Portis (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Two dangerous RBs are better than one.

If RB#1 = RB#2, then absolutely. But again, when RB #1 > RB #2, it would be foolish to play them both in any type of equal footing. If Portis is healthy, anything less than an 75/25 split won't happen. Again, Betts is nothing more than a change of pace or a spell for Portis. You will still see Portis get about 20 carries/game and Betts get something in the 5-8 range. That just isn't enough to cut into his production, and to put Betts on the field more than that (10 or more carries) and dropping Portis to the 15 carry/game range is foolish. Betts isn't good enough compared to Portis to warrant a 15/10 carry ratio. Thus, with Portis likely to continue getting 20+ carries/game if healthy means that Betts won't significantly cut into his #'s.The fact that Betts can come in and put up the #'s he does in either limited work or in case of injury is why Wash. should feel good. But just because he CAN do that doesn't mean that he WILL when Portis is active.

 

[dgreen]

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.

Also, Betts was running through some pretty big holes. The OL was playing REALLY well towards the end of the season, especially in the run blocking department. I'm not sure how many times I saw a nice Betts run and thought, "Wow, imagine what Portis would have done with that." The other things Skins fans agree on is that Betts benefited from a much more favorable philosophy than Portis did earlier in the year. Those things kind of build on #2 and 3 above.

 

[gianmarco]

"Wow, imagine what Portis would have done with that."

That sums it up right there. If anyone really thinks "Man, too bad Portis couldn't do that" instead, then I'd love to hear that argument. That line above is why Portis will see the field far more often than Betts will no matter how good Betts looked last year.

 

[bostonfred]

2004

Portis 343 (plus 40 catches)

Betts 90 (plus 15 catches)

total 433 (plus 55 RB catches)

total RB plays 488

Portis average 3.8 YPC

Betts average 4.1 YPC

2005

Portis 352 (plus 30 catches)

Betts 89 (plus 10 catches)

total 441 (plus 40 RB catches)

total RB plays 481

Portis average 4.3 YPC

Betts average 3.8 YPC

2006 Totals

Portis 127 (plus 17 catches)

Betts 263 (plus 53 catches)

total 390 (plus 70 RB catches)

total RB plays 460

Portis average 4.1 YPC

Betts average 4.7 YPC

2006 in 8 games where Portis was healthy

Portis 121 (plus 16 catches)

Betts 71 (plus 19 catches)

total 192 (plus 35 RB catches)

total RB plays 227

Portis average 4.1 YPC

Betts average 4.4 YPC

2006 in 8 games where Portis was not healthy

Portis 6 (plus 1 catch)

Betts 192 (plus 34 catches)

total 198 (plus 35 RB catches)

total RB plays 233

Portis average 4.1 YPC

Betts average 4.7 YPC

Rushing: it sure seems like the rushing offense flourished under Saunders, even if the passing offense didn't. The total number of rush attempts went down, which is concerning, especially since the quarterback situation seems to have hurt the offense, and it is still in flux. But the team's rush yards per carry went up, and even with Portis' injury, they were pretty consistent with previous years in terms of total RB touches, and sent more passes to the running backs than they had in the past.

Receptions: it seems like Portis was catching the ball as well as Betts until he went down. When Betts was the primary back, though, he was thrown more passes. I don't know why this is, but it bears noting when projecting Portis' value in PPR leagues. There are so many variables that go into this - is it Saunders' propensity to throw to the running back after working with backs like Faulk and Priest, or was it Campbell throwing more to the running back in general (since he came in at about the exact same time that Portis went down), was it a change that was made to accomodate Betts' style as a player, or maybe it had more to do with the fact that Betts had twelve of his receptions in two games where he was the lead back and put up 7 for 18 and 11 for 40 rushing, respectively.

Overall: Betts will be 28 at the start of the season. Portis will be 26. Betts has fewer career carries. Portis will have fresh legs for the first time since his rookie season. Both look good if the offense can click. If the offense breaks down as it has in the past, they should put up between 450 and 500 total plays to the running back. Most people would be surprised if that broke down less than 60/40 in Portis' favor. So in the worst case scenario if both are healthy, Portis should get 60% of 450 plays, which is still a very nice 270 plays. If it breaks down closer to their historical averages, it may break 80/20 in Portis' favor, which could be as much as 400 touches for Portis. I think a more realistic projection is somewhere in between, maybe a 310/170 split between the two.

How many TDs should each have? Note that Portis had 5 TDs in 2004, but had 15 and 14 in Denver, 11 in Washington in 2005, and had 7 TDs in 8 games of 2006. The duo rushed for 12. With Saunders' history with running backs, it seems reasonable to estimate an increase in RB TDs in 2007. Call it 15 RB TDs to be conservative, and give Portis 2/3 of them.

Overall, a reasonable estimate might be something like:

Portis: 290 rushes, 1200 yards, 4.2 YPC, 20 rec., 200 yards, 10 TDs.

Betts: 140 rushes, 600 yards, 4.4 YPC, 30 rec., 300 yards, 5 TDs.

That would have made Portis the #10 RB last year, and the projection doesn't seem unrealistic to me.

Portis' downside:

- Minor knee tendonitis

- May lose TDs to Betts

- Will lose long yardage opportunities to Betts (like the long rush on third and long)

- Team QB situation in disarray

Portis' upside

- If he gets 340+ carries again, he could have a RB1 season

- He may get the lion's share of the TDs, as Saunders' #1 backs have in the past

- The team may rush for more TDs than in the past, as Saunders' offenses have in the past

- Has a great (but expensive) handcuff who could step in and be a monster if he went down

Overall, I like Portis a lot this year. His upside is not capped by Betts' presence, IMO, because there's room on the team for him to get 300+ carries while Betts still gets plenty of touches. The team has a good offensive line, a head coach who loves to run, an offensive coordinator who has created the #1 back in fantasy football four times in the last ten years, and a young stud running back that they spent even more on than their solid, 28 year old backup. This is a guy whose value is being driven down by perception, not reality, and I think he represents one of the best second round values in the league right now.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Who is taking Dockery's place and how good of a player is he? How much is that being factored into everyone's opinion of Wash's offense?

 

[Rounders]

2004Portis 343 (plus 40 catches)Betts 90 (plus 15 catches)total 433 (plus 55 RB catches)total RB plays 488Portis average 3.8 YPCBetts average 4.1 YPC2005Portis 352 (plus 30 catches)Betts 89 (plus 10 catches)total 441 (plus 40 RB catches)total RB plays 481Portis average 4.3 YPCBetts average 3.8 YPC2006 TotalsPortis 127 (plus 17 catches)Betts 263 (plus 53 catches)total 390 (plus 70 RB catches)total RB plays 460Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was healthyPortis 121 (plus 16 catches)Betts 71 (plus 19 catches)total 192 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 227Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.4 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was not healthyPortis 6 (plus 1 catch)Betts 192 (plus 34 catches)total 198 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 233Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPCRushing: it sure seems like the rushing offense flourished under Saunders, even if the passing offense didn't. The total number of rush attempts went down, which is concerning, especially since the quarterback situation seems to have hurt the offense, and it is still in flux. But the team's rush yards per carry went up, and even with Portis' injury, they were pretty consistent with previous years in terms of total RB touches, and sent more passes to the running backs than they had in the past. Receptions: it seems like Portis was catching the ball as well as Betts until he went down. When Betts was the primary back, though, he was thrown more passes. I don't know why this is, but it bears noting when projecting Portis' value in PPR leagues. There are so many variables that go into this - is it Saunders' propensity to throw to the running back after working with backs like Faulk and Priest, or was it Campbell throwing more to the running back in general (since he came in at about the exact same time that Portis went down), was it a change that was made to accomodate Betts' style as a player, or maybe it had more to do with the fact that Betts had twelve of his receptions in two games where he was the lead back and put up 7 for 18 and 11 for 40 rushing, respectively. Overall: Betts will be 28 at the start of the season. Portis will be 26. Betts has fewer career carries. Portis will have fresh legs for the first time since his rookie season. Both look good if the offense can click. If the offense breaks down as it has in the past, they should put up between 450 and 500 total plays to the running back. Most people would be surprised if that broke down less than 60/40 in Portis' favor. So in the worst case scenario if both are healthy, Portis should get 60% of 450 plays, which is still a very nice 270 plays. If it breaks down closer to their historical averages, it may break 80/20 in Portis' favor, which could be as much as 400 touches for Portis. I think a more realistic projection is somewhere in between, maybe a 310/170 split between the two. How many TDs should each have? Note that Portis had 5 TDs in 2004, but had 15 and 14 in Denver, 11 in Washington in 2005, and had 7 TDs in 8 games of 2006. The duo rushed for 12. With Saunders' history with running backs, it seems reasonable to estimate an increase in RB TDs in 2007. Call it 15 RB TDs to be conservative, and give Portis 2/3 of them. Overall, a reasonable estimate might be something likeortis: 290 rushes, 1200 yards, 4.2 YPC, 20 rec., 200 yards, 10 TDs. Betts: 140 rushes, 600 yards, 4.4 YPC, 30 rec., 300 yards, 5 TDs.That would have made Portis the #10 RB last year, and the projection doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Portis' downside: - Minor knee tendonitis- May lose TDs to Betts- Will lose long yardage opportunities to Betts (like the long rush on third and long)- Team QB situation in disarrayPortis' upside- If he gets 340+ carries again, he could have a RB1 season- He may get the lion's share of the TDs, as Saunders' #1 backs have in the past- The team may rush for more TDs than in the past, as Saunders' offenses have in the past- Has a great (but expensive) handcuff who could step in and be a monster if he went downOverall, I like Portis a lot this year. His upside is not capped by Betts' presence, IMO, because there's room on the team for him to get 300+ carries while Betts still gets plenty of touches. The team has a good offensive line, a head coach who loves to run, an offensive coordinator who has created the #1 back in fantasy football four times in the last ten years, and a young stud running back that they spent even more on than their solid, 28 year old backup. This is a guy whose value is being driven down by perception, not reality, and I think he represents one of the best second round values in the league right now.

Quality post, we need more of these around here.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

2004Portis 343 (plus 40 catches)Betts 90 (plus 15 catches)total 433 (plus 55 RB catches)total RB plays 488Portis average 3.8 YPCBetts average 4.1 YPC2005Portis 352 (plus 30 catches)Betts 89 (plus 10 catches)total 441 (plus 40 RB catches)total RB plays 481Portis average 4.3 YPCBetts average 3.8 YPC2006 TotalsPortis 127 (plus 17 catches)Betts 263 (plus 53 catches)total 390 (plus 70 RB catches)total RB plays 460Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was healthyPortis 121 (plus 16 catches)Betts 71 (plus 19 catches)total 192 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 227Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.4 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was not healthyPortis 6 (plus 1 catch)Betts 192 (plus 34 catches)total 198 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 233Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPCRushing: it sure seems like the rushing offense flourished under Saunders, even if the passing offense didn't. The total number of rush attempts went down, which is concerning, especially since the quarterback situation seems to have hurt the offense, and it is still in flux. But the team's rush yards per carry went up, and even with Portis' injury, they were pretty consistent with previous years in terms of total RB touches, and sent more passes to the running backs than they had in the past. Receptions: it seems like Portis was catching the ball as well as Betts until he went down. When Betts was the primary back, though, he was thrown more passes. I don't know why this is, but it bears noting when projecting Portis' value in PPR leagues. There are so many variables that go into this - is it Saunders' propensity to throw to the running back after working with backs like Faulk and Priest, or was it Campbell throwing more to the running back in general (since he came in at about the exact same time that Portis went down), was it a change that was made to accomodate Betts' style as a player, or maybe it had more to do with the fact that Betts had twelve of his receptions in two games where he was the lead back and put up 7 for 18 and 11 for 40 rushing, respectively. Overall: Betts will be 28 at the start of the season. Portis will be 26. Betts has fewer career carries. Portis will have fresh legs for the first time since his rookie season. Both look good if the offense can click. If the offense breaks down as it has in the past, they should put up between 450 and 500 total plays to the running back. Most people would be surprised if that broke down less than 60/40 in Portis' favor. So in the worst case scenario if both are healthy, Portis should get 60% of 450 plays, which is still a very nice 270 plays. If it breaks down closer to their historical averages, it may break 80/20 in Portis' favor, which could be as much as 400 touches for Portis. I think a more realistic projection is somewhere in between, maybe a 310/170 split between the two. How many TDs should each have? Note that Portis had 5 TDs in 2004, but had 15 and 14 in Denver, 11 in Washington in 2005, and had 7 TDs in 8 games of 2006. The duo rushed for 12. With Saunders' history with running backs, it seems reasonable to estimate an increase in RB TDs in 2007. Call it 15 RB TDs to be conservative, and give Portis 2/3 of them. Overall, a reasonable estimate might be something likeortis: 290 rushes, 1200 yards, 4.2 YPC, 20 rec., 200 yards, 10 TDs. Betts: 140 rushes, 600 yards, 4.4 YPC, 30 rec., 300 yards, 5 TDs.That would have made Portis the #10 RB last year, and the projection doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Portis' downside: - Minor knee tendonitis- May lose TDs to Betts- Will lose long yardage opportunities to Betts (like the long rush on third and long)- Team QB situation in disarrayPortis' upside- If he gets 340+ carries again, he could have a RB1 season- He may get the lion's share of the TDs, as Saunders' #1 backs have in the past- The team may rush for more TDs than in the past, as Saunders' offenses have in the past- Has a great (but expensive) handcuff who could step in and be a monster if he went downOverall, I like Portis a lot this year. His upside is not capped by Betts' presence, IMO, because there's room on the team for him to get 300+ carries while Betts still gets plenty of touches. The team has a good offensive line, a head coach who loves to run, an offensive coordinator who has created the #1 back in fantasy football four times in the last ten years, and a young stud running back that they spent even more on than their solid, 28 year old backup. This is a guy whose value is being driven down by perception, not reality, and I think he represents one of the best second round values in the league right now.

Quality post, we need more of these around here.

I second that. and I'm feeling swayed.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Where should Portis go in a standard PPR league?

 

[H.K.]

Where should Portis go in a standard PPR league?

He's ranked RB 14 in PPR based on the last VBD I ran.

 

[bostonfred]

Where should Portis go in a standard PPR league?

If you use the projections I just gave him, PPR puts him in the big mess of RB2s. His value drops to something closer to a mid second round pick, maybe a little higher, maybe a little lower depending on how confident you are in him and the other guys getting drafted around him.

 

[redman]

Who is taking Dockery's place and how good of a player is he? How much is that being factored into everyone's opinion of Wash's offense?

It depends upon how you look at this, but generally I'm not all that concerned. The other four starters will have started together for three years, and three of them excluding C Raymer for five consecutive years. There's an above average amount of continuity even with the loss of Dockery. Also, Dockery while a pretty good LG was arguably the worst of the five linemen (Raymer being the only other viable candidate) who never blocked as violently as his size would suggest he should, got pushed around at times by far smaller D-linemen and who was clumsy in space when pulling. To answer your question, Todd Wade is presently the presumed starter, but as a converted RT he's learning a whole new position and the jury's out. Backing him up are Will Whitticker, a giant guy with some experience with Green Bay, and Kili Lefotu, a decent looking line prospect who played well in NFL Europe. Whatever you think of the quality of Gibbs' helmsmanship since 2004, Bugel has shown he still has the magic and he has a history of successfully turning OT's into OG's with Joe Jacoby and Mark May. It's up in the air, but the situation appears to be in good hands and the line overall is stable.

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Where should Portis go in a standard PPR league?

If you use the projections I just gave him, PPR puts him in the big mess of RB2s. His value drops to something closer to a mid second round pick, maybe a little higher, maybe a little lower depending on how confident you are in him and the other guys getting drafted around him.

Yeah. I'm worried he may never be on the field on passing downs.

 

[redman]

2004Portis 343 (plus 40 catches)Betts 90 (plus 15 catches)total 433 (plus 55 RB catches)total RB plays 488Portis average 3.8 YPCBetts average 4.1 YPC2005Portis 352 (plus 30 catches)Betts 89 (plus 10 catches)total 441 (plus 40 RB catches)total RB plays 481Portis average 4.3 YPCBetts average 3.8 YPC2006 TotalsPortis 127 (plus 17 catches)Betts 263 (plus 53 catches)total 390 (plus 70 RB catches)total RB plays 460Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was healthyPortis 121 (plus 16 catches)Betts 71 (plus 19 catches)total 192 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 227Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.4 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was not healthyPortis 6 (plus 1 catch)Betts 192 (plus 34 catches)total 198 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 233Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPCRushing: it sure seems like the rushing offense flourished under Saunders, even if the passing offense didn't. The total number of rush attempts went down, which is concerning, especially since the quarterback situation seems to have hurt the offense, and it is still in flux. But the team's rush yards per carry went up, and even with Portis' injury, they were pretty consistent with previous years in terms of total RB touches, and sent more passes to the running backs than they had in the past. Receptions: it seems like Portis was catching the ball as well as Betts until he went down. When Betts was the primary back, though, he was thrown more passes. I don't know why this is, but it bears noting when projecting Portis' value in PPR leagues. There are so many variables that go into this - is it Saunders' propensity to throw to the running back after working with backs like Faulk and Priest, or was it Campbell throwing more to the running back in general (since he came in at about the exact same time that Portis went down), was it a change that was made to accomodate Betts' style as a player, or maybe it had more to do with the fact that Betts had twelve of his receptions in two games where he was the lead back and put up 7 for 18 and 11 for 40 rushing, respectively. Overall: Betts will be 28 at the start of the season. Portis will be 26. Betts has fewer career carries. Portis will have fresh legs for the first time since his rookie season. Both look good if the offense can click. If the offense breaks down as it has in the past, they should put up between 450 and 500 total plays to the running back. Most people would be surprised if that broke down less than 60/40 in Portis' favor. So in the worst case scenario if both are healthy, Portis should get 60% of 450 plays, which is still a very nice 270 plays. If it breaks down closer to their historical averages, it may break 80/20 in Portis' favor, which could be as much as 400 touches for Portis. I think a more realistic projection is somewhere in between, maybe a 310/170 split between the two. How many TDs should each have? Note that Portis had 5 TDs in 2004, but had 15 and 14 in Denver, 11 in Washington in 2005, and had 7 TDs in 8 games of 2006. The duo rushed for 12. With Saunders' history with running backs, it seems reasonable to estimate an increase in RB TDs in 2007. Call it 15 RB TDs to be conservative, and give Portis 2/3 of them. Overall, a reasonable estimate might be something likeortis: 290 rushes, 1200 yards, 4.2 YPC, 20 rec., 200 yards, 10 TDs. Betts: 140 rushes, 600 yards, 4.4 YPC, 30 rec., 300 yards, 5 TDs.That would have made Portis the #10 RB last year, and the projection doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Portis' downside: - Minor knee tendonitis- May lose TDs to Betts- Will lose long yardage opportunities to Betts (like the long rush on third and long)- Team QB situation in disarrayPortis' upside- If he gets 340+ carries again, he could have a RB1 season- He may get the lion's share of the TDs, as Saunders' #1 backs have in the past- The team may rush for more TDs than in the past, as Saunders' offenses have in the past- Has a great (but expensive) handcuff who could step in and be a monster if he went downOverall, I like Portis a lot this year. His upside is not capped by Betts' presence, IMO, because there's room on the team for him to get 300+ carries while Betts still gets plenty of touches. The team has a good offensive line, a head coach who loves to run, an offensive coordinator who has created the #1 back in fantasy football four times in the last ten years, and a young stud running back that they spent even more on than their solid, 28 year old backup. This is a guy whose value is being driven down by perception, not reality, and I think he represents one of the best second round values in the league right now.

Quality post, we need more of these around here.

I second that. and I'm feeling swayed.

Agreed, nice breakdown. Another way of saying this is that Betts is an elite 3rd down/long yardage RB (if there is such a thing) given his decisive upfield running which gets a burst of yards in a hurry and his excellent receiving skills which are as good as any RB not named "Bush". He lacks the vision, the overall cutback ability and the breakaway ability of Portis beyond 15 yards or so however. Portis also has a better ability to create something out of nothing than does Betts. Those factors mean that Portis' role is secure. As a 'Skins fan I hope they try to limit Portis to less than 300 carries, but I don't think that will happen given the competitive nature of that NFC East and the fact that Portis tends to protect the football better than Betts, who has had some fumble problems in the past.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Those numbers sound about right to me (1200 yards 10 tds). Portis should be a very good #2 running back this season. However as long as Betts is in the fold the days of 1500 yards and 15 touchdowns are over for him.

 

[gianmarco]

Those numbers sound about right to me (1200 yards 10 tds). Portis should be a very good #2 running back this season. However as long as Betts is in the fold the days of 1500 yards and 15 touchdowns are over for him.

So in 2005, when Betts was in the fold, Portis getting 1500 yds didn't really happen? The carries were 352 to 89, or essentially an 80/20 split. How is that not possible again?Again, I'm not saying Portis is going to get 1500 yds again, but if he doesn't, it's not because Betts will be eating into his production.

 

[nygiants56]

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.

I like Portis, he's a very good RB , but he didn't look outstanding his first season in DC, and got hurt last year..Granted,he had one good year in between these two, but the injuries are something to be concerned about, and Betts' numbers from 2006 cannot be ignored. Betts is likely to take on a much bigger role in this offense, and a full blown RBBC is not out of the question...Betts seems to be a better fit for this offense, he's a patient runner who follows his blockers, and he's an receiver out of the backfield. He also avg'd 4.7 per carry..training camp will be interesting!

 

[gianmarco]

Betts seems to be a better fit for this offense, he's a patient runner who follows his blockers, and he's an receiver out of the backfield. He also avg'd 4.7 per carry..training camp will be interesting!

i.e. Betts is better than Portis? O.........k.

 

[bostonfred]

Those numbers sound about right to me (1200 yards 10 tds). Portis should be a very good #2 running back this season. However as long as Betts is in the fold the days of 1500 yards and 15 touchdowns are over for him.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Portis' upside comes from the entire offense improving around him, something that seemed to be happening during their first year with Saunders. Portis is a very talented RB, and Saunders has been involved in the development of Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson. All of them, with the exception of LJ, had a #2 running back who had looked good in spot duty behind them. And Portis has had far and away more success at this point in his career than any of them had had before meeting Saunders. I just explained above why I would project him at 1200/10, but I believe he does have the upside to be one of the top RBs in the league this year.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Who is taking Dockery's place and how good of a player is he? How much is that being factored into everyone's opinion of Wash's offense?

It depends upon how you look at this, but generally I'm not all that concerned. The other four starters will have started together for three years, and three of them excluding C Raymer for five consecutive years. There's an above average amount of continuity even with the loss of Dockery. Also, Dockery while a pretty good LG was arguably the worst of the five linemen (Raymer being the only other viable candidate) who never blocked as violently as his size would suggest he should, got pushed around at times by far smaller D-linemen and who was clumsy in space when pulling. To answer your question, Todd Wade is presently the presumed starter, but as a converted RT he's learning a whole new position and the jury's out. Backing him up are Will Whitticker, a giant guy with some experience with Green Bay, and Kili Lefotu, a decent looking line prospect who played well in NFL Europe. Whatever you think of the quality of Gibbs' helmsmanship since 2004, Bugel has shown he still has the magic and he has a history of successfully turning OT's into OG's with Joe Jacoby and Mark May. It's up in the air, but the situation appears to be in good hands and the line overall is stable.

 

[redman]

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.

I like Portis, he's a very good RB , but he didn't look outstanding his first season in DC, and got hurt last year..Granted,he had one good year in between these two, but the injuries are something to be concerned about, and Betts' numbers from 2006 cannot be ignored. Betts is likely to take on a much bigger role in this offense, and a full blown RBBC is not out of the question...

Betts seems to be a better fit for this offense, he's a patient runner who follows his blockers, and he's an receiver out of the backfield. He also avg'd 4.7 per carry..training camp will be interesting!

Nothing looked good in 2004 on offense for the 'Skins. They were terrible. That's no guide to us for 2007. Portis is healthy, and while Betts is indeed well suited to this offense, the fact is that Saunders himself has acknowledged that he was still experimenting during the first half of the season when Portis was still playing. Betts benefitted from a more refined approach, not to mention a QB who though young was actually a threat to hit a pass more than 15-20 yards downfield. Betts' emergence also coincides with the timeframe when Gibbs essentially ordered that Saunders dump the short passes as a staple of the offense and return the team (and particularly the line) to its bread and butter, which was power running.

All of these factors have worked to inflate Betts' perceived value beyond that which the team gives him.

 

[fatness]

Betts seems to be a better fit for this offense, he's a patient runner who follows his blockers, and he's an receiver out of the backfield. He also avg'd 4.7 per carry..training camp will be interesting!

That YPC, compared to Portis's YPC, is rather misleading. They playcalling changed in midyear to emphasize a more aggressive running game (to keep the burden off new QB Campbell), and the offensive line play really picked up later in the year. Portis played the early part of the year, Betts the later part. Had you switched those roles, Betts's YPC for the early part of the year would have been lower than Portis's, and Portis's YPC for the later part of the year would have exceeded Betts's 4.7. Betts is good, Portis is better. And while Betts is better than Portis as a receiver, Portis is not a bad receiver and can block a hell of a lot better than Betts (or probably any other RB in the league at this time). His blocks are something to watch ---- fast, violent, and beautiful. He really lays into people. So he's not necessarily replaced in all "passing situations."

 

[redman]

And while Betts is better than Portis as a receiver, Portis is not a bad receiver and can block a hell of a lot better than Betts (or probably any other RB in the league at this time). His blocks are something to watch ---- fast, violent, and beautiful. He really lays into people. So he's not necessarily replaced in all "passing situations."

Portis is one of the most impressive RB blockers I've ever seen. He actually injured his shoulder a year and a half ago during the playoff game at Tampa blocking Derrick Brooks on a blitz. He got low and absolutely crushed Brooks on the play, decleating him. Trouble is he weighs only 210 but he blocks like he's 260 and does so against much bigger guys usually.

 

[evilempire]

One thing people are discounting is the fact that outside of Portis there really aren't many playmakers on offense for the Skins -- Moss is a more legit No 2 receiver but is the default top guy for the Skins; Campbell has a long way to go to prove he can play QB effectively in the NFL; and Portis has been over at 290+ carries in three of the last five seasons -- seems like a pretty big workload to me. Everything I've heard from Gibbs this offseason has indicated Betts will have a bigger piece of the pie -- though whether that's 25 percent or 40 percent is yet to be determined. I see Portis as a solid RB2 this season, but feel he'll need a confluence of events to get back to elite status in 2007.

 

[dgreen]

And while Betts is better than Portis as a receiver, Portis is not a bad receiver and can block a hell of a lot better than Betts (or probably any other RB in the league at this time). His blocks are something to watch ---- fast, violent, and beautiful. He really lays into people. So he's not necessarily replaced in all "passing situations."

Portis is one of the most impressive RB blockers I've ever seen. He actually injured his shoulder a year and a half ago during the playoff game at Tampa blocking Derrick Brooks on a blitz. He got low and absolutely crushed Brooks on the play, decleating him. Trouble is he weighs only 210 but he blocks like he's 260 and does so against much bigger guys usually.

That block was on Quarles, not Brooks.This isn't the first time I've corrected you on this. It better be the last.

 

[KellysHeroes]

after Pick 10... I have been all about Portis this yr..

 

[Blackjacks]

2004Portis 343 (plus 40 catches)Betts 90 (plus 15 catches)total 433 (plus 55 RB catches)total RB plays 488Portis average 3.8 YPCBetts average 4.1 YPC2005Portis 352 (plus 30 catches)Betts 89 (plus 10 catches)total 441 (plus 40 RB catches)total RB plays 481Portis average 4.3 YPCBetts average 3.8 YPC2006 TotalsPortis 127 (plus 17 catches)Betts 263 (plus 53 catches)total 390 (plus 70 RB catches)total RB plays 460Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was healthyPortis 121 (plus 16 catches)Betts 71 (plus 19 catches)total 192 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 227Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.4 YPC2006 in 8 games where Portis was not healthyPortis 6 (plus 1 catch)Betts 192 (plus 34 catches)total 198 (plus 35 RB catches)total RB plays 233Portis average 4.1 YPCBetts average 4.7 YPCRushing: it sure seems like the rushing offense flourished under Saunders, even if the passing offense didn't. The total number of rush attempts went down, which is concerning, especially since the quarterback situation seems to have hurt the offense, and it is still in flux. But the team's rush yards per carry went up, and even with Portis' injury, they were pretty consistent with previous years in terms of total RB touches, and sent more passes to the running backs than they had in the past. Receptions: it seems like Portis was catching the ball as well as Betts until he went down. When Betts was the primary back, though, he was thrown more passes. I don't know why this is, but it bears noting when projecting Portis' value in PPR leagues. There are so many variables that go into this - is it Saunders' propensity to throw to the running back after working with backs like Faulk and Priest, or was it Campbell throwing more to the running back in general (since he came in at about the exact same time that Portis went down), was it a change that was made to accomodate Betts' style as a player, or maybe it had more to do with the fact that Betts had twelve of his receptions in two games where he was the lead back and put up 7 for 18 and 11 for 40 rushing, respectively. Overall: Betts will be 28 at the start of the season. Portis will be 26. Betts has fewer career carries. Portis will have fresh legs for the first time since his rookie season. Both look good if the offense can click. If the offense breaks down as it has in the past, they should put up between 450 and 500 total plays to the running back. Most people would be surprised if that broke down less than 60/40 in Portis' favor. So in the worst case scenario if both are healthy, Portis should get 60% of 450 plays, which is still a very nice 270 plays. If it breaks down closer to their historical averages, it may break 80/20 in Portis' favor, which could be as much as 400 touches for Portis. I think a more realistic projection is somewhere in between, maybe a 310/170 split between the two. How many TDs should each have? Note that Portis had 5 TDs in 2004, but had 15 and 14 in Denver, 11 in Washington in 2005, and had 7 TDs in 8 games of 2006. The duo rushed for 12. With Saunders' history with running backs, it seems reasonable to estimate an increase in RB TDs in 2007. Call it 15 RB TDs to be conservative, and give Portis 2/3 of them. Overall, a reasonable estimate might be something likeortis: 290 rushes, 1200 yards, 4.2 YPC, 20 rec., 200 yards, 10 TDs. Betts: 140 rushes, 600 yards, 4.4 YPC, 30 rec., 300 yards, 5 TDs.That would have made Portis the #10 RB last year, and the projection doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Portis' downside: - Minor knee tendonitis- May lose TDs to Betts- Will lose long yardage opportunities to Betts (like the long rush on third and long)- Team QB situation in disarrayPortis' upside- If he gets 340+ carries again, he could have a RB1 season- He may get the lion's share of the TDs, as Saunders' #1 backs have in the past- The team may rush for more TDs than in the past, as Saunders' offenses have in the past- Has a great (but expensive) handcuff who could step in and be a monster if he went downOverall, I like Portis a lot this year. His upside is not capped by Betts' presence, IMO, because there's room on the team for him to get 300+ carries while Betts still gets plenty of touches. The team has a good offensive line, a head coach who loves to run, an offensive coordinator who has created the #1 back in fantasy football four times in the last ten years, and a young stud running back that they spent even more on than their solid, 28 year old backup. This is a guy whose value is being driven down by perception, not reality, and I think he represents one of the best second round values in the league right now.

good work

 

[redman]

And while Betts is better than Portis as a receiver, Portis is not a bad receiver and can block a hell of a lot better than Betts (or probably any other RB in the league at this time). His blocks are something to watch ---- fast, violent, and beautiful. He really lays into people. So he's not necessarily replaced in all "passing situations."

Portis is one of the most impressive RB blockers I've ever seen. He actually injured his shoulder a year and a half ago during the playoff game at Tampa blocking Derrick Brooks on a blitz. He got low and absolutely crushed Brooks on the play, decleating him. Trouble is he weighs only 210 but he blocks like he's 260 and does so against much bigger guys usually.

That block was on Quarles, not Brooks.This isn't the first time I've corrected you on this. It better be the last.

It's more fun to say it's on Brooks though.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Here's the thing I don't get about all the people worrying about Betts stealing touches.

Portis was averaging 100yds and a touchdown per game last year in almost half a season. That's 1600/16 over a full year, good enough to be a top 5 RB. Because he was playing with the banged up shoulder, he received only a shade over 60% of the carries in that span.

Now, even assuming all the offseason talk about getting Betts more involved is true, does anyone really think it'll be more than a 60/40 thing? I think that's a worst-case scenario for Portis, and those are the same percentages he was a top 5 RB in with worse QB play and in the first year of a new offense while playing injured.

Now again, even IF he gets stuck in that 60/40 split (probably worst-case) we're still looking at his 100/1 per game average he was putting up last year, adding a better QB, the second year in FF RB stud-maker Al Saunder's offense, and seeing a much healthier Portis. Even in a 60/40 split (again same as last year) I could see him IMPROVING on his 100/1 per game numbers from last year because everything around him has gotten better and he has gotten healthier.

If that split happens to be better than 60/40, the upside is limitless.

 

[benbadman]

Here is the question I am pondering:

In a league where receiving yards & rushing yards are the same amount of points (no ppr either), would/should you take WR1 over (Steve Smith or Chad Johnson) over Portis?

Portis did only play 8 games last year, but he had 7 TDs in that span. Before that he had great production in 2004 & 2005. A similar value pick RB (at the end of rd1 / early rd2), Denver's Travis Henry intrigues me as well. Unlike Portis, he had a great 2006, and he had little mileage piled on him in 2005 & 2004 due to the Willis McGahee situation in Buffalo.

Right now I am not quite sure who I would take first if both are on the board-- the current Denver stud RB or the former Denver stud RB. This kind of subjective ranking is something I like to decide by considering individual player performance & team performance/situation in the preseason. Last year Portis was injured in preseason but he still went in Rd1 in most of my leagues (at the tail end), but I think if he got a minor injury in preseason in 2007, Portis would go at the tail end of rd2 or early rd3.

 

[Rounders]

Here is the question I am pondering:In a league where receiving yards & rushing yards are the same amount of points (no ppr either), would/should you take WR1 over (Steve Smith or Chad Johnson) over Portis?Portis did only play 8 games last year, but he had 7 TDs in that span. Before that he had great production in 2004 & 2005. A similar value pick RB (at the end of rd1 / early rd2), Denver's Travis Henry intrigues me as well. Unlike Portis, he had a great 2006, and he had little mileage piled on him in 2005 & 2004 due to the Willis McGahee situation in Buffalo.Right now I am not quite sure who I would take first if both are on the board-- the current Denver stud RB or the former Denver stud RB. This kind of subjective ranking is something I like to decide by considering individual player performance & team performance/situation in the preseason. Last year Portis was injured in preseason but he still went in Rd1 in most of my leagues (at the tail end), but I think if he got a minor injury in preseason in 2007, Portis would go at the tail end of rd2 or early rd3.

Good post, I'm in a similar boat. I'm looking very hard at Portis in round 2 but Smith (my #1 WR) is very tempting.I think that you are thinking along the correct lines. I view Portis and Henry as prime candidates for guys you can draft in the 2nd round that can win a fantasy championship for you. Both have talent and good opportunities and should be up nice numbers. Both could explode.....maybe I should be looking at grabbing both at the turn????

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Here's the thing I don't get about all the people worrying about Betts stealing touches.

Portis was averaging 100yds and a touchdown per game last year in almost half a season. That's 1600/16 over a full year, good enough to be a top 5 RB. Because he was playing with the banged up shoulder, he received only a shade over 60% of the carries in that span.

Now, even assuming all the offseason talk about getting Betts more involved is true, does anyone really think it'll be more than a 60/40 thing? I think that's a worst-case scenario for Portis, and those are the same percentages he was a top 5 RB in with worse QB play and in the first year of a new offense while playing injured.

Now again, even IF he gets stuck in that 60/40 split (probably worst-case) we're still looking at his 100/1 per game average he was putting up last year, adding a better QB, the second year in FF RB stud-maker Al Saunder's offense, and seeing a much healthier Portis. Even in a 60/40 split (again same as last year) I could see him IMPROVING on his 100/1 per game numbers from last year because everything around him has gotten better and he has gotten healthier.

If that split happens to be better than 60/40, the upside is limitless.

Think about this practically. If Portis gets a 60/40 split (worst case scenario) he realistically has NO shot at 100/1 a game (1600/16 at year end). Assuming the Skins run it 450 times, 60% is 270 carries. 1600/16 means he's averaging about 6 yards a carry and scoring in under every 17 touches.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Here is the question I am pondering:In a league where receiving yards & rushing yards are the same amount of points (no ppr either), would/should you take WR1 over (Steve Smith or Chad Johnson) over Portis?Portis did only play 8 games last year, but he had 7 TDs in that span. Before that he had great production in 2004 & 2005. A similar value pick RB (at the end of rd1 / early rd2), Denver's Travis Henry intrigues me as well. Unlike Portis, he had a great 2006, and he had little mileage piled on him in 2005 & 2004 due to the Willis McGahee situation in Buffalo.Right now I am not quite sure who I would take first if both are on the board-- the current Denver stud RB or the former Denver stud RB. This kind of subjective ranking is something I like to decide by considering individual player performance & team performance/situation in the preseason. Last year Portis was injured in preseason but he still went in Rd1 in most of my leagues (at the tail end), but I think if he got a minor injury in preseason in 2007, Portis would go at the tail end of rd2 or early rd3.

If it's no PPR I think you have to go RB (assuming you have a fairly standard lineup and nothing like 1 RB 3 WRs). I personally like Henry a bit more than Portis this year, but I'd take Portis over CJ too.

 

[dgreen]

Here's the thing I don't get about all the people worrying about Betts stealing touches.

Portis was averaging 100yds and a touchdown per game last year in almost half a season. That's 1600/16 over a full year, good enough to be a top 5 RB. Because he was playing with the banged up shoulder, he received only a shade over 60% of the carries in that span.

Now, even assuming all the offseason talk about getting Betts more involved is true, does anyone really think it'll be more than a 60/40 thing? I think that's a worst-case scenario for Portis, and those are the same percentages he was a top 5 RB in with worse QB play and in the first year of a new offense while playing injured.

Now again, even IF he gets stuck in that 60/40 split (probably worst-case) we're still looking at his 100/1 per game average he was putting up last year, adding a better QB, the second year in FF RB stud-maker Al Saunder's offense, and seeing a much healthier Portis. Even in a 60/40 split (again same as last year) I could see him IMPROVING on his 100/1 per game numbers from last year because everything around him has gotten better and he has gotten healthier.

If that split happens to be better than 60/40, the upside is limitless.

Think about this practically. If Portis gets a 60/40 split (worst case scenario) he realistically has NO shot at 100/1 a game (1600/16 at year end). Assuming the Skins run it 450 times, 60% is 270 carries. 1600/16 means he's averaging about 6 yards a carry and scoring in under every 17 touches.

I think FreeBaGel is referring to total offense.In the six games last year that Portis started and finished, he accounted for 67% of the touches between he and Betts and gained 612 yards of offense and scored 6 TDs. That's 102 yds and 1 TD per game on 67% of the touches. So, yes, saying a 60/40 split may lead to 1600/16 is a little too much on the positive side, but the point remains that Portis doesn't need an insane amount of touches to produce points.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

One other thing that doesn't get mentioned much when talking about Portis injuries last season is that his shoulder injury kept him out of 0 regular season games (although it did affect his playing) and if Washington wasn't out of the playoff race he only would of missed up to 4 games for the broken hand.

He plays through injuries and a broken hand, which is a pretty freak injury, is the only one that sidelined him. The shoulder affected his play, but never sidelined him.

Also i highly doubt Portis plays much if at all in the preseason. Even before his injury in the preseason last year he talked about how pointless it was for him to be in there during preseason games. He'll get the LT preseason treatment from here on out. I think due to that he'll fall even farther than anticipated since people are gonna be afraid that he's not playing due to injury, when the truth is he won't be in there much at all during preseason games even if he's completely healthy.

 

[jurb26]

One other thing that doesn't get mentioned much when talking about Portis injuries last season is that his shoulder injury kept him out of 0 regular season games (although it did affect his playing) and if Washington wasn't out of the playoff race he only would of missed up to 4 games for the broken hand.He plays through injuries and a broken hand, which is a pretty freak injury, is the only one that sidelined him. The shoulder affected his play, but never sidelined him.Also i highly doubt Portis plays much if at all in the preseason. Even before his injury in the preseason last year he talked about how pointless it was for him to be in there during preseason games. He'll get the LT preseason treatment from here on out. I think due to that he'll fall even farther than anticipated since people are gonna be afraid that he's not playing due to injury, when the truth is he won't be in there much at all during preseason games even if he's completely healthy.

Wow, I'd love it if this happened.

 

[Rounders]

One other thing that doesn't get mentioned much when talking about Portis injuries last season is that his shoulder injury kept him out of 0 regular season games (although it did affect his playing) and if Washington wasn't out of the playoff race he only would of missed up to 4 games for the broken hand.He plays through injuries and a broken hand, which is a pretty freak injury, is the only one that sidelined him. The shoulder affected his play, but never sidelined him.Also i highly doubt Portis plays much if at all in the preseason. Even before his injury in the preseason last year he talked about how pointless it was for him to be in there during preseason games. He'll get the LT preseason treatment from here on out. I think due to that he'll fall even farther than anticipated since people are gonna be afraid that he's not playing due to injury, when the truth is he won't be in there much at all during preseason games even if he's completely healthy.

Wow, I'd love it if this happened.

Me too! Jurb you and I are on the same page again this year!

 

[Biabreakable]

I also will not bat an eye if Portis is rested during preseason. I think that would be a good thing.

As many have said allready Portis is going to be the man. Betts is a pretty good RB but he is not in the same galaxy as far as talent that Portis is.

I was seeing Portis as RB2 in the Saunders offense last season before the injuries and my opinion about that has not really changed much. What Betts did in this offense kind of correlates with this as well and I look forward to seeing what Portis can do in the offense. It could be pretty amazing.

That being said I do feel there are more questions and more risk surrounding Portis at this point in time than there were last preseason. Although none of them concern me much. I still believe in Portis.

I was looking at trying to buy Portis + with LT again this offseason but the owner is not willing to pay what LT is worth. To the point that it makes exchanging LT for Portis not worth the risk. Anyhow I digress. But I do like Portis enough to consider it. In the league where I do own Portis I was considering giving him for Steven Jackson and was even more willing to give up Portis than AD. But after taking a longer look at it I decided that I would rather take my chances with Portis returning to elite level than what I would have to give on top of him for Jackson at this time. Once the season is underway I think thier value compared to each other will tighten.

Take anything Jurb says about Portis with a grain of salt as he owns him in almost every dynasty league he is in IIRC.

 

[Blackjacks]

I just got done watching NFL Replay of the Wash/NYG game in week 17 and all I have to say after watching Betts in the game is I'm not at all afraid of Betts taking Portis' job. I know Betts had a very good game but if Washington gives Portis those holes there is no telling the stats he would end up with. Betts really didn't impress me that much from a skill standpoint. He will make a good third down back and a change of pace guy but as for a rbbc or actually challenging Clinton for his job... no way. Clinton will be a great value this year.

 

[cscmtp]

I just got done watching NFL Replay of the Wash/NYG game in week 17 and all I have to say after watching Betts in the game is I'm not at all afraid of Betts taking Portis' job. I know Betts had a very good game but if Washington gives Portis those holes there is no telling the stats he would end up with. Betts really didn't impress me that much from a skill standpoint. He will make a good third down back and a change of pace guy but as for a rbbc or actually challenging Clinton for his job... no way. Clinton will be a great value this year.

When the Skins took that opening drive, all the way down the field, only to have Betts fumble it inside the red zone and the Giants run it back 60 yards, that reminded me of the same thing. NO WAY Betts keeps Portis off the field. Like his first couple of years, Clinton will come off the field when he wants a breather, but that's about it.

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

Clinton Portis in the second round this year is the value pick of the year.

If i had the 12th hole, i'd be very happy with Henry/Portis as my backfield

 

[LawFitz]

I disagree with all the Portis love. The guy is a fantastic talent, but is made of glass.

Portis will go down again at some point in this season and anyone with Betts on their roster will greatly benefit. Think Larry Johnson '04 and '05.

I luv watching CP, but won't be investing an early pick in him this year. I'd rather take a Harrison or Holt to to anchor my WRs and Betts late as my projected playoffs RB2. In the meantime I'll also take a guy like Jamal Lewis or Warrick Dunn as my early season RB2 while the Betts stats juggernaut awaits Mr. Glass' latest injury.

In Fantasy Football, just like real football, it's not how you start, but how you finish. The key is being the hot team at the end (assuming you were able to tread water early, of course).

ETA: grammar

 

[Rounders]

I disagree with all the Portis love. The guy is a fantastic talent, but is made of glass.

Portis will go down again at some point in this season and anyone with Betts on their roster will greatly benefit. Think Larry Johnson '04 and '05.

I luv watching CP, but won't be investing an early pick in him this year. I'd rather take a Harrison or Holt to to anchor my WRs and Betts late as my projected playoffs RB2. In the meantime I'll also take a guy like Jamal Lewis or Warrick Dunn as my early season RB2 while the Betts stats juggernaut awaits Mr. Glass' latest injury.

In Fantasy Football, just like real football, it's not how you start, but how you finish. The key is being the hot team at the end (assuming you were able to tread water early, of course).

ETA: grammar

Uhh, you couldn't be more wrong here. Prior to last season Portis has only missed 4 games due to injury. 4 missed games from 2002 - 2005 is not someone who is made of glass. He seperated his shoulder in preseason and still started the season and played 8 games last year before breaking his hand.