats like some of us are.
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
I'd have to assume you're talking about me here. I never said Betts was as good as Portis or LJ, nor did anyone else. In fact, I made a point of clarifying I was relating Betts and LJ's situations not their talent. I also have said multiple times Portis will still be the #1 next year.The coaches concerns most definitely are winning games. And when you have an RB that can get you 100 yards on the ground game after game after game and pick up nearly 5 yards per carry, that's going to help you win games.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
Nope, I wasn't talking to you specifically. I read your point and it was well taken. My post was in general to anyone who was saying the talent level was similar.As far as getting 100 yds game after game after game and 5 ypc, iyou're also describing Portis. Add to that, Portis scores more often. Portis was doing everything that Betts did, only better and more of it. When the game is on the line, as a HC, are you saying you'd rather have Betts in than Portis? Except for an occasional change of pace or to spell Portis, it would be insanity to keep Portis on the bench and keep Betts on the field for any other reason. If you're trying to say that those 100 yd games and 5 ypc make Betts a better runner and better player, then you are indeed trying to compare the talent level of the 2 and it just isn't true.Reread that last sentence of yours---you're essentially implying that Betts can do something Portis can't. If that isn't the case, then an explanation to what you really meant would be nice.
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLastDispatch
Footballguy
Oh, glad to see you weren't talking about me then.Nope, I wasn't talking to you specifically. I read your point and it was well taken. My post was in general to anyone who was saying the talent level was similar.As far as getting 100 yds game after game after game and 5 ypc, iyou're also describing Portis. Add to that, Portis scores more often. Portis was doing everything that Betts did, only better and more of it. When the game is on the line, as a HC, are you saying you'd rather have Betts in than Portis? Except for an occasional change of pace or to spell Portis, it would be insanity to keep Portis on the bench and keep Betts on the field for any other reason. If you're trying to say that those 100 yd games and 5 ypc make Betts a better runner and better player, then you are indeed trying to compare the talent level of the 2 and it just isn't true.Reread that last sentence of yours---you're essentially implying that Betts can do something Portis can't. If that isn't the case, then an explanation to what you really meant would be nice.I'd have to assume you're talking about me here. I never said Betts was as good as Portis or LJ, nor did anyone else. In fact, I made a point of clarifying I was relating Betts and LJ's situations not their talent. I also have said multiple times Portis will still be the #1 next year.The coaches concerns most definitely are winning games. And when you have an RB that can get you 100 yards on the ground game after game after game and pick up nearly 5 yards per carry, that's going to help you win games.
And no, I didn't mean Betts can do something Portis can't (he might be a better pass catcher, but that's besides the point). I just meant Betts is a very good RB (albeit not the stud Portis is) and can help them win games. He should see the field too (albeit not as much as Portis). The Skins have two good RBs and would be foolish to leave one on the bench while the other gets all (or the vast majority) of the carries. Instead they should utilize both, keeping both fresh and keeping defenses on their toes. Two dangerous RBs are better than one.Similar threads
