CP goes after B.mitch on 980!!!

[culpeper]

i dont have a link or clip, but if any of you download the podcasts...this is a must!!!

it started out as CP laughing and sort of playfully asking why someone on the john thompson show would say certain things, to each guy shouting and challenging the other.

CP's an emotional guy, and i love his fire. but its almost as if he doesnt understand that its Bmitch's job to be critical of him as an analyst.

long story short, JT had to step in and get the guys off each other so to speak...GREAT RADIO!!!!

[Keino]

My father just called me about this and said I have to listen to 980 when I get home....I am hoping the interview is archived and I can listen tonight.

[CNYSkinFan]

cp will break 150 this sunday because of it...he plays best when challenged

[shally]

cp will break 150 this sunday because of it...he plays best when challenged

maybe we could get bmitch to "prep" portis every week..?? lol

[Moe]

I recall Portis going on that show last year after the first Giants game and BMitch got his panties in a bunch questioning Portis' heart for not being in for the final td run and CP calmly shut him up. Mitchell is an a-hole with a microphone and while sitting the pot can make for good/controversial radio, it hardly makes him right.

[Battle Cat]

Nothing worse than a bitter ex player. B Mitch and Keyshawn Johnson should start a radio show together.

[AliBabba]

Link to download podcast (http://nick8.surfernetwork.com/Media/Pod/wwxx/podcasting/09-16-08-Portis-JT-Show.mp3)

EDIT: I love the InterWeb

[LATrueRedskin]

Link to download podcast (http://nick8.surfernetwork.com/Media/Pod/wwxx/podcasting/09-16-08-Portis-JT-Show.mp3)

EDIT: I love the InterWeb

Fantastic. Thanks for the link! I can't wait to hear this when I get home. I heard Clinton and BMitch really dug into each other.

[RedskinsDave]

I almost never listen to BMitch but I got in the car right as CP was tearing into him. To his credit, Mitchell let him have his say before he defended himself. I have to side with BMitch on this one. His job is to critique and sometimes critique can be critical. I kind of like that Portis let him have it too though.

[HanburgerBum]

I have always thought that Mitchell's critcism of CP for not playing preseason and for not playing every down in regular season is not well-taken. It is stupid to play a star RB in the preseason. And, almost every team today recognizes the value of spelling a star RB with a second back--it keeps the star fresh for the entire game and prolongs his career.

But, Clinton has also got to realize that Mitchell's job now is to analyze and give his opinions. So, instead of getting upset by the criticism, he should simply brush it off by saying that the team has decided to save him during the preseason and spell him during the regular season. A professional athlete has got to have thicker skin than this.

Incidentally, Portis' remarks last week seem ill-advised to me. Whether he meant it or not, it can easily be perceived by others as wishing he were somewhere else besides Washington.

[greatest2]

oh boy, i just heard it, thanks for the link!

CP with a chip on his shoulder, man do i feel bad for that blitzin linebacker...


I thought it was interesting that he said all the comments are starting to add up, i think we about to see portis with a fire under his butt cause he is pissed.


i love CP!

[Lavar703]

Good for CP, he stuck up for himself and im proud of him. BMitch has been running his mouth about Portis for awhile now and it even aggrivates me.

[hail2skins]

The thing that got me and I'm surprised Portis didn't attack it is that JT said BMitch always praises Portis to him (off air). I thought Portis would take that and run with it. It is BMitch's responsibility to analyze but I think he goes overboard sometime to get his point across. More like shock value to get listeners.

[HAWGZHEAD]

You can listen to it here without having to download it. Just click on listen for yourself at the bottom of that opening paragraph.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/redskins/2008/Sep/16/brian-mitchell-vs-clinton-portis/

Durrrrr I tihnk this is the same link as above lol

[Sweepea436]

:readme: Need the transcript in my neck of the woods. Big brother locksdown everything but this site and the google on my internet machine.

[Skins7ny]

maybe we could get bmitch to "prep" portis every week..?? lol

Wow. I am listening to this (thanks for providing the link, AliBabba).

Clinton really lost it with Mitchell. He really has let Mitchell get to him. Maybe it is because Mitchell's criticisms hit home for him. He doesn't seem to understand what a football analyst's role is. Interesting that Clinton praised John Thompson for doing the exact same thing that he criticized Mitchell for.

[hail2skins]

Wow. I am listening to this (thanks for providing the link, AliBabba).

Clinton really lost it with Mitchell. He really has let Mitchell get to him. Maybe it is because Mitchell's criticisms hit home for him. He doesn't seem to understand what a football analyst's role is. Interesting that Clinton praised John Thompson for doing the exact same thing that he criticized Mitchell for.I believe his point was more of how JT is a legend in this town and his ability to criticize and praise on air. Portis comment to BMitch was basically you don't praise even though he said he does it. I know JT said several times that BMitch praises Portis to him (JT) he said nothing about it being on air. Like I said earlier, BMitch has a way of doing it that doesn't seem genuine and comes across as shock radio to me at least.

IF the shoe was on the other foot, I wonder if BMitch would react the same way as Portis.

[shane88]

Course, this is just my feelings but...BMitch is a BUNGHOLE!!!! He was a great punt/kick returner for us and a decent role-playing back-up and that's it, in my eyes. I think he's an obnoxious loud mouth who likes rocking the boat just to get a rise out of someone. I don't see how he can dare to criticize any starting players when he himself was never a starting caliber player. To me that would be like me, a 2nd degree black belt, questioning Bruce Lee's or Chuck Norris' heart?!?! I have no credibility to do so, and in my opinion, neither does BMitch. Aaaaaaa he makes me wanna vomit!!!:cussing:

[Keino]

I cannot give an unbiased opinion on it, but I agree with what Shane just said and I agree with Mike's second point. Lord knows that if some former Skins reserve RB was questioning B Mitch's heart that he would have wanted to address it in a manner not unlike Portis just did.

I think Mitchell has a ton of jealousy towards Portis.

[RedskinsDave]

I cannot give an unbiased opinion on it, but I agree with what Shane just said and I agree with Mike's second point. Lord knows that if some former Skins reserve RB was questioning B Mitch's heart that he would have wanted to address it in a manner not unlike Portis just did.

I think Mitchell has a ton of jealousy towards Portis.

That's precisely why I don't listen to that show. I like Thompson but other than basketball he doesn't know much and Mitchell is mostly a loudmouth and not a very articulate one at that.

[Patrick]

I listen everyday to the JT show - last hour anyway. The one thing about B.Mitch - he doesn't sugar coat and he doesn't wear B&G glasses.
AND the funny thing - Doc Walker and him agree about 95% of the time - Doc just a little softer in his approach.
AND as far as this CP/BM thing goes - I REALLY hope it does drives Clinton a little harder. As long as it translate into a positive for the team - they its a good thing IMO.

[PyroGenic]

My favorite part: "Don't come on this radio show thinking that I'm gonna back down".

Bmitch is pretty good at instigating. I kind of agree with him, but he's just poking at an agitated Portis' manhood... something you don't really do to an NFL running back.

[BSMKF]

I listen everyday to the JT show - last hour anyway. The one thing about B.Mitch - he doesn't sugar coat and he doesn't wear B&G glasses.
AND the funny thing - Doc Walker and him agree about 95% of the time - Doc just a little softer in his approach.
AND as far as this CP/BM thing goes - I REALLY hope it does drives Clinton a little harder. As long as it translate into a positive for the team - they its a good thing IMO.
.

[greatest2]

My favorite part: "Don't come on this radio show thinking that I'm gonna back down".

Bmitch is pretty good at instigating. I kind of agree with him, but he's just poking at an agitated Portis' manhood... something you don't really do to an NFL running back.

especially the tough ones...

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

I cannot give an unbiased opinion on it, but I agree with what Shane just said and I agree with Mike's second point. Lord knows that if some former Skins reserve RB was questioning B Mitch's heart that he would have wanted to address it in a manner not unlike Portis just did.

I think Mitchell has a ton of jealousy towards Portis.
I really do think thats a large part of it.

I finally listened to it and wow, Clinton really got after Mitchell and you can tell he was letting everything that has added up over time, out at once. I'm glad that he got to say whats been bugging him for so long.

As an analyst, its B Mitch's job to be critical, BUT he doesn't always have to be negative. He says he respects CP's game, but has he ever said so to him personally? He'll go out of his way to talk down about CP, but he obviously saves his praise for private moments with Coach Thompson.

[smoak]

cp will break 150 this sunday because of it...he plays best when challenged

i'll take that bet.

cp is "challenged". there is a difference... :D

but i do agree this is all b/c bmitch is an ass. WHOA! he just called portis "foolish"... NICE! its getting good.

[csquared]

Ill start by saying i hate B-Mitch. Hate him with a passion. But this whole thing seems kinda like Clinton is whining about B-Mitchs comments. He needs to get over it and play football. EVERYONE knows B-mitch talks from his butt all the time. Get over it Clinton

[redwolf1218]

how did Brian Mitchell ever get this job? low budget

[PA Skins Girl]

I gotta side with Clinton here. B Mitch can have his opinions, yes, but to question Clinton's time on the field is just ignorant. He had more attempts than any back last year. And who is B Mitch to talk anyway? He was a kick returner. He touched the ball like 5 times a game at best.

[joethefan]

Imma go against the grain here:

My question is do you think CP would have done this if they had lost the game and he had a badd game......say 22 carries for 58 yards and 0 TDs?


I think that B Mitch Raises some good points.

1) Why is it that CP after 2 carries in a row takes himself out of the game?
2) Why is it that after he runs for 10-20 yards he comes out of the game and goes to get air? that seems to me that shows him being out of shape IMO. When you look at other big backs in the league, many of them don't come out after 2 or 3 rushes in a row.....I find that kinda odd that CP does this. Also in that Giants game last year, I remember someone asking where was Portis to Al Saunders. he said "he didn't know why portis wasn't on the field"....

IMO if your gonna be the big back you want everyone to respect you for, Like others in the league like LT, MB or Brian W. and others, you need to be in the game when it's on the line Mr. 50+Mill. JM2C.

IMO Clinton sounded like an Arse IMO. When he says "my pockets are phat and I'm trying to get mine" You don't need to mention to anyone about your pockets esp when most people listening don't have the pockets you have...Your pockets have nothing to do with someone analyzing you and questioning where you were in certain parts of a game that your team could have used your talents on the field.

[InsomniaKiller]

I was worried Zorn wouldn't run the ball enough. Portis has over 20 carries in each of the first 2 games. That's much better than the last couple of years when it would seem like Portis would be 17 and Betts would get 12.

I'm thrilled with everything I've seen from Portis this year and he's going to end up, as usual, near the top of league in carries and I see no reason why this can't be his most productive year for us yet.

If he's getting 20+ carries a game and is regularly getting big runs for us (10+ yards) then tbere is no room for any analyst to be putting him down.

[Redskinmayhem]

Imma go against the grain here:

My question is do you think CP would have done this if they had lost the game and he had a badd game......say 22 carries for 58 yards and 0 TDs?


I think that B Mitch Raises some good points.

1) Why is it that CP after 2 carries in a row takes himself out of the game?
2) Why is it that after he runs for 10-20 yards he comes out of the game and goes to get air? that seems to me that shows him being out of shape IMO. When you look at other big backs in the league, many of them don't come out after 2 or 3 rushes in a row.....I find that kinda odd that CP does this. Also in that Giants game last year, I remember someone asking where was Portis to Al Saunders. he said "he didn't know why portis wasn't on the field"....

IMO if your gonna be the big back you want everyone to respect you for, Like others in the league like LT, MB or Brian W. and others, you need to be in the game when it's on the line Mr. 50+Mill. JM2C.

IMO Clinton sounded like an Arse IMO. When he says "my pockets are phat and I'm trying to get mine" You don't need to mention to anyone about your pockets esp when most people listening don't have the pockets you have...Your pockets have nothing to do with someone analyzing you and questioning where you were in certain parts of a game that your team could have used your talents on the field.
I agree w/ everything you said JTF, although I do see CP's side. That said, the comment he made about his pockets is just stupid. He needs to leave the thug vernacular at home.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I gotta side with Clinton here. B Mitch can have his opinions, yes, but to question Clinton's time on the field is just ignorant. He had more attempts than any back last year. And who is B Mitch to talk anyway? He was a kick returner. He touched the ball like 5 times a game at best.

I don't see how anyone can question CP's staying on the field when he has among the most carries every year.

Mitchel is an instigator but CP needs to get some thicker skin.

I don't agree that this will make Portis any better. Dude runs hard and blocks hard every single game, it's not like he's leaving anything in the tank.

CP is my favorite Redskin. He plays hard and he takes losing personally. I wish we had more players like him. Going after CP is just plain stupid unless the two of them have personal beef which is beyond stupid.

[hail2skins]

Imma go against the grain here:

My question is do you think CP would have done this if they had lost the game and he had a badd game......say 22 carries for 58 yards and 0 TDs?


I think that B Mitch Raises some good points.

1) Why is it that CP after 2 carries in a row takes himself out of the game?
2) Why is it that after he runs for 10-20 yards he comes out of the game and goes to get air? that seems to me that shows him being out of shape IMO. When you look at other big backs in the league, many of them don't come out after 2 or 3 rushes in a row.....I find that kinda odd that CP does this. Also in that Giants game last year, I remember someone asking where was Portis to Al Saunders. he said "he didn't know why portis wasn't on the field"....

IMO if your gonna be the big back you want everyone to respect you for, Like others in the league like LT, MB or Brian W. and others, you need to be in the game when it's on the line Mr. 50+Mill. JM2C.

IMO Clinton sounded like an Arse IMO. When he says "my pockets are phat and I'm trying to get mine" You don't need to mention to anyone about your pockets esp when most people listening don't have the pockets you have...Your pockets have nothing to do with someone analyzing you and questioning where you were in certain parts of a game that your team could have used your talents on the field.As for the answers to your questions:

1) Maybe it's Zorn changing personnel instead of Portis bringing himself out. Gibbs allowed Portis to do that but Zorn said he wouldn't.

2) See #1. Also, in that heat on Sunday they needed to rotate more. The Saints players were on the sidelines using IV's.

As for BMitch, if he had played the roll Clinton plays on this team I would probably accept his analysis but he didn't.

Also, when BMitch said I don't like some of the things you do and I'll say it, well I hope he was talking about football and football only.

[culpeper]

My question is do you think CP would have done this if they had lost the game and he had a badd game......say 22 carries for 58 yards and 0 TDs?

i think this all stems mostly from Bmitch (and 90% of the rest of the free world) "mis-interpreting" his comments in the paper last week. maybe he would not have gone after him if he played poorly...but maybe he might have

1) Why is it that CP after 2 carries in a row takes himself out of the game?
2) Why is it that after he runs for 10-20 yards he comes out of the game and goes to get air? that seems to me that shows him being out of shape IMO. When you look at other big backs in the league, many of them don't come out after 2 or 3 rushes in a row.....I find that kinda odd that CP does this. Also in that Giants game last year, I remember someone asking where was Portis to Al Saunders. he said "he didn't know why portis wasn't on the field"....

like H2S said above...it was HOT out there. i understand your point, but at the end of the day when you touch the ball 20+ times...i cant complain

IMO if your gonna be the big back you want everyone to respect you for, Like others in the league like LT, MB or Brian W. and others, you need to be in the game when it's on the line Mr. 50+Mill. JM2C.

and what he said about the scoring drive in the forth would attest to this. he was "done" and LB told CP he would start the drive and for CP to come in and finish it. i think thats just a good personnel move...but thats me. youve got to have fresh legs out there, especially in that kind of weather

IMO Clinton sounded like an Arse IMO. When he says "my pockets are phat and I'm trying to get mine" You don't need to mention to anyone about your pockets esp when most people listening don't have the pockets you have...Your pockets have nothing to do with someone analyzing you and questioning where you were in certain parts of a game that your team could have used your talents on the field.

im neutral on this. CP has to understand that its Bmitch's job. but good for CP getting things off his chest! there are not a lot of people out there who would take Bmitch head on (hes a tough SOB too).

i personally REALLY like Bmitch on this show. he doesnt sugar coat it, but he gives credit when its due (he is completely different than Czabe in that regard. Czabe is just an jerk).

love the moxie! now keep showing it on the field CP!

[Skins7ny]

I believe his point was more of how JT is a legend in this town and his ability to criticize and praise on air. Portis comment to BMitch was basically you don't praise even though he said he does it. I know JT said several times that BMitch praises Portis to him (JT) he said nothing about it being on air. Like I said earlier, BMitch has a way of doing it that doesn't seem genuine and comes across as shock radio to me at least.
IF the shoe was on the other foot, I wonder if BMitch would react the same way as Portis.
The shoe would never be on the other foot, and that is precisely the point. Mitchell played something like 14-15 years in the league, and no one ever accused him of placing himself above his teammates or refusing to practice. Mitchell was very fiery, played with a chip on his shoulder, and did make enemies on and off the field, but I never once have heard anybody criticize him for that type of behavior. Mitchell was a gamer, but he also practiced hard, and played hurt. He did everything his coaches wanted him to do, and his teammates looked up to him as a player even though he could be abrasive.
I cannot give an unbiased opinion on it, but I agree with what Shane just said and I agree with Mike's second point. Lord knows that if some former Skins reserve RB was questioning B Mitch's heart that he would have wanted to address it in a manner not unlike Portis just did.

I think Mitchell has a ton of jealousy towards Portis.
I really don't know how anyone can ascribe this type of motive to Mitchell without knowing something about the man that what we see/hear on Comcast and WTEM. Just because he criticizes Portis and he also used to be a Redskins RB doesn't mean that he is motivated by jealousy. I have heard Mitchell praise Portis when Portis has good games. John Riggins has criticized Portis as well: is he jealous of Portis, too?
Judge Mitchell's opinions for what they are. There is plenty of room to agree or disagree-but unless you have some inside information or other evidence, I wouldn't presume to ascribe some evil motive to Mitchell. He is calling it as he sees it, which is what he is being paid to do.
I gotta side with Clinton here. B Mitch can have his opinions, yes, but to question Clinton's time on the field is just ignorant. He had more attempts than any back last year. And who is B Mitch to talk anyway? He was a kick returner. He touched the ball like 5 times a game at best.
PASG, I have to strongly disagree with you. Should I refuse to listen to Trevor Matich because he was a failed 1st-round pick who was only good enough to see the field as a long snapper? I think he does an excellent job analyzing the team for Fox (last year) and Comcast (this year). To stretch it further, most of the head coaches and assistant coaches in the league are marginal or mediocre NFL players. Why should any NFL player accept coaching from a guy who wasn't good enough to be a star in the league?
Imma go against the grain here....
I think that B Mitch Raises some good points.
1) Why is it that CP after 2 carries in a row takes himself out of the game?
2) Why is it that after he runs for 10-20 yards he comes out of the game and goes to get air? that seems to me that shows him being out of shape IMO. When you look at other big backs in the league, many of them don't come out after 2 or 3 rushes in a row.....I find that kinda odd that CP does this. Also in that Giants game last year, I remember someone asking where was Portis to Al Saunders. he said "he didn't know why portis wasn't on the field"....
The substance of Mitchell's criticism is valid. Mitchell pointed this out during Portis' tirade. It goes to his conditioning, which Portis himself has admitted was subpar prior to this year due to lack of off-season conditioning in Miami. Others around the team have acknowledged this, including the Front Office and his buddy Santana Moss. The difference is that while Portis, the FO and Moss all shrug it off ("that's just Clinton being Clinton") Mitchell is the only one calling him on it, which is why Clinton is angry at him.
I don't see how anyone can question CP's staying on the field when he has among the most carries every year.
Mitchel is an instigator but CP needs to get some thicker skin.
I don't agree that this will make Portis any better. Dude runs hard and blocks hard every single game, it's not like he's leaving anything in the tank.
CP is my favorite Redskin. He plays hard and he takes losing personally. I wish we had more players like him. Going after CP is just plain stupid unless the two of them have personal beef which is beyond stupid.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to hear about how Clinton hates losing. Anybody can say they hate losing, and I don't doubt that he does. But if you hate losing, then do what you need to do the other 349 days a year to put yourself (and your team) in the best position to win. Get yourself in maximum condition, learn the playbook, watch film, etc. It is not a secret. Your teammates do it. And if you don't do it, then I certainly don't want to hear you say you fantasize about playing somewhere else because your line, scheme and passing game aren't up to your standards.
i think this all stems mostly from Bmitch (and 90% of the rest of the free world) "mis-interpreting" his comments in the paper last week. maybe he would not have gone after him if he played poorly...but maybe he might have....
It is not even a question of playing poorly. Speaking for myself, I would not get on Clinton for having a bad game or making a mistake if I knew that he was maximizing his chances for success by hard work in the off-season and practicing hard during the season. Both of which he admits he does not do. I would never criticize James Thrash for dropping a pass, because I know he does everything he can to maximize his talent and succeed on teh field on Sundays. I don't get that feeling with Clinton.

[skin4ever]

Imma go against the grain here:

My question is do you think CP would have done this if they had lost the game and he had a badd game......say 22 carries for 58 yards and 0 TDs?


I think that B Mitch Raises some good points.

1) Why is it that CP after 2 carries in a row takes himself out of the game?
2) Why is it that after he runs for 10-20 yards he comes out of the game and goes to get air? that seems to me that shows him being out of shape IMO. When you look at other big backs in the league, many of them don't come out after 2 or 3 rushes in a row.....I find that kinda odd that CP does this. Also in that Giants game last year, I remember someone asking where was Portis to Al Saunders. he said "he didn't know why portis wasn't on the field"....

IMO if your gonna be the big back you want everyone to respect you for, Like others in the league like LT, MB or Brian W. and others, you need to be in the game when it's on the line Mr. 50+Mill. JM2C.

IMO Clinton sounded like an Arse IMO. When he says "my pockets are phat and I'm trying to get mine" You don't need to mention to anyone about your pockets esp when most people listening don't have the pockets you have...Your pockets have nothing to do with someone analyzing you and questioning where you were in certain parts of a game that your team could have used your talents on the field.

I dont remember hearing him say his pockets are phat, he said they were straight and he gives his all when he is on the field. Meaning that he earns his checks. He is on the field when it counts, and week in week out he shows heart, more so than many others. Screw Brian Mitchell.

B. Mitch's criticisms that started this were from his reaction to what he read? He almost became defensive9as if he were still playing for the skins) and then proceeded to throw CP under the bus. He should have known better and talked with CP about it before opening his mouth. He being a former nfl player and working for media now, knows that the media will chop up any statement to meet their needs, CONTROVERSY. And thats what he does now, he is a media guy, drummingup more contraversy to keep his ratings.

Has anyones opinion changed from the time of the article to now, now that CP stated the remarks were taken out of context and for what he said to B. Mitch.

[Keino]

I really don't know how anyone can ascribe this type of motive to Mitchell without knowing something about the man that what we see/hear on Comcast and WTEM. Just because he criticizes Portis and he also used to be a Redskins RB doesn't mean that he is motivated by jealousy. I have heard Mitchell praise Portis when Portis has good games. John Riggins has criticized Portis as well: is he jealous of Portis, too?
Judge Mitchell's opinions for what they are. There is plenty of room to agree or disagree-but unless you have some inside information or other evidence, I wouldn't presume to ascribe some evil motive to Mitchell. He is calling it as he sees it, which is what he is being paid to do.


I am calling it as I see it as well. When I lived in the area, I saw Mitchell give unwarranted criticism of Portis. Questioning his heart and things of the like and his tone is more than abrasive at times, it is downright disrespectful.

John Riggins is a Hall of Fame Back. Brian Mitchell was a glorified 3rd down back who compiled a ton of yards in Special teams play. Riggins, while critical of Portis when necessary, comes off as genuine while Mitchell comes off as Hatin'. Furthermore, I don't ascribe Jealousy or envy as evil motives. They are simply human emotions that all of us deal with to some degree or another, and we all know Mitchell to be an emotional guy. I mean as a player, he tried to fight anyone who tackled him. He also had some very pointed parting shots after he was cut.

I think Mitchell is jealous of Portis. He is jealous of the love he receives by the fans and the front office and sees his un-ceremonial dismissal as some grave injustice and still harbors bitterness over it. That bitterness is manifested in his (at times) inappropriate or off-base criticism. I also think that he is jealous of the natural talent Portis has. Mitchell was a hard worker, and imagines the type of player he could have been if he had Portis' talent....and he projects these feelings towards Portis in some of his critiques.

And yes, I know something about the man, but I am not liberty to post all that I know. I am sure you can understand that, and if you can't...too bad.

I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Portis. I thought his comments last week were inappropriate (True, but inappropriate) and I have no problems believing that the interviewer omitted some of the comments made to him from the story in order to give the appearance that comments were more pointed than they were. However, I think Portis (and all players) need to be smarter than that, and not fall into those sorts of intellectual traps.

Mitchell has been critical of Portis when it is unwarranted. Like questioning him coming out the game after 4 straight carries in 96 degree, 90% humidity conditions.....something Mitchell himself never even did. Even Riggo wouldn't have raised that question and that is the difference......

[BurgundyNGold]

I am calling it as I see it as well. When I lived in the area, I saw Mitchell give unwarranted criticism of Portis. Questioning his heart and things of the like and his tone is more than abrasive at times, it is downright disrespectful.

John Riggins is a Hall of Fame Back. Brian Mitchell was a glorified 3rd down back who compiled a ton of yards in Special teams play. Riggins, while critical of Portis when necessary, comes off as genuine while Mitchell comes off as Hatin'. Furthermore, I don't ascribe Jealousy or envy as evil motives. They are simply human emotions that all of us deal with to some degree or another, and we all know Mitchell to be an emotional guy. I mean as a player, he tried to fight anyone who tackled him. He also had some very pointed parting shots after he was cut.

I think Mitchell is jealous of Portis. He is jealous of the love he receives by the fans and the front office and sees his un-ceremonial dismissal as some grave injustice and still harbors bitterness over it. That bitterness is manifested in his (at times) inappropriate or off-base criticism. I also think that he is jealous of the natural talent Portis has. Mitchell was a hard worker, and imagines the type of player he could have been if he had Portis' talent....and he projects these feelings towards Portis in some of his critiques.

And yes, I know something about the man, but I am not liberty to post all that I know. I am sure you can understand that, and if you can't...too bad.

I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Portis. I thought his comments last week were inappropriate (True, but inappropriate) and I have no problems believing that the interviewer omitted some of the comments made to him from the story in order to give the appearance that comments were more pointed than they were. However, I think Portis (and all players) need to be smarter than that, and not fall into those sorts of intellectual traps.

Mitchell has been critical of Portis when it is unwarranted. Like questioning him coming out the game after 4 straight carries in 96 degree, 90% humidity conditions.....something Mitchell himself never even did. Even Riggo wouldn't have raised that question and that is the difference......
I don't disagree with anything you have said about Mitchell.

The fact remains, however, that Portis takes himself out of the game *way* too much for the loot we're paying him. Having played football youself, you know the value of rhythm -- especially at the QB and RB positions. Part of the reason why I think that Portis hasn't ripped off so many long runs as expected is because of that lack of rhythm.

I also think we're wasting his talents. Zorn needs to get Portis out in space more. They should use him a little more like Brian Westbrook and Reggie Bush. While Portis is a runner first (unlike those backs) we should still work to get the ball to him on the edges with swings and screens. Line him up in the slot to isolate him on a LB or S. Throw him the ball on a drag route out of the backfield. And it wouldn't hurt to have more 2 back sets with both Portis and Betts, if for no other reason to create another variable for which opposing defenses would have to contend.

[bergiemoore]

I am calling it as I see it as well. When I lived in the area, I saw Mitchell give unwarranted criticism of Portis. Questioning his heart and things of the like and his tone is more than abrasive at times, it is downright disrespectful.

John Riggins is a Hall of Fame Back. Brian Mitchell was a glorified 3rd down back who compiled a ton of yards in Special teams play. Riggins, while critical of Portis when necessary, comes off as genuine while Mitchell comes off as Hatin'. Furthermore, I don't ascribe Jealousy or envy as evil motives. They are simply human emotions that all of us deal with to some degree or another, and we all know Mitchell to be an emotional guy. I mean as a player, he tried to fight anyone who tackled him. He also had some very pointed parting shots after he was cut.

I think Mitchell is jealous of Portis. He is jealous of the love he receives by the fans and the front office and sees his un-ceremonial dismissal as some grave injustice and still harbors bitterness over it. That bitterness is manifested in his (at times) inappropriate or off-base criticism. I also think that he is jealous of the natural talent Portis has. Mitchell was a hard worker, and imagines the type of player he could have been if he had Portis' talent....and he projects these feelings towards Portis in some of his critiques.

And yes, I know something about the man, but I am not liberty to post all that I know. I am sure you can understand that, and if you can't...too bad.

I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Portis. I thought his comments last week were inappropriate (True, but inappropriate) and I have no problems believing that the interviewer omitted some of the comments made to him from the story in order to give the appearance that comments were more pointed than they were. However, I think Portis (and all players) need to be smarter than that, and not fall into those sorts of intellectual traps.

Mitchell has been critical of Portis when it is unwarranted. Like questioning him coming out the game after 4 straight carries in 96 degree, 90% humidity conditions.....something Mitchell himself never even did. Even Riggo wouldn't have raised that question and that is the difference......

I'm not certain that some of comments were even true. Mitch complained about Portis' offseason conditioning when this offseason, Portis was at the Park the entire time and was in the best shape heading into this season then he's been in his entire career. Mitch also bitterly complained about Portis not being in "game shape", and attributed this to Portis' lack of involvement in the preseason. This criticism came after Portis ran for 96 yards in 21 carries with a 4.6 yard average during the hottest game recorded at FedEx Field. On its face, that's not a valid criticism.

Mitchell rushed for more than 96 yards only twice in his entire career, and on one of those he only had 2 carries. I only bring up the comparison here because B-Mitch constantly compares his experience with the Skins to the current team during his comments on Comcast.

[Keino]

BNG -

In the past, I agree with your comments. Gibbs allowed Portis to take himself out of the game too much. I don't think that is necessarily the case here. I also agree that Gibbs completely mis-used Portis' pass catching ability, but from what I've seen (and Sunday is not really evidence based on the effectiveness of the run and the nature of our strategy) they are attempting to get him more involved in the passing game. I remember a specific wheel route against the Giants that JC missed him on. I think as the team gets more comfy with the WCO, more of its elements and principals will be at Zorn's disposal.


Bergie -

That also factors into why I think it is a jealousy thing with B Mitch. He always interjects what he did during his time as a Skin as if we were a wining franchise outside of his first 2 years......

[bergiemoore]

I don't disagree with anything you have said about Mitchell.

The fact remains, however, that Portis takes himself out of the game *way* too much for the loot we're paying him. Having played football youself, you know the value of rhythm -- especially at the QB and RB positions. Part of the reason why I think that Portis hasn't ripped off so many long runs as expected is because of that lack of rhythm.


I disagree. With a valuable back-up in Betts, the drop off in production is minimal. Portis playing while gassed would be worse for the offense.

He touched the ball 23 times in each of the games this regular season for a combined 183 yards, or 28% of the Skins total offense. I think he's doing plenty.


I also think we're wasting his talents. Zorn needs to get Portis out in space more. They should use him a little more like Brian Westbrook and Reggie Bush. While Portis is a runner first (unlike those backs) we should still work to get the ball to him on the edges with swings and screens. Line him up in the slot to isolate him on a LB or S. Throw him the ball on a drag route out of the backfield. And it wouldn't hurt to have more 2 back sets with both Portis and Betts, if for no other reason to create another variable for which opposing defenses would have to contend.

Portis and Betts lined up in the backfield together 3 times on Sunday. On one of those plays, Portis went in motion to the slot, and Betts got the carry off the left tackle. I would also like to see more opportunities like this in games, and think that Zorn is still cooking up some plays to try and create mismatches and confusion in the defense.

[Nomad]

Portis is turning into a caricature of himself, acting like classless athletes of seasons past like CJ & TO. This is what happens when you guarantee a players entire contract--he knows he can do and say whatever he wants. Yet another brilliant move by ownership and the FO.

Portis talks about media misquoting him, etc. Gee, what a shock. You've been in the spotlight your entire adult life, and you aren't saavy enough to realize the media will backdoor you?

Portis has heart and plays hard, but he isn't doing himself any favors by behaving the way he has been--even if he is right.

[skinsfan36]

pretty wild interview the aftermath was funny to it turned into coach jt defending mitchell because callers were calling him negative

[redskinz#1fan]

I agree w/ everything you said JTF, although I do see CP's side. That said, the comment he made about his pockets is just stupid. He needs to leave the thug vernacular at home.

He made that comment to prove a point. He stated that his pockets were fat and that he was paid...he then followed that up with that he's proud to be a player for the skins and that he's never going anywhere.

All this was said to the point of I don't need money anymore, but I still go out and play my ass off and give everything I got on the field. PERIOD!

I think what CP said was actually very energizing for him and this team. I'm glad that he put B. mitch in his place.

[joethefan]

As for the answers to your questions:

1) Maybe it's Zorn changing personnel instead of Portis bringing himself out. Gibbs allowed Portis to do that but Zorn said he wouldn't.

2) See #1. Also, in that heat on Sunday they needed to rotate more. The Saints players were on the sidelines using IV's.

As for BMitch, if he had played the roll Clinton plays on this team I would probably accept his analysis but he didn't.

Also, when BMitch said I don't like some of the things you do and I'll say it, well I hope he was talking about football and football only.

1) well if zorn doesn't see that portis is doing this, then he needs to pay a little more attention to personnel....

2) I would agree with you only but Portis takes himslf out of the game far too often and that's not just when it's hott

Remember, he tried to keep things focused on football in the debate.

[silverspring]

I am not a fan of Bmitch's commentary and definitely not how he goes about his job. But he has valid points. Portis has made it clear he doesn't like to practice. He is frequently out of shape and has taken himself out of the game to suck oxygen on the side for years, not just on sunday's hot game.

Portis' comments last week were completely out of line and if he is going to make comments like that then he should at the very least expect to be put under a microscope. I mean what on earth did portis really expect after those comments? Did he think the media was going to pat his on the back and feel bad for him? The fact of the matter is that portis relies heavily on his natural talent and heart on game day, but Portis simply is not the constant professional and he is being paid like one. The one-two punch is great and i applaud it, but portis propped himself up as being one of the great ones and a back like that should be able to do it all by himself.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I don't disagree with anything you have said about Mitchell.

The fact remains, however, that Portis takes himself out of the game *way* too much for the loot we're paying him. Having played football youself, you know the value of rhythm -- especially at the QB and RB positions. Part of the reason why I think that Portis hasn't ripped off so many long runs as expected is because of that lack of rhythm.


So you think he should get more touches or you think he should lump them together in larger chunks?

CP has 383, 382, and 372 touches in his three healthy seasons as a Redskin-isn't that kind of a lot?

[Skins7ny]

I am calling it as I see it as well. When I lived in the area, I saw Mitchell give unwarranted criticism of Portis. Questioning his heart and things of the like and his tone is more than abrasive at times, it is downright disrespectful.

John Riggins is a Hall of Fame Back. Brian Mitchell was a glorified 3rd down back who compiled a ton of yards in Special teams play. Riggins, while critical of Portis when necessary, comes off as genuine while Mitchell comes off as Hatin'. Furthermore, I don't ascribe Jealousy or envy as evil motives. They are simply human emotions that all of us deal with to some degree or another, and we all know Mitchell to be an emotional guy. I mean as a player, he tried to fight anyone who tackled him. He also had some very pointed parting shots after he was cut.

I think Mitchell is jealous of Portis. He is jealous of the love he receives by the fans and the front office and sees his un-ceremonial dismissal as some grave injustice and still harbors bitterness over it. That bitterness is manifested in his (at times) inappropriate or off-base criticism. I also think that he is jealous of the natural talent Portis has. Mitchell was a hard worker, and imagines the type of player he could have been if he had Portis' talent....and he projects these feelings towards Portis in some of his critiques.

And yes, I know something about the man, but I am not liberty to post all that I know. I am sure you can understand that, and if you can't...too bad.....
I respect your right to call it as you see it, and I actually do understand that part of your opinion might be based on info about Mitchell that you have but can't divulge. But if so, you should have said so in your original post ("I think he is jealous of Clinton in part for reasons I cannot disclose"). Then at least I know you are not just basing it on the criticism alone. You are basically asking me to take it upon your word (and/or the trustworthiness of your sources) that there is something about Mitchell that would lead me to question his motives in criticizing Portis.

Yes, jealousy is a human emotion, and Brian Mitchell is human. But if I found out that there was some proof that Mitchell was jealous of Portis, then it would call into question Mitchell's criticism of Portis and make me think twice about Mitchell's credibility for any future criticism he makes of Portis.

From what I can see, and what I know about Clinton (no inside info, just what I have seen/heard from him and those around the team), Mitchell's
criticisms ring true.

[Keino]

I respect your right to call it as you see it, and I actually do understand that part of your opinion might be based on info about Mitchell that you have but can't divulge. But if so, you should have said so in your original post ("I think he is jealous of Clinton in part for reasons I cannot disclose"). Then at least I know you are not just basing it on the criticism alone. You are basically asking me to take it upon your word (and/or the trustworthiness of your sources) that there is something about Mitchell that would lead me to question his motives in criticizing Portis.

Yes, jealousy is a human emotion, and Brian Mitchell is human. But if I found out that there was some proof that Mitchell was jealous of Portis, then it would call into question Mitchell's criticism of Portis and make me think twice about Mitchell's credibility for any future criticism he makes of Portis.

From what I can see, and what I know about Clinton (no inside info, just what I have seen/heard from him and those around the team), Mitchell's
criticisms ring true.


Even if I were basing it on criticism alone, that wouldn't invalidate my opinion, as I supported my thoughts with more than reasonable conclusions drawn solely off his comments and tone. Nobody else had a problem accepting my opinion at face value. It was after all, an opinion. I don't have some irrefutable proof that makes my comments more valid (or even true), just some insight into the person Mitchell is.

You didn't understand how one could ascribe "Jealousy" to some of Mitchell's comments and so I approached my answer to that by staying in the realm of the comments and not in what I know personally about the guy, because at the end of the day, neither wholly support my opinion one way or the other. More than one poster agreed with my comments, so I cannot be the only one who sees this.

And yes, some of the criticism Mitchell has for Portis is valid. A good amount is not. Portis' heart should never come into question, especially from a guy who was half the blocker that Portis is......

[MPCSkins]

So you think he should get more touches or you think he should lump them together in larger chunks?

CP has 383, 382, and 372 touches in his three healthy seasons as a Redskin-isn't that kind of a lot?

That's what I see. Portis is always at the top when it comes to touches. I don't know how anyone can say he is taking himself out of the game too much if he's got touches like this.

[silverspring]

That's what I see. Portis is always at the top when it comes to touches. I don't know how anyone can say he is taking himself out of the game too much if he's got touches like this.


That is a good point

[Shrympscampi]

That's what I see. Portis is always at the top when it comes to touches. I don't know how anyone can say he is taking himself out of the game too much if he's got touches like this.


First two games of the season:
Portis 44 Carries 4.1 ypc
Westbrook 37 Carries 4.0 ypc
Barber 34 carries 4.2 ypc
Jacobs 36 carries 5.8 ypc

It appears to me that Portis is carrying his load.

[Moe]

The fact remains, however, that Portis takes himself out of the game *way* too much for the loot we're paying him. Having played football youself, you know the value of rhythm -- especially at the QB and RB positions. Part of the reason why I think that Portis hasn't ripped off so many long runs as expected is because of that lack of rhythm.

He heads to the sideline because he's tired so I'm curious how that, rhythm or otherwise, would lend itself to increased long runs. That doesn't really add up.
To the point, I think it's at best a slippery slope for any of us to question his conditioning not having the first clue of what is necessary for him personally to succeed in this league, especially in light of the work he puts in during games and how he's produced. It bothers me when I see people equating his paycheck with his heart when he is (and has been) the engine of this offense since he's arrived. None of us know how his body reacts and what it takes for him to get ready and blanket claims of 'he needs to practice more' are empty without such insight.

I also think we're wasting his talents. Zorn needs to get Portis out in space more. They should use him a little more like Brian Westbrook and Reggie Bush. While Portis is a runner first (unlike those backs) we should still work to get the ball to him on the edges with swings and screens. Line him up in the slot to isolate him on a LB or S. Throw him the ball on a drag route out of the backfield. And it wouldn't hurt to have more 2 back sets with both Portis and Betts, if for no other reason to create another variable for which opposing defenses would have to contend.

I don't know if I'd say "wasting his talents," rather I think they are missing some opportunities. We saw how dangerous he can be as a receiver last year and outside of Moss, nobody on this team eats up yardage in space more quickly than CP. Zorn made mention of being impressed with the hands of he and Betts and that he would use that, but I think getting down some of the more basic stuff might have pushed this desire back from the forefront a touch.

[skin4ever]

First two games of the season:
Portis 44 Carries 4.1 ypc
Westbrook 37 Carries 4.0 ypc
Barber 34 carries 4.2 ypc
Jacobs 36 carries 5.8 ypc

It appears to me that Portis is carrying his load.

I agree, and if you look at how many carries their backups are getting, its all comparably the same.

Booker for Philly- 5 carries and BUckholter 2, other great RB backups-Chester taylor: 9.
And Jacobs....who knows how many carries his backups get, but they seem to be on the field the entire second half.

This is a new season for Portis, he stayed here all summer, went to every practice, played in the preseason, lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

[BurgundyNGold]

I disagree. With a valuable back-up in Betts, the drop off in production is minimal. Portis playing while gassed would be worse for the offense.

He touched the ball 23 times in each of the games this regular season for a combined 183 yards, or 28% of the Skins total offense. I think he's doing plenty.
See, that's what's tricky. Nobody doubts that Portis is not a complete RB. He blocks better than anybody and his running skills are very good (not elite). As for his pass catching, I think he has potential to be excellent but, to this point in DC, there just isn't a large enough body of evidence to put him in league with the top pass catching RBs. He is an impact player, no doubt. He clearly isn't an elite RB, rather he is just a shade off from that.

Since Portis is billed as a "superstar" and is paid like one (I think he still makes a salary that is in the top 5 of RBs) it isn't unrealistic to expect elite performance and work ethic both on and off the field. If there truly is no difference between he and Betts, why such the disparity in salary? No, I think Portis is a much better RB than Betts if for not other reason because of his heart, his passion and the spectrum of his skill set.

That said, Portis is a bit of an enigma. There is no doubt that he has heart. He plays with an intensity and passion that is rarely matched. But he also takes himself out of the game after after 2 consecutive carries. It's perplexing to me. Most of the top people at every position never want to come out. It's that competitive fire that drives them to compete and take part in every play. Yet, with Portis, his obvious heart and desire to compete doesn't seem to translate into those situation. And it's somewhat irritating. So close to greatness, yet still far away.


Portis and Betts lined up in the backfield together 3 times on Sunday. On one of those plays, Portis went in motion to the slot, and Betts got the carry off the left tackle. I would also like to see more opportunities like this in games, and think that Zorn is still cooking up some plays to try and create mismatches and confusion in the defense.
I noticed that too and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments here.

[CarMike]

Portis is turning into a caricature of himself, acting like classless athletes of seasons past like CJ & TO. This is what happens when you guarantee a players entire contract--he knows he can do and say whatever he wants. Yet another brilliant move by ownership and the FO.

Portis talks about media misquoting him, etc. Gee, what a shock. You've been in the spotlight your entire adult life, and you aren't saavy enough to realize the media will backdoor you?

Portis has heart and plays hard, but he isn't doing himself any favors by behaving the way he has been--even if he is right.


B Mitch....is that you?

[BurgundyNGold]

He heads to the sideline because he's tired so I'm curious how that, rhythm or otherwise, would lend itself to increased long runs. That doesn't really add up.
It wouldn't seem to but it does. The YPC for the great ones get better with the more carries they have. Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders even John Riggins, they got most of their long runs later in the game, once they were in rhythm.

To the point, I think it's at best a slippery slope for any of us to question his conditioning not having the first clue of what is necessary for him personally to succeed in this league, especially in light of the work he puts in during games and how he's produced. It bothers me when I see people equating his paycheck with his heart when he is (and has been) the engine of this offense since he's arrived. None of us know how his body reacts and what it takes for him to get ready and blanket claims of 'he needs to practice more' are empty without such insight.
I don't think it's unrealistic or unfair to question a player's conditioning. Furthermore, I think that high draft status and/or high dollar contracts amplify the expectations that a player be in his best possible condition. Nobody decried when Thomas and Kelly were called out for not being in shape. This year, Portis stuck around and conditioned at the Park during the offseason, so I don't question his conditioning this year. I definitely question his conditioning levels in prior years, however. Given the evidence and the fact that many folks smarter than I raised the same questions, that it is not out of line, IMO.

I don't know if I'd say "wasting his talents," rather I think they are missing some opportunities. We saw how dangerous he can be as a receiver last year and outside of Moss, nobody on this team eats up yardage in space more quickly than CP. Zorn made mention of being impressed with the hands of he and Betts and that he would use that, but I think getting down some of the more basic stuff might have pushed this desire back from the forefront a touch.
I disagree here. If you slam a 205 lb RB between the tackles 20, 25 or 30 times a game when he is an elusive, speed back, you're wasting his talents. Worse still, you're probably taking games off of his career. Furthermore, Portis is a good receiver who is at his best in space. So, to not get him more involved in the passing game in those circumstances is not only a waste of his talent, it's a high crime against the potential of the offense.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Honestly, i have no problem with portis taking himself out if he feels winded. I'd rather have Betts@100% energy on the field than Portis at 80%. Theyre both really good running backs. Considering how hard Portis plays and how much energy he puts into pass protection (he completely leveled a Giants pass rusher the other week), I can understand him getting tired. I like the idea of keeping Portis "fresh" throughout the game and the season. Considering hes getting more carries than any of the other elite running backs, this shouldnt even be an issue.

[BurgundyNGold]

Honestly, i have no problem with portis taking himself out if he feels winded. I'd rather have Betts@100% energy on the field than Portis at 80%. Theyre both really good running backs. Considering how hard Portis plays and how much energy he puts into pass protection (he completely leveled a Giants pass rusher the other week), I can understand him getting tired. I like the idea of keeping Portis "fresh" throughout the game and the season. Considering hes getting more carries than any of the other elite running backs, this shouldnt even be an issue.
I don't have a problem with Portis getting spelled every now and again. I think it just messes up the rhythm of the offense (and for Portis) when he doesn't push through for the better part of a series. If anything, Portis should play 1 or 2 full series and then take a full series off in favor of Betts.

And there is no way that 100% of Betts can do what 80% of Portis can do in any capacity.

[skin4ever]

It wouldn't seem to but it does. The YPC for the great ones get better with the more carries they have. Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders even John Riggins, they got most of their long runs later in the game, once they were in rhythm.



What about the fact that Defenses are tired from being on the field all game long, and from being worn down? Thats when the big run come, early in the game, everyone is fresh, no one has their hands on their hips, sucking for wind. Big runs happen early because of the players abilities and the offensive playcall was perfect for the defense called.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of 3 and outs that help these guys stay fresh. Toward the end of last game, portis started to rip off some good runs, why because we were moving theball offensively keeping their D on the field.

[akhhorus]

I don't have a problem with Portis getting spelled every now and again. I think it just messes up the rhythm of the offense (and for Portis) when he doesn't push through for the better part of a series. If anything, Portis should play 1 or 2 full series and then take a full series off in favor of Betts.

And there is no way that 100% of Betts can do what 80% of Portis can do in any capacity.

What they need to do is get a RB who is an actual change of pace to Portis. Either a true power back or a real scat back to use on 3rd downs. Betts looks like a bad impression of Portis lol.

[BurgundyNGold]

What they need to do is get a RB who is an actual change of pace to Portis. Either a true power back or a real scat back to use on 3rd downs. Betts looks like a bad impression of Portis lol.
Yeah. It kills me that we didn't look at Lamont Jordan. He would've been a great 2 in a 1-2.

[BurgundyNGold]

What about the fact that Defenses are tired from being on the field all game long, and from being worn down? Thats when the big run come, early in the game, everyone is fresh, no one has their hands on their hips, sucking for wind. Big runs happen early because of the players abilities and the offensive playcall was perfect for the defense called.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of 3 and outs that help these guys stay fresh. Toward the end of last game, portis started to rip off some good runs, why because we were moving theball offensively keeping their D on the field.
You're actually making 2 points here.

First, yes, the DL may be tired at the end of games. But who isn't? The best RBs use this as their time to take advantage of opposing defenses. Often on a series, RBs use carries to get reads or to set up future carries. Assuming they've developed some sort of rhythm, of course.

Secondly, you're assuming that Portis hasn't broken that many long runs in his tenure here because of our 3 and outs. This implies that better teams make better runners. This can be true, but often better runners make teams better (Earl Campbell, Payton, Sanders to name a few).

[Moe]

It wouldn't seem to but it does. The YPC for the great ones get better with the more carries they have. Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders even John Riggins, they got most of their long runs later in the game, once they were in rhythm.

But wasn't this true for Portis last week as well? I think perhaps I'm stuck on your use of the term 'rhythm' in light of how Portis spells himself. From what I see, he gets gassed and goes out but is generally only out for a play or two max, not for long stretches that would impact any 'rhythm' in the larger sense of the game.


I don't think it's unrealistic or unfair to question a player's conditioning. Furthermore, I think that high draft status and/or high dollar contracts amplify the expectations that a player be in his best possible condition. Nobody decried when Thomas and Kelly were called out for not being in shape. This year, Portis stuck around and conditioned at the Park during the offseason, so I don't question his conditioning this year. I definitely question his conditioning levels in prior years, however. Given the evidence and the fact that many folks smarter than I raised the same questions, that it is not out of line, IMO.

Questioning is one thing, it's impugning his character (not directed at you per se, just generally) that bothers me, especially in light of his tangible production. To do so for the Brandon Lloyd's of the league is one thing, I just don't see it as appropriate for CP, big money or not.
It was appropriate to question the rookies who's lack of conditioning was likely a direct result of them not being able to make it on the field.

I disagree here. If you slam a 205 lb RB between the tackles 20, 25 or 30 times a game when he is an elusive, speed back, you're wasting his talents. Worse still, you're probably taking games off of his career. Furthermore, Portis is a good receiver who is at his best in space. So, to not get him more involved in the passing game in those circumstances is not only a waste of his talent, it's a high crime against the potential of the offense.

I'm a little confused at your disagreement since I was in agreement that using him in space and as a receiver was a good idea. However, it sounds like you are advocating a change in how he is used overall or am I wrong?

[BurgundyNGold]

But wasn't this true for Portis last week as well? I think perhaps I'm stuck on your use of the term 'rhythm' in light of how Portis spells himself. From what I see, he gets gassed and goes out but is generally only out for a play or two max, not for long stretches that would impact any 'rhythm' in the larger sense of the game.
He's in for a play or two, out for a play or two. If you can't see how you cannot develop a rhythm as a QB or RB, then I don't have anything more to add. I believe that continuous play through a series yields better results.

Questioning is one thing, it's impugning his character (not directed at you per se, just generally) that bothers me, especially in light of his tangible production. To do so for the Brandon Lloyd's of the league is one thing, I just don't see it as appropriate for CP, big money or not.
As character goes, I'm with you. CP is a character guy. However, I think the production question is a relative one. One could argue that his game breaking production in Denver in 2 years (runs of 65T,59T,59,59,58,51T,43T,30) is far better than an obviously lower level of game breaking production in Washington in 4+ years (runs of 64T,47T,41,38T,34,32,31,30T) and they'd have a legitimate argument.

I'm a little confused at your disagreement since I was in agreement that using him in space and as a receiver was a good idea. However, it sounds like you are advocating a change in how he is used overall or am I wrong?
I mistyped that. I'm in agreement with your position on that.

[Moe]

He's in for a play or two, out for a play or two. If you can't see how you cannot develop a rhythm as a QB or RB, then I don't have anything more to add. I believe that continuous play through a series yields better results.

Fair enough but from my perspective this is the rule and not the norm for most offenses (and therefore players). The league has become more pass oriented and so I don't see where even if he's in for 3-4 straight plays it makes any difference when they aren't calling 3-4 consecutive runs.

[BurgundyNGold]

Fair enough but from my perspective this is the rule and not the norm for most offenses (and therefore players). The league has become more pass oriented and so I don't see where even if he's in for 3-4 straight plays it makes any difference when they aren't calling 3-4 consecutive runs.
The league has certainly become "pass first". And, to some degree, you are correct in that it is more difficult to establish a rhythm as a running back if you're not carrying the rock like you may have, say, 5 or 10 years ago. Still, staying in the game helps you develop that rhythm. Brian Westbrook plays in one of the most pass happy offenses in the league and he doesn't take many plays off. Plus, to close out a game, you end up running the ball more than passing.

[akhhorus]

The league has certainly become "pass first". And, to some degree, you are correct in that it is more difficult to establish a rhythm as a running back if you're not carrying the rock like you may have, say, 5 or 10 years ago. Still, staying in the game helps you develop that rhythm. Brian Westbrook plays in one of the most pass happy offenses in the league and he doesn't take many plays off. Plus, to close out a game, you end up running the ball more than passing.

I think this ends up throwing off a lot of the pass/run stats at the end of the day. I'd love to see what the pass/run ratios are until about 7 minutes left in the 4th quarter. I suspect its much higher than the 60/40 pass/run rate that people think is standard.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think this ends up throwing off a lot of the pass/run stats at the end of the day. I'd love to see what the pass/run ratios are until about 7 minutes left in the 4th quarter. I suspect its much higher than the 60/40 pass/run rate that people think is standard.
I almost posted something about that, lol. I bet Philly, Indy, New England, et al are 70/30 pass over run until the 4th quarter.

[bergiemoore]

See, that's what's tricky. Nobody doubts that Portis is not a complete RB. He blocks better than anybody and his running skills are very good (not elite). As for his pass catching, I think he has potential to be excellent but, to this point in DC, there just isn't a large enough body of evidence to put him in league with the top pass catching RBs. He is an impact player, no doubt. He clearly isn't an elite RB, rather he is just a shade off from that.


Last season, he proved beyond a doubt that he can be a factor in the passing game. He'll never be what Westbrook is for the Eagles, but could definitely contribute along the lines of Alexander or James in their heyday.

I'm not sure what your criteria are for him to be described as an elite back. There aren't more than 5 others in the league that I'd rank above him. He consistently runs for at least 1200 yards per season. He is an every-down back that excels in pass-protection. He can get yards after contact and is elusive in open space.

He's been able to do most of this playing in a power-running system the last 4 years in a smash mouth division that prides itself on stuffing the run. I guarantee you that another RB like Joseph Addai would look like an absolute joke trying to do what Portis has done in Washington.


Since Portis is billed as a "superstar" and is paid like one (I think he still makes a salary that is in the top 5 of RBs) it isn't unrealistic to expect elite performance and work ethic both on and off the field. If there truly is no difference between he and Betts, why such the disparity in salary? No, I think Portis is a much better RB than Betts if for not other reason because of his heart, his passion and the spectrum of his skill set.


I never said that there was no difference between Portis and Betts. What I said was that there was a minimal drop off in production when Betts spells Portis. The disparity in their salary is largely due to the fact that Betts is not an every-down back, nor is he half as elusive as Portis is in the open field. He can make great runs off tackle, and is a good receiver coming out of the back field, but he stinks in pass protection and all too often falls down after 4 yards. He'll never be a home-run hitter. I have too many memories of Ladell costing the Skins games by fumbling the ball while racing toward the endzone in 2006.


That said, Portis is a bit of an enigma. There is no doubt that he has heart. He plays with an intensity and passion that is rarely matched. But he also takes himself out of the game after after 2 consecutive carries. It's perplexing to me. Most of the top people at every position never want to come out. It's that competitive fire that drives them to compete and take part in every play. Yet, with Portis, his obvious heart and desire to compete doesn't seem to translate into those situation. And it's somewhat irritating. So close to greatness, yet still far away.


He carried the ball 23 times while Betts carried for 6 against the Saints. I can't say for certain how many downs he played as that information is not tracked, but I do know that he was out there a vast majority of the time. He has had one season with the Skins where he had fewer than 300 carries, and you can be certain that he didn't get that by pulling himself out after 2 plays.


I noticed that too and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments here.

[akhhorus]

I almost posted something about that, lol. I bet Philly, Indy, New England, et al are 70/30 pass over run until the 4th quarter.

I wouldn't be surprised if its 85-15 until then.

[HanburgerBum]

I am calling it as I see it as well. When I lived in the area, I saw Mitchell give unwarranted criticism of Portis. Questioning his heart and things of the like and his tone is more than abrasive at times, it is downright disrespectful.

John Riggins is a Hall of Fame Back. Brian Mitchell was a glorified 3rd down back who compiled a ton of yards in Special teams play. Riggins, while critical of Portis when necessary, comes off as genuine while Mitchell comes off as Hatin'. Furthermore, I don't ascribe Jealousy or envy as evil motives. They are simply human emotions that all of us deal with to some degree or another, and we all know Mitchell to be an emotional guy. I mean as a player, he tried to fight anyone who tackled him. He also had some very pointed parting shots after he was cut.

I think Mitchell is jealous of Portis. He is jealous of the love he receives by the fans and the front office and sees his un-ceremonial dismissal as some grave injustice and still harbors bitterness over it. That bitterness is manifested in his (at times) inappropriate or off-base criticism. I also think that he is jealous of the natural talent Portis has. Mitchell was a hard worker, and imagines the type of player he could have been if he had Portis' talent....and he projects these feelings towards Portis in some of his critiques.

And yes, I know something about the man, but I am not liberty to post all that I know. I am sure you can understand that, and if you can't...too bad.

I don't have a problem with valid criticism of Portis. I thought his comments last week were inappropriate (True, but inappropriate) and I have no problems believing that the interviewer omitted some of the comments made to him from the story in order to give the appearance that comments were more pointed than they were. However, I think Portis (and all players) need to be smarter than that, and not fall into those sorts of intellectual traps.

Mitchell has been critical of Portis when it is unwarranted. Like questioning him coming out the game after 4 straight carries in 96 degree, 90% humidity conditions.....something Mitchell himself never even did. Even Riggo wouldn't have raised that question and that is the difference......


I totally agree that Mitchell's criticism of Portis in regard to his conditioning and lack of heart is unwarranted. If anything, Portis may have been over used, not under used, by the coaches. I just hope there is a better system worked out for when Clinton is being spelled. He and Betts don't have the same skill sets (e.g. Portis is probably the best blocking RB in the NFL, while Betts can't block), and I don't want situations to occur wherein Clinton's taking himself out of a game negatively affects the play-calling.

However, I do worry about Portis in things like that interview he gave resulting in the newspaper article last week. At the very least, that was horrible judgment. And, Clinton is coming dangerously close to acting like Lavar in his latter days in Wash. I still haven't forgiven Arrington for the way he behaved towards the team. If I were the manager at Comcast sports, I would not hire Lavar. Aside from his disloyalty to the city of Washington, Arrington is also a lousy commentator.

[Battle Cat]

I think we really underestimate what Portis and in part Samuels and Kendall did last year gaining yards rushing when everyone knew that we had to run left and only left. Portis earned every yard he got last year. We still are not that effective running to the right side but I hope that we get better as the season goes on.

Portis is an elite back he has just played on some really bad offenses. Just like Moss, Portis will shine as much as his qb shines. When Brunell was here and played well Portis and Moss could not be stopped. Brunell doesn't play well or Ramsey or Campbell play up and down they struggle. When we see a Pro Bowl type perfomance from, a qb for a year like Brunell a few years ago watch how much in love Redskin fans become with Poris and Moss. If our qb struggles like they have basicly since Brad Johnson left then we will all pile on our receivers and backs. Brad Johnson made Albert Connell and Westbrook look like world beaters along with Stephen Davis in comes Spurrier and his qbs and he makes Davis look like another ordinary back. Good year for Campbell 1400 yds 12 tds for Portis bad year for Campbell 1100 yds 6 tds for Portis.

[brettsky991]

CP held his own and I cant believe Bmitch is such a JA. Who would have thunk it.

[joethefan]

I am not a fan of Bmitch's commentary and definitely not how he goes about his job. But he has valid points. Portis has made it clear he doesn't like to practice. He is frequently out of shape and has taken himself out of the game to suck oxygen on the side for years, not just on sunday's hot game.

Portis' comments last week were completely out of line and if he is going to make comments like that then he should at the very least expect to be put under a microscope. I mean what on earth did portis really expect after those comments? Did he think the media was going to pat his on the back and feel bad for him? The fact of the matter is that portis relies heavily on his natural talent and heart on game day, but Portis simply is not the constant professional and he is being paid like one. The one-two punch is great and i applaud it, but portis propped himself up as being one of the great ones and a back like that should be able to do it all by himself.


post of the day....

[flave1969]

As pointed out by many here the actual evidence points to Clinton having more touches than perhaps is ideal, especially in regards of the running game. He led the league in carries last year if you all remember.

It doesn't point to someone who is out of condition or lacks heart. Our running game has two decent backs in it but I think lacks the change of pace it really needs.

Clinton has 44 Carries this season that translates to 352 for the season and that is way too many if we want him to flourish. I was thoroughly impressed with his Week One effort, they were 84 hard yards, and his adjustment in Week Two was an excellent one and it led to a very productive game.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm not sure what your criteria are for him to be described as an elite back. There aren't more than 5 others in the league that I'd rank above him. He consistently runs for at least 1200 yards per season.
I think to be elite you have to be top 5 at your position. I don't think Portis is top 5. He probably could be, but he isn't. I'd put him top 10 though.

He is an every-down back that excels in pass-protection. He can get yards after contact and is elusive in open space.
The fact that he is not on the field for considerable stretches is what keeps him out of the elite ranks.

He's been able to do most of this playing in a power-running system the last 4 years in a smash mouth division that prides itself on stuffing the run. I guarantee you that another RB like Joseph Addai would look like an absolute joke trying to do what Portis has done in Washington.
And that's because Indy is smart enough to either a) get a RB that best fits the style you want to run, or b) fit the style of your offense to the RB you have. For years, we've abused and misused Portis. We've send his frame, undersized for the role, into the NFL meat grinder and, to his credit, he has hardly complained. You cited his 1,200 yard performances yet, if used properly, he has show himself capable of 1,500 yards every year. We should focus on properly using Portis's speed and elusiveness and not keep treating him like some particle acceleration experiment, repeatedly slammng him into the LOS.

I never said that there was no difference between Portis and Betts. What I said was that there was a minimal drop off in production when Betts spells Portis. The disparity in their salary is largely due to the fact that Betts is not an every-down back, nor is he half as elusive as Portis is in the open field.
I'm confused. You say there is no noticeable drop off in production between Portis and Betts and then you go on to effectively illustrate how and why Betts cannot hold Portis' jock. So, which is it?


He carried the ball 23 times while Betts carried for 6 against the Saints. I can't say for certain how many downs he played as that information is not tracked, but I do know that he was out there a vast majority of the time. He has had one season with the Skins where he had fewer than 300 carries, and you can be certain that he didn't get that by pulling himself out after 2 plays.
With the Redskins under Gibbs, a 300 carry season is not the same benchmark that it might be with other teams. We had 500 rushing attempts last season. That's a lot. Still, I like where he is in the offense this year. 20-25 carries and 5-7 receptions a game would be ideal. He's still only averaging 1 reception per game this season. They need to focus on getting him the ball in space.

As an aside, I saw Westbrook run what was effectively a WR screen on Monday night. I'd love to see Portis do that, because he certainly can.

[Keino]

BNG they have called it more, but failed to execute it. Tuck blew-up our Screen-pass attempt in NY.

I really think that your comments, while certainly applicable to the Gibbs use of Portis, are a bit premature in judging how Zorn will use him. I think he will be used more in the manner you are advocating, but game circumstances in each of the 1st two games have sort of prevented it.

Both Philly and Dallas appear susceptible to the Screen, and I bet we see it run more than a few times in the coming weeks.

[BurgundyNGold]

BNG they have called it more, but failed to execute it. Tuck blew-up our Screen-pass attempt in NY.

I really think that your comments, while certainly applicable to the Gibbs use of Portis, are a bit premature in judging how Zorn will use him. I think he will be used more in the manner you are advocating, but game circumstances in each of the 1st two games have sort of prevented it.

Both Philly and Dallas appear susceptible to the Screen, and I bet we see it run more than a few times in the coming weeks.
There's the traditional screen -- in which Portis has been effective in the past -- and then there's the WR screen I saw Westbrook doing against Dallass. I haven't seen any Redskin RB execute the latter. I guess I pointed it out because I thought it was innovative and a great way to use Portis' skills.

[saratogan]

BMitch and CP sports entertainment at its best. With the word entertainment being the "operative" word.

As far as performance goes, B M gave a lot of himself to this team and the game of football, primarily as a special teamer.

As far as performance goes, CP is giving a whole helluva of alot of himself to our Redskins (good times and bad times - good lines and bad lines (pun)- oh, and good 0-lines and patched up O-lines). I can recall three times where he has gone to the coach and said give me the ball, let me carry the load. I think CP not only knows his body, I think he knows the sense of the team, and probably when he is most needed to carry the team forward, especially when things are dire. There have been a couple of times where he has litterally carried this team on his legs for several games in a row (last year after Taylor's tragedy for one key example) to victory. That is heart. That is an all-pro.

What more could you ask of your starting running back?

[skin4ever]

Why all this negativity about CP? So far THIS SEASON he has played a lot of snaps(numbers comparable to other elite backs). Hes not brandon Jacobs who doesnt play the whole second half. Like Keino said, all this talk may have been applicable to GIbbs, but not this season, not with Zorn. Clinton was here all summer, in preseason, and minicamps you name it, he may not like it but he was here and didnot complain about it. Moreso, Clinton carried theball more than other back last year, and almost the same for previous seasons, this doesnt sound like a guy who takes himself out for "stretches" at a time. I dont think anyone was complaining about this when he was carrying the team last season, why now? Just because BM(and i used his initials intentionally) says it.

[bergiemoore]

The fact that he is not on the field for considerable stretches is what keeps him out of the elite ranks.


I disagree with you here very strongly. I can't remember him at any time this year staying on the bench for more than 2 consecutive plays. I would love to have the personnel chart that shows which groupings were on the field for which plays. If you have access to that information, let me know and we can debate this using facts as opposed to how we remember the games.


And that's because Indy is smart enough to either a) get a RB that best fits the style you want to run, or b) fit the style of your offense to the RB you have. For years, we've abused and misused Portis. We've send his frame, undersized for the role, into the NFL meat grinder and, to his credit, he has hardly complained. You cited his 1,200 yard performances yet, if used properly, he has show himself capable of 1,500 yards every year. We should focus on properly using Portis's speed and elusiveness and not keep treating him like some particle acceleration experiment, repeatedly slammng him into the LOS.


1200 is his low point. With the Skins he has had years with 1315, 1516, 523 (injury), and 1262 yards. His 5'11" 220lb frame can handle the load just fine. Zorn has implemented the zone blocking schemes that allowed him to thrive in Denver and has also split him out into the slot, where I think that could create mismatches. It's really too early in the year to tell exactly how he'll be used. I don't think this offense has defined its identity yet.

Addai, on the other hand, will never be as good as the guy he replaced in Indy. Indy is trying to find a change of pace back because they realized that they'll have better luck with a 1-2 punch system then trying to get him to do what James was able to do for them. I think that is option 2 in your post. It took them an entire year to figure this out.



I'm confused. You say there is no noticeable drop off in production between Portis and Betts and then you go on to effectively illustrate how and why Betts cannot hold Portis' jock. So, which is it?


Again, I will restate, since you don't seem to understand my point, or are willfully misconstruing my prior statements. There is minimal(and yes, minimal is noticeable) drop off in production when Betts is spelling(1 maybe 2 plays at a stretch) Portis.

Betts does a great job at filling in for a couple of plays while Portis is sucking oxygen, but he is not an every-down back that is capable of handling an entire game, or even 40% of one, while Portis is healthy. He does have a similar running style to Portis, and the play-calling isn't completely hampered by him. When defenses don't prepare for him, he can have success.


With the Redskins under Gibbs, a 300 carry season is not the same benchmark that it might be with other teams. We had 500 rushing attempts last season. That's a lot. Still, I like where he is in the offense this year. 20-25 carries and 5-7 receptions a game would be ideal. He's still only averaging 1 reception per game this season. They need to focus on getting him the ball in space.


So, all Portis is missing in your mind is the receptions? The Skins ran 70 offensive plays on Sunday with Portis getting 21 of 28 carries (75%) and 2 of 42 passes (5%) for a total of 23 touches (33%). He's already a third of the offense, and there is still Cooley, Moss, Randle El, Davis, Kelly, and Thomas that I would like to see factor into the game at some point. (I intentionally left out Betts, Sellers and Yoder who also usually contribute.)

The Skins don't need Portis to be Brian Westbrook. Unlike Philly, there are enough receivers that can stretch the field or handle the ball well in space. I wouldn't mind seeing more of Portis in the passing game, but it is not imperative.


As an aside, I saw Westbrook run what was effectively a WR screen on Monday night. I'd love to see Portis do that, because he certainly can.

I wouldn't be opposed to this either, but I think Philly is in a bind in that they have no WRs outside of the rookie, and Westbrook is pulling double duty. He pretty much is their entire offense right now with about 45% of the plays going through him.

[BurgundyNGold]

I disagree with you here very strongly. I can't remember him at any time this year staying on the bench for more than 2 consecutive plays. I would love to have the personnel chart that shows which groupings were on the field for which plays. If you have access to that information, let me know and we can debate this using facts as opposed to how we remember the games.
Operative words: this year. 2 games does not a career in DC make. This is a new offense. I'm hoping to see him on the field more regularly this season than in previous seasons.

1200 is his low point. With the Skins he has had years with 1315, 1516, 523 (injury), and 1262 yards. His 5'11" 220lb frame can handle the load just fine. Zorn has implemented the zone blocking schemes that allowed him to thrive in Denver and has also split him out into the slot, where I think that could create mismatches. It's really too early in the year to tell exactly how he'll be used. I don't think this offense has defined its identity yet.
There is no way that CP plays at 220. He came to us at 205. Maybe he weighs 210 now. In any case, he's more sleight than he is stout and shouldn't be slammed into the LOS as much as we do.

As for the zone blocking schemes, Gibbs and Buges implemented those in 2006 in combination as a hybrid with the existing running scheme. Nothing new there aside from, obviously, we're not as adept at running that scheme and that we don't run zone blocking running plays as much as our traditional blocking schemes.

Addai, on the other hand, will never be as good as the guy he replaced in Indy. Indy is trying to find a change of pace back because they realized that they'll have better luck with a 1-2 punch system then trying to get him to do what James was able to do for them. I think that is option 2 in your post. It took them an entire year to figure this out.
James hasn't exactly been liugthing it up in Arizona. James was great for the Indy scheme, merely good in others. I guess you could extend that to say that Portis is very good in the Redskins scheme but a world beater in the Denver scheme.

Again, I will restate, since you don't seem to understand my point, or are willfully misconstruing my prior statements. There is minimal(and yes, minimal is noticeable) drop off in production when Betts is spelling(1 maybe 2 plays at a stretch) Portis.
You can restate it as many times as you'd like but what you're implying is that Betts is effectively the same as Portis while also stating that he is not. Betts is not as good a runner, pass catcher and definitely not blocker (in fact, he's pretty awful) as Portis. There is more than a minimal drop off when Portis is in the game because you have to account for all aspects of the game, not just a 3.9 YPC average vs. a 3.6 YPC average.

Betts does a great job at filling in for a couple of plays while Portis is sucking oxygen, but he is not an every-down back that is capable of handling an entire game, or even 40% of one, while Portis is healthy. He does have a similar running style to Portis, and the play-calling isn't completely hampered by him. When defenses don't prepare for him, he can have success.
I mostly agree with you here, except for the running styles comparison. Portis has a much quicker first step and change of direction than does Betts. Betts is nowhere near as elusive as is Portis and is all too often content to put his head down and plow into the back side of the legs of our offensive linemen.

So, all Portis is missing in your mind is the receptions? The Skins ran 70 offensive plays on Sunday with Portis getting 21 of 28 carries (75%) and 2 of 42 passes (5%) for a total of 23 touches (33%). He's already a third of the offense, and there is still Cooley, Moss, Randle El, Davis, Kelly, and Thomas that I would like to see factor into the game at some point. (I intentionally left out Betts, Sellers and Yoder who also usually contribute.)
And... we won. That doesn't change the fact that Portis needs to stay on the field for longer stretches. Maybe he's doing that this season where he didn't in seasons past (which is the crux of my rthythm hypothesis). Time will tell and I would absolutely love to see that. In any case, 2 games does not provide enough data points for any reliable trend.

The Skins don't need Portis to be Brian Westbrook. Unlike Philly, there are enough receivers that can stretch the field or handle the ball well in space. I wouldn't mind seeing more of Portis in the passing game, but it is not imperative.
Where do you think that we have the receivers to stretch the field? Aside from Moss, who occasionally completes his routes, who is there? El? He's a slot receiver. thrash? Dead legs. Thomas and Kelly? Rookies who have not shown the ability to compete at this level, let alone go deep.

Football is about creating matchup problems. Continuing to slam Portis into the LOS 20 times a game is not only bad for Portis' frame over the long haul, it puts our running game at a distinct disadvantage. If he we Adrian Peterson or Brandon Jacobs, fine. They have the body to handle those collisions with the big guys and can actually move the pile. Portis does not.

Instead, what we need to do, is to create those mismatches. Get Portis in space or in one-on-one situations where he can use his speed and elusiveness to his (and the team's) advantages. That's not just good for Portis' performance and longevity, it's football common sense.

I wouldn't be opposed to this either, but I think Philly is in a bind in that they have no WRs outside of the rookie, and Westbrook is pulling double duty. He pretty much is their entire offense right now with about 45% of the plays going through him.
There is some merit to what you're saying about the WRs but Westbrook is 45% of the offense because he's a legitimate star and Philly knows how to ride that horse. Honestly, I'd like to see Portis get 40-45% of the touches to take the pressure off of Campbell, who is no McNabb.

[Brokenstriker]

Random thoughts ....

Mitchell called Portis out and Portis answered that call ... what did you expect?

Does anyone here really have problems with Portis? Get serious, he's a good football player and I don't think there is any credibility to any assertion that he dogs it in games (to include pre-season). If you really think he is doggin it ... name the play and lets hear your arguement.

Leading the league in carries usually means leading the league in having 300# man-monsters falling on you, 250# LBs slamming into your thighs and knees, 230# safeties taking a 10 yard head-starts and hitting you as hards as they can, and light-weight CBs grabbing your ankles and twisting around hoping you will fall down.

You want to say someone doesn't play when they should ... don't look at Portis ... maybe if you really want to do that ... look at CBs who get kicked in the shin on Tuesday and can't play on Sunday. Never thought I would think pro soccer players are tougher than pro football players ... but I guess I should reconsider that.

I thought Portis was critical of the Redskins inability to make the defenses defend against the pass ("eight men in the box") and not his lines inability to block (5 vs. 8 not 5 vs. 5/6). In any case ...

There is a huge difference between guy with an opinion and professional (impartial) analysis ... Mitchell's assertions that Portis is doing something wrong is his opinion and since everybody has one ... I don't really put much value in his if I don't agree with it. If it was analysis ... he'd have insights from the coaching staff about how they feel about Portis taking a breather ... those opinions matter.

At some point the healthy, fresh, pain-free, breathing normally back-up is better than the battered, hurting, panting "starter." It can be in the best interests of the team to have the back-up give the "starter" a breather.

Does anyone really think Portis doesn't want the ball, everyone's attention, the stats, the TD, the TV close-up, etc? If you do I think you should give it some more consideration.

Mitchell like a few too many former players needs to check his ego at the door. When he says "Portis shouldn't come out." It sounds an awful lot like "Portis isn't as good as me, I wouldn't have come out, I'm a better football player than Portis will ever be" ... blah blah blah ..

just calling like I see 'em ...

[skin4ever]

Random thoughts ....

Mitchell called Portis out and Portis answered that call ... what did you expect?

Does anyone here really have problems with Portis? Get serious, he's a good football player and I don't think there is any credibility to any assertion that he dogs it in games (to include pre-season). If you really think he is doggin it ... name the play and lets hear your arguement.

Leading the league in carries usually means leading the league in having 300# man-monsters falling on you, 250# LBs slamming into your thighs and knees, 230# safeties taking a 10 yard head-starts and hitting you as hards as they can, and light-weight CBs grabbing your ankles and twisting around hoping you will fall down.

You want to say someone doesn't play when they should ... don't look at Portis ... maybe if you really want to do that ... look at CBs who get kicked in the shin on Tuesday and can't play on Sunday. Never thought I would think pro soccer players are tougher than pro football players ... but I guess I should reconsider that.

I thought Portis was critical of the Redskins inability to make the defenses defend against the pass ("eight men in the box") and not his lines inability to block (5 vs. 8 not 5 vs. 5/6). In any case ...

There is a huge difference between guy with an opinion and professional (impartial) analysis ... Mitchell's assertions that Portis is doing something wrong is his opinion and since everybody has one ... I don't really put much value in his if I don't agree with it. If it was analysis ... he'd have insights from the coaching staff about how they feel about Portis taking a breather ... those opinions matter.

At some point the healthy, fresh, pain-free, breathing normally back-up is better than the battered, hurting, panting "starter." It can be in the best interests of the team to have the back-up give the "starter" a breather.

Does anyone really think Portis doesn't want the ball, everyone's attention, the stats, the TD, the TV close-up, etc? If you do I think you should give it some more consideration.

Mitchell like a few too many former players needs to check his ego at the door. When he says "Portis shouldn't come out." It sounds an awful lot like "Portis isn't as good as me, I wouldn't have come out, I'm a better football player than Portis will ever be" ... blah blah blah ..

just calling like I see 'em ...

best post of the thread.

[bergiemoore]

Operative words: this year. 2 games does not a career in DC make. This is a new offense. I'm hoping to see him on the field more regularly this season than in previous seasons.


Throughout his career in DC, Portis has 72% of all called running plays (this excludes QB sacks and scrambles). This number includes the 06 season where he started 7 games and played in 8 while injured. Exclude that season from this statistic and he has received 75% of all called running plays. He has consistently carried the rock 20 - 25 times per game during his tenure with the Skins. I would say that for his career in DC, he has not consistently taken large stretches of plays off, which was your assertion that you have yet to back up with any statistics or facts.


There is no way that CP plays at 220. He came to us at 205. Maybe he weighs 210 now. In any case, he's more sleight than he is stout and shouldn't be slammed into the LOS as much as we do.


NFL.com -> 221lbs.
Redskins.com -> 223lbs.
ESPN.com -> 221lbs.

I don't know what else to tell you.


As for the zone blocking schemes, Gibbs and Buges implemented those in 2006 in combination as a hybrid with the existing running scheme. Nothing new there aside from, obviously, we're not as adept at running that scheme and that we don't run zone blocking running plays as much as our traditional blocking schemes.


Past tense. Gibbs preferred the smash-mouth, man-blocking running plays. It's kind of hard to figure how a team handles zone blocking when the coach never calls it.

Zorn called quite a few zone-blocked running plays.


James hasn't exactly been liugthing it up in Arizona. James was great for the Indy scheme, merely good in others. I guess you could extend that to say that Portis is very good in the Redskins scheme but a world beater in the Denver scheme.


I think that James could charge their offensive line with reckless endangerment. Seriously, they have been atrocious.

And yes, Portis excels in zone blocking schemes where he can use his vision to pick holes and cut-back lanes.



You can restate it as many times as you'd like but what you're implying is that Betts is effectively the same as Portis while also stating that he is not.


Seriously, how do you not get this?

The drop-off from Portis to Betts for a couple of plays during a drive is minimal.

Example: Skins 1st TD drive against the Saints.
-Portis starts the drive.
-On the 2nd play, he gains 4 yards.
-On the 4th play, he picks up 13.
-He comes out after the 5th play of the drive, and Betts has consecutive runs for 14 and 4 yards on the 6th and 7th plays.
-Portis comes back in on the 8th play.
-On the 10th, he has a reception for -1 yard
-On the 11th, he rumbles behind Sellers for a 9 yard TD.

Betts is able to effectively fill in for Portis during drives.

I have not implied that they are effectively the same, and I cannot comprehend what tortured logic leads you to believe that I have.



Betts is not as good a runner,

Agree, but he'll still get you 3.5 - 4 YPC
pass catcher

Disagree. Betts is a very capable pass catcher and was one of the things that Saunders was excited about when he first came to DC.
and definitely not blocker (in fact, he's pretty awful) as Portis.

No question about this.
There is more than a minimal drop off when Portis is in the game because you have to account for all aspects of the game, not just a 3.9 YPC average vs. a 3.6 YPC average.

Again, I'm not comparing the two head to head, because that's not the way they are used. Portis is the every-down that will occasionally get tired running in the 95 degree heat. Betts is capable of spelling him during this time. It may affect play-calling in that the coach shouldn't ask him to be the blitz pick-up in a critical situation, but for most scenarios, Betts is capable enough to handle the load while Portis gets his wind back.



Where do you think that we have the receivers to stretch the field? Aside from Moss, who occasionally completes his routes, who is there? El? He's a slot receiver. thrash? Dead legs. Thomas and Kelly? Rookies who have not shown the ability to compete at this level, let alone go deep.



Moss and Thomas have the kind of speed to stretch the field. Thomas was running deep routes quite often against the Saints. He was never the primary target, however. Cooley has also shown the ability to effectively split the seam, causing the inside linebackers to follow him further up field. The Skins have the tools. It's been a long while since there's been a coach in DC that would use them.



Football is about creating matchup problems. Continuing to slam Portis into the LOS 20 times a game is not only bad for Portis' frame over the long haul, it puts our running game at a distinct disadvantage. If he we Adrian Peterson or Brandon Jacobs, fine. They have the body to handle those collisions with the big guys and can actually move the pile. Portis does not.


I'm not advocating that they do this. So far this year, they haven't. Still too soon to tell.



There is some merit to what you're saying about the WRs but Westbrook is 45% of the offense because he's a legitimate star and Philly knows how to ride that horse. Honestly, I'd like to see Portis get 40-45% of the touches to take the pressure off of Campbell, who is no McNabb.

Teams have to respect McNabb's abilities as a passer, even if he is only throwing to 2nd rate WRs. They can't just key in on Westbrook. Until Campbell proves that he can kill teams by himself, giving the ball to Portis 40-45% of the time is just going to make it easier for opposing defenses to shut the offense down. Campbell made some nice strides against the Saints hitting 9 different receivers, and working his way out of a 9 point 4th quarter deficit, but until he starts finishing drives, and improves his red-zone effectiveness, Portis' production will remain right about where it is now.

[Skins7ny]

Charley Casserly was on Comcast two nights ago and said that he has spoken to players in the locker room and team officials, and that
(1) our O-lineman were peeved at Portis for what he said in the WaPo interview and
(2) Both Dan and Vinny are incensed.
For what it is worth, Casserly indicated that if he were the GM, he would have a big problem with what Clinton did.

Curiously, LaCanfora was on the same panel and said that he felt that what Clinton said wasn't so bad. For a biased guy who supposedly has it in for the Skins and wants to foment controversy, I thought that was pretty sporting of him! :)

[skin4ever]

Charley Casserly was on Comcast two nights ago and said that he has spoken to players in the locker room and team officials, and that
(1) our O-lineman were peeved at Portis for what he said in the WaPo interview and
(2) Both Dan and Vinny are incensed.
For what it is worth, Casserly indicated that if he were the GM, he would have a big problem with what Clinton did.

Curiously, LaCanfora was on the same panel and said that he felt that what Clinton said wasn't so bad. For a biased guy who supposedly has it in for the Skins and wants to foment controversy, I thought that was pretty sporting of him! :)

Casserly is in the media too. I dont believe a lick of it anymore. They are all in it for ratings. He and BM can see the wood chipper as far as i am concerned.
Even if it were true, wonder what they feel now, cause i am sure they heard CP go off on BM.

[BurgundyNGold]

Throughout his career in DC, Portis has 72% of all called running plays (this excludes QB sacks and scrambles). This number includes the 06 season where he started 7 games and played in 8 while injured. Exclude that season from this statistic and he has received 75% of all called running plays. He has consistently carried the rock 20 - 25 times per game during his tenure with the Skins. I would say that for his career in DC, he has not consistently taken large stretches of plays off, which was your assertion that you have yet to back up with any statistics or facts.
Statistics, in this case, do not tell the whole story. As I said before, getting spelled by Betts on passing downs *does* affect the rhythm. How many awful blocks have we all witnessed out of Betts on passing downs? And how predictable does the offense become when Portis isn't in the backfield? Statistics cannot tell that story.

NFL.com -> 221lbs.
Redskins.com -> 223lbs.
ESPN.com -> 221lbs.

I don't know what else to tell you.
Those measurables (height as well as weight) on NFL.com are not only often innacurate for personal reasons but they are also out of date. That's common knowledge.

Past tense. Gibbs preferred the smash-mouth, man-blocking running plays. It's kind of hard to figure how a team handles zone blocking when the coach never calls it.
Gibbs called plenty zone blocking plays in 2006, 2007. Were you not watching the games or are you confused about what zone blocking looks like?

You don't know about rhythm for a RB, you don't know that published league height and weight measurables are largely inaccurate, you don't know what zone blocking looks like... I'm starting to wonder if I should rethink my initial assessment of your knowing what you're talking about on the football field.
Zorn called quite a few zone-blocked running plays.
No, he hasn't. I've seen a handful but, honestly, not more than Gibbs called when he was here. I'd like to see more.

I think that James could charge their offensive line with reckless endangerment. Seriously, they have been atrocious.
Agreed. My point was the system in Indy was ideally suited to James' skill set. In Arizona, it isn't. Similarly, the system in Denver is more suited to Portis' talents than what we've put together here under Gibbs. It's too soon to tell about Zorn.

Seriously, how do you not get this?

The drop-off from Portis to Betts for a couple of plays during a drive is minimal.

Example: Skins 1st TD drive against the Saints.
-Portis starts the drive.
-On the 2nd play, he gains 4 yards.
-On the 4th play, he picks up 13.
-He comes out after the 5th play of the drive, and Betts has consecutive runs for 14 and 4 yards on the 6th and 7th plays.
-Portis comes back in on the 8th play.
-On the 10th, he has a reception for -1 yard
-On the 11th, he rumbles behind Sellers for a 9 yard TD.

Betts is able to effectively fill in for Portis during drives.
What I do not get is your myopia about running the ball being the only skill required for a RB or your continued assertion that Betts is anywhere near the RB that Portis is.

You illustrate one drive in one game. If you go back far enough, you might find a few more like that. However, you will not be able to see by the stat line how many sacks or hurries were allowed because of Bett's blocking inadequacies or how the defense could key one way or the other because of Portis' absence.

Is Betts a capable runner? Yes, sometimes. Other times he is stiff as a board. And at no time does he even come close to Portis.

I have not implied that they are effectively the same, and I cannot comprehend what tortured logic leads you to believe that I have.
Oh, you haven't?
With a valuable back-up in Betts, the drop off in production is minimal
A minimal drop off implies statistical insignificance. Effectively, you are implying that they are interchangeable by virtue of a negligible statistical variant. And you are conveniently sidestepping the shortcomings of Betts and the effect that not having Portis in the game has on our offensive options, execution an predictability.

Disagree. Betts is a very capable pass catcher and was one of the things that Saunders was excited about when he first came to DC.
He's adequate, but he's not as good as Portis. Plus, once Portis gets the ball in his hands, he's more dangerous by far.
Again, I'm not comparing the two head to head, because that's not the way they are used. Portis is the every-down that will occasionally get tired running in the 95 degree heat. Betts is capable of spelling him during this time. It may affect play-calling in that the coach shouldn't ask him to be the blitz pick-up in a critical situation, but for most scenarios, Betts is capable enough to handle the load while Portis gets his wind back.
And yet, if they're interchangeable as you, Redskin Park and the aforementioned Mr. Saunders would have us think, why should it matter who plays? After all, the difference is minimal. :rolleyes:
Moss and Thomas have the kind of speed to stretch the field. Thomas was running deep routes quite often against the Saints. He was never the primary target, however. Cooley has also shown the ability to effectively split the seam, causing the inside linebackers to follow him further up field. The Skins have the tools. It's been a long while since there's been a coach in DC that would use them.
Moss, I agree... that is when he sees fits to actually run out his routes. Thomas is a rookie who has not shown anything to make a defense respect his deep speed. Personally, I think he will, but before that time, your assertion about him is supposition. And Cooley does not stretch the field.

I'm not advocating that they do this. So far this year, they haven't. Still too soon to tell.
That's what they did under Gibbs and that, in large part, is what they're running game has looked like under Zorn. To Zorn's credit, they have loosened up the middle with more draws to create space. It looks as though Zorn is working to create mistmatches more than Saunders, as well. But they need to do more to get Portis the ball in space.

Teams have to respect McNabb's abilities as a passer, even if he is only throwing to 2nd rate WRs. They can't just key in on Westbrook. Until Campbell proves that he can kill teams by himself, giving the ball to Portis 40-45% of the time is just going to make it easier for opposing defenses to shut the offense down. Campbell made some nice strides against the Saints hitting 9 different receivers, and working his way out of a 9 point 4th quarter deficit, but until he starts finishing drives, and improves his red-zone effectiveness, Portis' production will remain right about where it is now.
Part of what will make Campbell more effective is getting the ball to his playmakers in space. You don't have to hand off to Portis 40-45% of the time, there are other options. Screens, WR screens, wheels, flares even options. They should run more zone blocking schemes -- especially against 3-4 defenses. They should periodically line him up in the slot and on the edge. And, yes, they should have more 2 back sets with him and Betts.

[Keino]

Interesting Comments from Joey T. On the topic....


Steinberg's Blog (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2008/09/theismann_on_clinton_portis_vs.html)

[Ibleedburgundy]

Interesting Comments from Joey T. On the topic....


Steinberg's Blog (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2008/09/theismann_on_clinton_portis_vs.html)

That was an interesting read. Probably the most common sense I've ever heard out of Theisman.

[Skins7ny]

Casserly is in the media too. I dont believe a lick of it anymore. They are all in it for ratings. He and BM can see the wood chipper as far as i am concerned.
Even if it were true, wonder what they feel now, cause i am sure they heard CP go off on BM.
I seriously doubt that Casserly gives a rat's behind what Comcast's ratings are when he is on its air. Between his other gigs, and his income from Jack Kent Cooke and Bob McNair, I seriously doubt if he has to work another day in his life. Casserly has been very fair and even-handed in his comments about his former employer.

[bergiemoore]

Statistics, in this case, do not tell the whole story. As I said before, getting spelled by Betts on passing downs *does* affect the rhythm. How many awful blocks have we all witnessed out of Betts on passing downs? And how predictable does the offense become when Portis isn't in the backfield? Statistics cannot tell that story.


This is a cop out. Either you can prove your argument with some sort of factual analysis, or you don't have much of an argument.


Those measurables (height as well as weight) on NFL.com are not only often innacurate for personal reasons but they are also out of date. That's common knowledge.



Pray tell, when's the last time Portis stepped on a scale for you? Or do you mean to indicate that his weight is also something that you know more about from watching him on the field? Find a metric to debunk the ones I have provided, and then we'll talk.



Gibbs called plenty zone blocking plays in 2006, 2007. Were you not watching the games or are you confused about what zone blocking looks like?


I guess you're unfamiliar with hyperbole. Very well.


You don't know about rhythm for a RB, you don't know that published league height and weight measurables are largely inaccurate, you don't know what zone blocking looks like... I'm starting to wonder if I should rethink my initial assessment of your knowing what you're talking about on the football field.


You're right. I'm at a loss when it comes to making arguments sans factual information, or in areas of highly subjective feelings. Certainly, I couldn't recognize a zone blocking play. :rolleyes:



Agreed. My point was the system in Indy was ideally suited to James' skill set. In Arizona, it isn't. Similarly, the system in Denver is more suited to Portis' talents than what we've put together here under Gibbs. It's too soon to tell about Zorn.


Any thoughts on James' production now that the Cards are attempting to switch to Zone Blocking?



What I do not get is your myopia about running the ball being the only skill required for a RB or your continued assertion that Betts is anywhere near the RB that Portis is.

You illustrate one drive in one game. If you go back far enough, you might find a few more like that. However, you will not be able to see by the stat line how many sacks or hurries were allowed because of Bett's blocking inadequacies or how the defense could key one way or the other because of Portis' absence.

Is Betts a capable runner? Yes, sometimes. Other times he is stiff as a board. And at no time does he even come close to Portis.


It is not my myopia, rather your inability to understand that Betts is a capable back-up. The key word in that sentence is back-up. He is a decent threat as a runner and can also catch the ball well coming out of the back-field as he proved in 2006. He sucks in pass-protection. That's why he's not a starter. He can spell Portis for a couple of plays during a long drive without requiring the offensive play-caller to dramatically alter the strategy or grossly affect the "rhythm" of the offense.



Oh, you haven't?

A minimal drop off implies statistical insignificance. Effectively, you are implying that they are interchangeable by virtue of a negligible statistical variant. And you are conveniently sidestepping the shortcomings of Betts and the effect that not having Portis in the game has on our offensive options, execution an predictability.


Shall we mince words all day?

You seem to be ignoring that Portis, and other premier running backs, get tired after running 4 or 5 consecutive plays and may need a chance to breathe. I suggest, imply, and state definitively, that Betts provides the ability for the offense to continue operating while the premier back rests without any serious detrimental affect. He can catch or run. He does not make the offense predictable and I challenge you to rebut using some sort of factual reference, statistical analysis, or visual proof.



He's adequate, but he's not as good as Portis. Plus, once Portis gets the ball in his hands, he's more dangerous by far.

And yet, if they're interchangeable as you, Redskin Park and the aforementioned Mr. Saunders would have us think, why should it matter who plays? After all, the difference is minimal. :rolleyes:


What makes you think that a guy who is capable of spelling a starter for a couple of plays at a time is interchangeable with that starter? His job, which I think he does well, is to keep the offense moving while the starter is sucking wind on the sideline. There is a huge gap between spelling the starter, and being the starter.

[BurgundyNGold]

This is a cop out. Either you can prove your argument with some sort of factual analysis, or you don't have much of an argument.
No cop outs. And I did provide a solid argument. Just because there are no statistics that you can Google up doesn't make it any less true.

If you'd like, you could search the archives of this forum and see how many posters have had problems with Portis taking himself out of games from 2004-2007. His doing so is well documented in the game film and on this forum.

And, as I've said, it's too early to tell if that pattern hold true for this season. I haven't seen him do it yet, so that's promising.

Pray tell, when's the last time Portis stepped on a scale for you? Or do you mean to indicate that his weight is also something that you know more about from watching him on the field? Find a metric to debunk the ones I have provided, and then we'll talk.
Ask anyone up here who knows and they'll tell you that Portis' weight fluctuates, year to year and game to game. Aside from 2005 when he bulked himslef up over 220, he hasn't played at that weight.

I guess you're unfamiliar with hyperbole. Very well.
I'm familiar with people who get their facts wrong.

You're right. I'm at a loss when it comes to making arguments sans factual information, or in areas of highly subjective feelings. Certainly, I couldn't recognize a zone blocking play.
Apparently.

Any thoughts on James' production now that the Cards are attempting to switch to Zone Blocking?
Not really. I don't follow the Cards closely enough.

It is not my myopia, rather your inability to understand that Betts is a capable back-up. The key word in that sentence is back-up. He is a decent threat as a runner and can also catch the ball well coming out of the back-field as he proved in 2006. He sucks in pass-protection. That's why he's not a starter. He can spell Portis for a couple of plays during a long drive without requiring the offensive play-caller to dramatically alter the strategy or grossly affect the "rhythm" of the offense.
He's not a starter because he's not good enough to be a starter. Plus, there are lingering concerns about his durability from his earlier days in the league. As you state, Betts is an adequate backup. Nothing more. To state that the drop off of having Betts in the backfield over Portis is "minimal" is myopic. There are other factors aside from his YPC average.

Shall we mince words all day?
Not mincing words. Just reminding you of what you said as you slide the conversation in a different direction.

You seem to be ignoring that Portis, and other premier running backs, get tired after running 4 or 5 consecutive plays and may need a chance to breathe. I suggest, imply, and state definitively, that Betts provides the ability for the offense to continue operating while the premier back rests without any serious detrimental affect. He can catch or run. He does not make the offense predictable and I challenge you to rebut using some sort of factual reference, statistical analysis, or visual proof.
When you take a compete player out of the game in favor of a player with a lesser skill set, you limit the degree to which the offense can use that lesser player. You don't need to go to the videotape to know that teams can blitz easier against Betts. You don't need to go to the videotape to know that teams will not need to defend the run widely since Betts can't get to the corner like Portis. These conditions and others limit what the offense can do. This makes the offense more predictable and makes them easier to defend against.

What makes you think that a guy who is capable of spelling a starter for a couple of plays at a time is interchangeable with that starter? His job, which I think he does well, is to keep the offense moving while the starter is sucking wind on the sideline. There is a huge gap between spelling the starter, and being the starter.
I'm glad we agree in this and that you've finally dropped that silly notion that the drop off from Portis to Betts is "minimal" from your argument.

[bergiemoore]

No cop outs. And I did provide a solid argument. Just because there are no statistics that you can Google up doesn't make it any less true.



It just makes it impossible to prove.



If you'd like, you could search the archives of this forum and see how many posters have had problems with Portis taking himself out of games from 2004-2007. His doing so is well documented in the game film and on this forum.



I'd love to see the game film. I'm not adverse to changing my mind on your "rhythm" argument, but I certainly won't take your word for it, nor any other poster on this board. Outside of when Portis was injured, or recovering from injury, I haven't noticed Portis taking any significant time out of games while Betts was used "interchangeably".

And, as I've said, it's too early to tell if that pattern hold true for this season. I haven't seen him do it yet, so that's promising.


Ask anyone up here who knows and they'll tell you that Portis' weight fluctuates, year to year and game to game. Aside from 2005 when he bulked himslef up over 220, he hasn't played at that weight.


Then please tell me, since you and everyone here knows so much. How much does he weigh? And what reference do you have for any such answer?



I'm familiar with people who get their facts wrong.


Apparently.


Feel free to critique any of the facts I have laid out for you.



Not really. I don't follow the Cards closely enough.


He's not a starter because he's not good enough to be a starter. Plus, there are lingering concerns about his durability from his earlier days in the league. As you state, Betts is an adequate backup. Nothing more. To state that the drop off of having Betts in the backfield over Portis is "minimal" is myopic. There are other factors aside from his YPC average.


Funny. I never mentioned Betts YPC. Nor did I ever compare his individual stats with Portis'.


Not mincing words. Just reminding you of what you said as you slide the conversation in a different direction.

When you take a compete player out of the game in favor of a player with a lesser skill set, you limit the degree to which the offense can use that lesser player. You don't need to go to the videotape to know that teams can blitz easier against Betts. You don't need to go to the videotape to know that teams will not need to defend the run widely since Betts can't get to the corner like Portis. These conditions and others limit what the offense can do. This makes the offense more predictable and makes them easier to defend against.


I'm glad we agree in this and that you've finally dropped that silly notion that the drop off from Portis to Betts is "minimal" from your argument.

Tell me then, what is the degree of drop off in the offense's production while Betts is spelling Portis? You have a dearth of opinions and don't seem to mind criticizing other people's knowledge of simple concepts. Inform those of us so far beneath your orbit, what verbiage should we use when describing how the Skins offense functions when Portis can't seem to handle 11+ consecutive plays in 95 degree heat. Tell us how badly the Skins will suffer from having Betts spell Portis. If "minimal" offends you, then perhaps you could suggest a more adequate measure.

[BurgundyNGold]

It just makes it impossible to prove.
That's a narrow scope of logic and not a very solid one, at that. You can't directly measure a lot of things. Some are in science such as atoms and black holes. Some are in nature, like evolution or a rainbow. That doesn't make them any less real.

Furthermore, I don't offer my position as unmitigated, absolute fact. It is my hypothesis that is shared by many others. There are no statistics to disprove or contradict what I am saying (other than what we all observe during the games) which means that it is just valid an opinion as any other. In fact, there are plenty of instances where myself and many others have witness Portis taking himself out of the game at inopportune times. Obviously, Mitchell saw it too.

I'd love to see the game film. I'm not adverse to changing my mind on your "rhythm" argument, but I certainly won't take your word for it, nor any other poster on this board. Outside of when Portis was injured, or recovering from injury, I haven't noticed Portis taking any significant time out of games while Betts was used "interchangeably".
There was quite an issue with that, in 2006 especially. And it wasn't just that he couldn't get a rhythm, he'd take himself out at critical junctures. Now, perhaps we won't see that anymore from him and that'd be just fine by me. That's my only real gripe about him.

Then please tell me, since you and everyone here knows so much. How much does he weigh? And what reference do you have for any such answer?
Often, smaller players will be listed as larger while larger players are listed as smaller.

The weight issue is getting off track. The point was to illustrate that the guy isn't Brandon Jacobs. He's not a wrecking ball. Slamming him into the LOS 25 times a game is not only foolish and counterproductive, it's a waste of his talents, which is what I was attempting to convey.

Feel free to critique any of the facts I have laid out for you.
So far, and correct me if I'm wrong, you've cherry picked one series in a game that we won this year (which isn't even part of my contention) and you've illustrated that Portis was 33% of the Redskin offense under Gibbs, which, since we're living under the rule of Zorn, is irrelevant. Oh, and you've gotten Portis' weight from who knows when off of NFL.com.

Nothing to critique, really.

Funny. I never mentioned Betts YPC. Nor did I ever compare his individual stats with Portis'.
Then what exactly were you comparing when you declared that there was but a "minimal" drop off between Portis and Betts?

Tell me then, what is the degree of drop off in the offense's production while Betts is spelling Portis? You have a dearth of opinions and don't seem to mind criticizing other people's knowledge of simple concepts. Inform those of us so far beneath your orbit, what verbiage should we use when describing how the Skins offense functions when Portis can't seem to handle 11+ consecutive plays in 95 degree heat.
You keep wanting to argue about the Saints game last week -- using your specious, cherry picked drive stats as evidentiary support -- when I have clearly stated that my problems with Portis taking himself out here in DC are historical and that it is too soon to evaluate this season.

Tell us how badly the Skins will suffer from having Betts spell Portis. If "minimal" offends you, then perhaps you could suggest a more adequate measure.
Suffice to say that if there was but a "minimal" drop off between the two, Betts would get more snaps, no? Or maybe he'd even be starting, as opposed to delivering spot duty. And nobody thinks that, save perhaps a few misguided Betts apologists out there.

[bergiemoore]

That's a narrow scope of logic and not a very solid one, at that. You can't directly measure a lot of things. Some are in science such as atoms and black holes. Some are in nature, like evolution or a rainbow. That doesn't make them any less real.

Furthermore, I don't offer my position as unmitigated, absolute fact. It is my hypothesis that is shared by many others. There are no statistics to disprove or contradict what I am saying (other than what we all observe during the games) which means that it is just valid an opinion as any other. In fact, there are plenty of instances where myself and many others have witness Portis taking himself out of the game at inopportune times. Obviously, Mitchell saw it too.

There was quite an issue with that, in 2006 especially. And it wasn't just that he couldn't get a rhythm, he'd take himself out at critical junctures. Now, perhaps we won't see that anymore from him and that'd be just fine by me. That's my only real gripe about him.


Often, smaller players will be listed as larger while larger players are listed as smaller.

The weight issue is getting off track. The point was to illustrate that the guy isn't Brandon Jacobs. He's not a wrecking ball. Slamming him into the LOS 25 times a game is not only foolish and counterproductive, it's a waste of his talents, which is what I was attempting to convey.


So far, and correct me if I'm wrong, you've cherry picked one series in a game that we won this year (which isn't even part of my contention) and you've illustrated that Portis was 33% of the Redskin offense under Gibbs, which, since we're living under the rule of Zorn, is irrelevant. Oh, and you've gotten Portis' weight from who knows when off of NFL.com.

Nothing to critique, really.


Then what exactly were you comparing when you declared that there was but a "minimal" drop off between Portis and Betts?


You keep wanting to argue about the Saints game last week -- using your specious, cherry picked drive stats as evidentiary support -- when I have clearly stated that my problems with Portis taking himself out here in DC are historical and that it is too soon to evaluate this season.


Suffice to say that if there was but a "minimal" drop off between the two, Betts would get more snaps, no? Or maybe he'd even be starting, as opposed to delivering spot duty. And nobody thinks that, save perhaps a few misguided Betts apologists out there.

B-Mitch's specific comments came after the Saints win, which is why I chose to pull stats from this game. The stat about Portis' being 33% of the offense related to this year, under Zorn, so yes, it is entirely relevant. Portis' weight was taken from 3 different sites as I enumerated earlier and is the only metric I've seen so it's all I have to go on. Not that I don't doubt the veracity of this information. I just don't have an alternative and would gladly welcome one if you could but recommend it.

I understand that the rhythm argument is entirely subjective, and that's my problem with it, especially when in reference to a guy who gets 75% of the carries since joining the team.

[BurgundyNGold]

B-Mitch's specific comments came after the Saints win, which is why I chose to pull stats from this game. The stat about Portis' being 33% of the offense related to this year, under Zorn, so yes, it is entirely relevant.
No, it's still irrelevent, just not for that reason. It's irrelevant because it's the stats for a single game -- not an entire season. Further, it's irrelevant because how much Portis touches the ball (which is below my 40-45% happy figure) isn't as important as *how* he touches the ball and where he gets it in the field of play. He could get 100% of the carries and if they keep smashing him into the LOS, it's still a waste of his talents.

Portis' weight was taken from 3 different sites as I enumerated earlier and is the only metric I've seen so it's all I have to go on. Not that I don't doubt the veracity of this information. I just don't have an alternative and would gladly welcome one if you could but recommend it.
Yet all (or at least most) of these sites electronically draw their official stats -- all of them -- from the NFL. I would be more interested if they were not the same.

I understand that the rhythm argument is entirely subjective, and that's my problem with it, especially when in reference to a guy who gets 75% of the carries since joining the team.
Since you clearly don't understand the concept of ball carrier rhythm (something that you have probably heard John Madden, Troy Aikman and countless others allude to during a game), lets take a different tack.

Say you're Coach Zorn. You call a play for your premiere RB, Portis. Yet, he's come off the field because he's winded. What does that do to your play? Suddenly, you don't have the personnel that you thought you did. Maybe the play went to Portis. Maybe not. Maybe he was a decoy that would garner more respect from the defense than would Betts. In any case, the the internal conditions of the offensive system have shifted, their effect having cascaded as perturbations onto the field of play. You're inherently less likely to get the result the play was designed to achieve or what the playcaller had anticipated when he called the play.

As a play caller, what do you do on the next play? Do you call the play and hope that your star RB is sufficiently rested so as to grace the team with his presence in the huddle? Or, do you somewhat limit your options and call a play that will work for either Portis or Betts? I know for a straight up fact that it was reported that Saunders had a significant problem with this. In any case, you're inherently operating from a position of disruption and weakness, which is rarely good.

Similarly, here's another scenario. As far as I know, Portis is the only player who has arbitrarily taken himself out of the game regardless of down and distance. Other players don't get this option, but what if other players started doing this on their own as regularly as Portis has done this in the past? Shawn Springs is getting up there; perhaps he decides after a couple of long runs downfield that he is tired. So, he just comes out and Liegh Torrence goes in for him. Clearly, we've lost something there and, moreover, the coaches don't know it until they've already called the next set. Do you think that is a good thing? Is it good for the continuity of the defense to now know who's playing next to you at any given time?

I contend that, at a minimum, such causality is unnecessary and detrimental.

[Keino]

Problem BNG is that has not happened this year. I agree with your earlier comment that it's likely too early to tell, but it seems to me that Zorn will more efficiently use Portis when compared to how Gibbs used him. Mitchell was off-base with this criticism as it relates to this season IMO.

[bergiemoore]

No, it's still irrelevent, just not for that reason. It's irrelevant because it's the stats for a single game -- not an entire season. Further, it's irrelevant because how much Portis touches the ball (which is below my 40-45% happy figure) isn't as important as *how* he touches the ball and where he gets it in the field of play. He could get 100% of the carries and if they keep smashing him into the LOS, it's still a waste of his talents.


Stats for 2 games, but who's counting.

Portis got split wide into the flat and ran some interesting shallow routes from the Pro-Set formation in the last game. I hope to see him actually be targeted on some of these routes in the future.


Yet all (or at least most) of these sites electronically draw their official stats -- all of them -- from the NFL. I would be more interested if they were not the same.


I hate beating a dead horse, but the Redskins.com site lists him at 223 while NFL and ESPN (which probably pulls from NFL) list him at 221.


Since you clearly don't understand the concept of ball carrier rhythm (something that you have probably heard John Madden, Troy Aikman and countless others allude to during a game), lets take a different tack.

Say you're Coach Zorn. You call a play for your premiere RB, Portis. Yet, he's come off the field because he's winded. What does that do to your play? Suddenly, you don't have the personnel that you thought you did. Maybe the play went to Portis. Maybe not. Maybe he was a decoy that would garner more respect from the defense than would Betts. In any case, the the internal conditions of the offensive system have shifted, their effect having cascaded as perturbations onto the field of play. You're inherently less likely to get the result the play was designed to achieve or what the playcaller had anticipated when he called the play.

As a play caller, what do you do on the next play? Do you call the play and hope that your star RB is sufficiently rested so as to grace the team with his presence in the huddle? Or, do you somewhat limit your options and call a play that will work for either Portis or Betts? I know for a straight up fact that it was reported that Saunders had a significant problem with this. In any case, you're inherently operating from a position of disruption and weakness, which is rarely good.



I understand the argument. I'm just curious as to how play-caller expects to be able to keep calling the same guys number without giving him a rest, or substituting a change of pace back? If you're running with a premier back, like Washington, and not using a change of pace, you're going to need to plan for contingencies, like your running back needing a break.

The issue of Portis taking himself out of the game was brought up with Zorn, and he replied emphatically that Portis would not have the freedom to pull himself out of the game. I suspect that he's aware of when Portis needs to come out, and I suspect that it probably does factor somewhat into his play-calling, just like Tom Coughlin has to plan for the number of carries Jacobs gets and when to substitute Ward as a change of pace. The only difference is that Zorn's playcalling will likely not be as drastically altered, since Betts' style of running and skill as a pass receiver more closely resembles Portis' than Wards' skill set matches Jacobs'.



Similarly, here's another scenario. As far as I know, Portis is the only player who has arbitrarily taken himself out of the game regardless of down and distance. Other players don't get this option, but what if other players started doing this on their own as regularly as Portis has done this in the past? Shawn Springs is getting up there; perhaps he decides after a couple of long runs downfield that he is tired. So, he just comes out and Liegh Torrence goes in for him. Clearly, we've lost something there and, moreover, the coaches don't know it until they've already called the next set. Do you think that is a good thing? Is it good for the continuity of the defense to now know who's playing next to you at any given time?

I contend that, at a minimum, such causality is unnecessary and detrimental.

Are you equating the relative skill levels of Portis and Betts to Springs and Torrence? You have a lower opinion of Betts than I do. I'd say Springs and Smoot, at worst.

Regardless, the offense dictates to the defense. Substituting an inferior talent at CB would invite the offense to exploit that area immediately, as Zorn mercilessly picked on Porter in the 4th quarter of the Saints game. It's not quite the same situation on offense, as the coordinator can more easily shift focus away from a weak area by altering the play-call.

Whether or not you think it was appropriate, Gibbs clearly didn't seem to mind the practice or he would have put a halt to it, as Zorn immediately did. He was the play-caller for the first couple of years, and it was never an issue with him. Portis only has as much power as the coach gives him. Rather than getting upset with him for availing himself of a tool that allows him to remain fresh throughout the game, perhaps folks should instead criticize the coach that implemented this seemingly detrimental system.

[BurgundyNGold]

Problem BNG is that has not happened this year. I agree with your earlier comment that it's likely too early to tell, but it seems to me that Zorn will more efficiently use Portis when compared to how Gibbs used him. Mitchell was off-base with this criticism as it relates to this season IMO.
Agreed for this season. Still, the comment isn't without historical merit.

[BurgundyNGold]

Stats for 2 games, but who's counting.

Portis got split wide into the flat and ran some interesting shallow routes from the Pro-Set formation in the last game. I hope to see him actually be targeted on some of these routes in the future.
And that's exactly what they should do. I like what I see out of Zorn so far as it relates to Portis. Something tells me that as the team becomes more comfortable with the offense, we'll see Portis all over the place. At least I'm hoping that's the case.

I hate beating a dead horse, but the Redskins.com site lists him at 223 while NFL and ESPN (which probably pulls from NFL) list him at 221.
Honestly, this isn't a big issue. I think we can both agree that he is not suited to be a battering ram and is a waste in that capacity alone.

I understand the argument. I'm just curious as to how play-caller expects to be able to keep calling the same guys number without giving him a rest, or substituting a change of pace back? If you're running with a premier back, like Washington, and not using a change of pace, you're going to need to plan for contingencies, like your running back needing a break.
They do account for it. Offenses and defenses both send in different packages for the plays they want to call. I have no problem if Portis or anyone else comes off the field as part of the package change. It's when he's supposed to be in the package and instead Betts has to come in.

The issue of Portis taking himself out of the game was brought up with Zorn, and he replied emphatically that Portis would not have the freedom to pull himself out of the game. I suspect that he's aware of when Portis needs to come out, and I suspect that it probably does factor somewhat into his play-calling, just like Tom Coughlin has to plan for the number of carries Jacobs gets and when to substitute Ward as a change of pace. The only difference is that Zorn's playcalling will likely not be as drastically altered, since Betts' style of running and skill as a pass receiver more closely resembles Portis' than Wards' skill set matches Jacobs'.
I hope it goes down like that. It's better for Portis and the team both that he stay out there. 80% of Portis > 100% of Betts, IMO.

Are you equating the relative skill levels of Portis and Betts to Springs and Torrence? You have a lower opinion of Betts than I do. I'd say Springs and Smoot, at worst.
No, I'm just giving an example of the chaos that would occur if players just started arbitrarily taking themselves out of the game. I just picked Springs because he's a bit of a primadonna and, since he is getting a bit long in the tooth, it didn't seem unreasonable to happen.

Regardless, the offense dictates to the defense. Substituting an inferior talent at CB would invite the offense to exploit that area immediately, as Zorn mercilessly picked on Porter in the 4th quarter of the Saints game. It's not quite the same situation on offense, as the coordinator can more easily shift focus away from a weak area by altering the play-call.
Not necessarily. Otherwise there wouldn't be the phrase "take what the defense gives you". Sometimes the offense dictates, sometimes the defense does.

BTW, I love that Zorn exploited Porter. I effing *love* it. That's how the best coaches do it. Sadly, we haven't seen much of that around here this decade.

Whether or not you think it was appropriate, Gibbs clearly didn't seem to mind the practice or he would have put a halt to it, as Zorn immediately did. He was the play-caller for the first couple of years, and it was never an issue with him. Portis only has as much power as the coach gives him. Rather than getting upset with him for availing himself of a tool that allows him to remain fresh throughout the game, perhaps folks should instead criticize the coach that implemented this seemingly detrimental system.
Gibbs was only internittently the playcaller during his second tenure here. In 2004 and 2005 it was mostly Burns and Breaux with Gibbs calling some series but mostly providing overrides. In 2006 and 2007 it was Saunders calling the plays with Gibbs providing override.

And I am not excusing Gibbs at all for his, what I consider to be, misuse of Portis. Most of my argument is based on the 4 years that Portis was under Gibbs. So far, under Zorn, they seem to be using Portis a little better but I'm still concerned about how much they're sending him into the LOS with Gibbs-style running plays. But, it's a long season. I'm hoping that will change.

[Death_Venom]

Agreed for this season. Still, the comment isn't without historical merit.

I would like to chime in and say that I have not found (IMO) that Portis removing himself from the field did not seem to have a major effect on the offense.......It is impossible to think that you could continually call one players number and that individual would not eventually tire out. Again Betts is a far cry from Portis but Betts does possess a certain amount of speed, shifty-ness, and is quite capable of catching the ball as well.

[bergiemoore]

I would like to chime in and say that I have not found (IMO) that Portis removing himself from the field did not seem to have a major effect on the offense.......It is impossible to think that you could continually call one players number and that individual would not eventually tire out. Again Betts is a far cry from Portis but Betts does possess a certain amount of speed, shifty-ness, and is quite capable of catching the ball as well.

If you would like to see how this conversation will develop, read the last 3 pages of this thread.

[JasonCampbell]

That was an interesting read. Probably the most common sense I've ever heard out of Theisman.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk296/pat94_2008/ItalianSpiderMan1.gif