Will Clinton Portis rebound to be a top Fantasy RB?

[9ersdude]

I say top 5 to 10, what say you?

[cliaz]

I say top 5 to 10, what say you?

 

 

 

I believe you are going to see a split between him and Betts this year. The Redskins running game is going to be a nasty one with both of them and I doubt that Gibbs is going ot favor one over the other after Betts performance last year.

 

I would say Portis a solid high end #3, low end #2.

[Seahawks21]

In a word, yes. Bottom end of the top ten.

[cliaz]

In a word, yes. Bottom end of the top ten.

 

 

 

Well Gibbs has been saying how he liked to give both equal time and that he believes he has a fantastic back field with enough room for both.

[spain]

I believe you are going to see a split between him and Betts this year. The Redskins running game is going to be a nasty one with both of them and I doubt that Gibbs is going ot favor one over the other after Betts performance last year.

 

I would say Portis a solid high end #3, low end #2.

 

You really believe that the carries in Washington will be fairly evenly split between Portis and Betts? Dont get me wrong, I like Betts. But he isnt Clinton Portis and I dont see rbbc here so much as Portis being the man and Betts coming in to spell him.

[Bill Swerski]

Well Gibbs has been saying how he liked to give both equal time and that he believes he has a fantastic back field with enough room for both.

 

I don't buy that. Portis isn't going to get 350 carries, but Betts isn't productive enough for a true RBBC with Portis. That said, it wouldn't shock me if the larger Betts vultured a few goal-line carries.

 

Agreed that Portis will be in the Top 10, but probably not in the Top 5.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[cliaz]

I don't buy that. Portis isn't going to get 350 carries, but Betts isn't productive enough for a true RBBC with Portis. That said, it wouldn't shock me if the larger Betts vultured a few goal-line carries.

 

Agreed that Portis will be in the Top 10, but probably not in the Top 5.

 

 

 

I'm just tell ya what Gibbs has said.

[Bill Swerski]

I'm just tell ya what Gibbs has said.

 

Fair enough. But I'd say that Gibbs isn't exactly an offensive genius anymore. He's beginning to remind me of Tom Landry circa 1988.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Bill Swerski

[Swampnuts]

I'd like to think Portis is a definate first rounder, but Betts proved too much worth to be purely a back up. You can't run as well as he did and not see the field. If both are healthy I'd guess about a 60-40 split, and draft each player accordingly.

 

I had Portis in two leagues last year, and watched the majority of their games prior to his injury. I remember Betts coming into the game about every other series for a few downs and also the occasional third down. That's a fair amount of sharing right there, and you have to figure his playing time will increase from there.

[Doc Holliday]

IMO Portis should be a top 5 back next year. Betts did well and proved he can play. but when Portis was healthy IMO he showed he was the much better back when watching both in the same game.

 

I expect 300 carries for Portis and for him to be a top 10 back.

[broncosn05]

Betts isn't productive enough

 

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302176/gamelogs/2006

 

Sure.

[skins]

It'll be a 70-30 split assuming no injuries and Portis will be around #5-6 in production.

[spain]

It'll be a 70-30 split assuming no injuries and Portis will be around #5-6 in production.

 

This seems alot more likely than the rbbc that Cliaz is talking about...

[skins]

This seems alot more likely than the rbbc that Cliaz is talking about...

 

 

Stick with me for yer homer Redskins info and cliaz for yer banging mongoloid little people info.

[cliaz]

Stick with me for yer homer Redskins info and cliaz for yer banging mongoloid little people info.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey that was a shot at me.

 

 

and FWITW its a RBBC 60-40 split.

[Bill Swerski]

http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302176/gamelogs/2006

 

Sure.

 

 

Eh, maybe and maybe not. Betts has one whole season with over 100 carries under his belt. Either way, I think that Gibbs would be dumb to not give Portis at least 65-70% of the carries.

[broncosn05]

Eh, maybe and maybe not. Betts has one whole season with over 100 carries under his belt. Either way, I think that Gibbs would be dumb to not give Portis at least 65-70% of the carries.

 

Don't try to tweak it. He ran 245 times and had a 4.7 avg. He carried the load big time last year and they both have A LOT of years left on their contracts. There's no way Portis is Top 10.

[huskers-n-golf]

Portis has something to prove. He has to duplicate his numbers from Denver so Shanahan cant say I told ya so. GGGGOOOOOOOOOOO Portis u killed me last year!

[Seahawks21]

Portis is too talented not to play in the top ten. It isn't like he's a major league pitcher. The football season is too short to give the best players pitch counts.

[MrTed46]

Portis will be top 10 next year but in the bottom 5 for sure. Thats just my opinion (if healthy).

 

Betts is good and he got good numbers but Portis got hurt thats why. I dont think anyone can argue that Portis could not get Betts yards when Portis was out. Portis would have probably gotten more than Betts in the same situation.

Edited March 12, 2007 by MrTed46

[bushwacked]

Don't try to tweak it. He ran 245 times and had a 4.7 avg. He carried the load big time last year and they both have A LOT of years left on their contracts. There's no way Portis is Top 10.

 

 

Who the freak is the he? And if you actually thinkt that there is no way that Portis is a top 10 back, I only wish I played against you in one of my leagues....oh wait, that's right. Life is good.

[SLAYER]

Wondering myself. have him in a keeper league, will cost me a #1 at about the 5 spot to keep him.

[Bronco Billy]

Okay, here are the Redskins’ rushing numbers & trends under Gibbs since his return.

 

First off, in Gibbs’ 3 years, WAS has averaged 2025 yds rushing a year. The rushing numbers have trended steadily upwards. Rushes average about 495 per year, with an up-and-down trend. Rushing TDs average 11 with the numbers also going up-and-down.

 

So figure with the averages and the trends that WAS figures to rush for around 2200 yds on 495 carries with 13 rushing TDs in 2008.

 

Then you look at what the #1 & #2 RBs in WAS do in comparison to those numbers. In the newest Gibbs’ era, the #1 & #2 RB account for about 85% to 86% of the rushing yds, carries, & the rushing TDs. The #1 & #2 RBs the whole time have been Portis & Betts. When Portis & Betts are both healthy, there has been a very steady trend of Betts getting more & more work, from 84% of the combined carries in ’04 to 74% in ’05 to 64% in ’06.

 

The factor in that Portis has only played 16 games in 2 of his 5 seasons, and that he averages 12 games played a year, while Betts averages about 15 games played a year. That’s consistent with the averages over the past 3 years in WAS.

 

The final piece of the puzzle is Portis’ career catch to rush ratio of .11 and his rec yds/rush yds ratio of .201, while Betts has a catch/rush ratio of .18 and a recyd/ruyd ratio of .393.

 

So what can we project in the coming year? Figure that of the 2200 yds rushing, the 495 carries, and the 13 TDs that between Portis & Betts, they ought to account for 1880 rushing yds, 423 carries, and 11 rushing TDs. Figure Portis to play in 12 games & Betts to play in 15 games, and figure that Portis gets 60% of their combined production and Betts get the remaining 40% of their combined production when they play together.

 

Given those assumptions, this is what the production of each guy boils down to:

 

Portis

 

12 games played

212 rushes for 911 yds & 5 TDs

23 catches for 183 yds & 1 TD

 

12.1 FF ppw in a non-ppr league, 14.0 FF ppw in a ppr league

 

Betts

 

15 games played

211 rushes for 970 yds and 6 TDs

38 catches for 307 yds and 1 TD

 

11.3 FF ppw in a non-ppr league, 13.8 ppw in a ppr league

 

Based upon their draft positions, Betts’ production looks very similar to Portis, but you can have him much later in the draft, and there isn’t as great a risk of him missing games.

Both guys figure to hover right around the top 10, probably finishing just outside of it.

 

Either way, Betts looks like a much better value than Portis. Portis figures to finish just below his ADP while Betts figures to finish well ahead of his ADP.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Bronco Billy

[skins]

Okay, here are the Redskins’ rushing numbers & trends under Gibbs since his return.

 

First off, in Gibbs’ 3 years, WAS has averaged 2025 yds rushing a year. The rushing numbers have trended steadily upwards. Rushes average about 495 per year, with an up-and-down trend. Rushing TDs average 11 with the numbers also going up-and-down.

 

So figure with the averages and the trends that WAS figures to rush for around 2200 yds on 495 carries with 13 rushing TDs in 2008.

 

Then you look at what the #1 & #2 RBs in WAS do in comparison to those numbers. In the newest Gibbs’ era, the #1 & #2 RB account for about 85% to 86% of the rushing yds, carries, & the rushing TDs. The #1 & #2 RBs the whole time have been Portis & Betts. When Portis & Betts are both healthy, there has been a very steady trend of Betts getting more & more work, from 84% of the combined carries in ’04 to 74% in ’05 to 64% in ’06.

 

The factor in that Portis has only played 16 games in 2 of his 5 seasons, and that he averages 12 games played a year, while Betts averages about 15 games played a year. That’s consistent with the averages over the past 3 years in WAS.

 

The final piece of the puzzle is Portis’ career catch to rush ratio of .11 and his rec yds/rush yds ratio of .201, while Betts has a catch/rush ratio of .18 and a recyd/ruyd ratio of .393.

 

So what can we project in the coming year? Figure that of the 2200 yds rushing, the 495 carries, and the 13 TDs that between Portis & Betts, they ought to account for 1880 rushing yds, 423 carries, and 11 rushing TDs. Figure Portis to play in 12 games & Betts to play in 15 games, and figure that Portis gets 60% of their combined production and Betts get the remaining 40% of their combined production when they play together.

 

Given those assumptions, this is what the production of each guy boils down to:

 

Portis

 

12 games played

212 rushes for 911 yds & 5 TDs

23 catches for 183 yds & 1 TD

 

12.1 FF ppw in a non-ppr league, 14.0 FF ppw in a ppr league

 

Betts

 

15 games played

211 rushes for 970 yds and 6 TDs

38 catches for 307 yds and 1 TD

 

11.3 FF ppw in a non-ppr league, 13.8 ppw in a ppr league

 

Based upon their draft positions, Betts’ production looks very similar to Portis, but you can have him much later in the draft, and there isn’t as great a risk of him missing games.

Both guys figure to hover right around the top 10, probably finishing just outside of it.

 

Either way, Betts looks like a much better value than Portis. Portis figures to finish just below his ADP while Betts figures to finish well ahead of his ADP.

 

 

That is interesting but all based on last year, in which Portis was injured for most of the season. He had 1500 plus yards rushing the year before, and 1300 plus the year before that. Averages are funny things.

 

No way a Portis plays twelve games and only has 900 something rushing yards. That is kookoo for cocoa puffs.

[Bronco Billy]

That is interesting but all based on last year, in which Portis was injured for most of the season. He had 1500 plus yards rushing the year before, and 1300 plus the year before that. Averages are funny things.

 

No way a Portis plays twelve games and only has 900 something rushing yards. That is kookoo for cocoa puffs.

 

 

You of course saw that in the past 3 years that Betts gets an incrementally larger share of the workload when both players are healthy & capable of sharing carries, didn't you?

 

Now, if Portis stays healthy for 16 games, his numbers go up as Betts' go down, but I assume that you also saw that my projection is for Portis playing 12 games next season. He's played in less than 16 games in a season more than he has played a full season in his career.