Does Portis need a FB.

Intimidated by intense football threads? Don't be... learn about football, the Washington Redskins and more.
ch1
Posts: 3625
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Does Portis need a FB.

Postby crazyhorse1 » Tue May 10, 2005 1:43 pm

It seems to me that Portis could use another blocker/occasional runner in the backfield. I don't trust our OL to open necessary holes for so small a back as Portis and would like to send a back ahead of him to pick off any missed tacklers first.
My question to you all: Would this tend to slow Portis up or create new opportunites for reading breaks and rapid cuts?

~~
User avatar
Posts: 8445
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby REDEEMEDSKIN » Tue May 10, 2005 2:13 pm

I think we need to give this year's OL a chance before we start recruiting additional players (not on the OL) to block for Portis. POrtis has one year under this system, and he will be much improved (patient, knowledgeable) in it come September. Should the OL struggle again this year (for reasons other than injury) we can talk about getting an FB...

...or a better RB. :shock:
VIVA SEXY!!!

newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: Fredericksburg Va

Postby talon9 » Thu May 12, 2005 8:42 pm

Portis is a GREAT open field back but he does not consistentley show the power necessary for short yardage. They need a power runner (ie. Riggins, Riggs, Davis) to get those tough yards near the goal line.

**********
User avatar
Posts: 16741
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all

Postby 1niksder » Thu May 12, 2005 9:43 pm

I think the O-line will be better this year, but Portis may be getting a FB weather he wants or "needs" one.

Gibbs has said he would be retooling the scheme, then he brought in Bill Mustgrave (westcoast Off. uses a FB) and the dead give away was when Gibbs drafted 2
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-

When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....

If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 3779
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: The Heart

Re: Does Portis need a FB.

Postby redskincity » Thu May 12, 2005 10:25 pm

crazyhorse1 wrote:It seems to me that Portis could use another blocker/occasional runner in the backfield. I don't trust our OL to open necessary holes for so small a back as Portis and would like to send a back ahead of him to pick off any missed tacklers first.
My question to you all: Would this tend to slow Portis up or create new opportunites for reading breaks and rapid cuts?


The H-back is a Blocker and decoy. He's good.
• NFL Championships
1937, 1942, 1983, 1987, 1991
• Conference Championships
1936, 1937, 1940, 1942, 1943, 1945, 1972, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1991
• Division Championships
1972, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1991, 1999,
• All-Time Record:
515-465-27

---
User avatar
Posts: 18553
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Fri May 13, 2005 1:35 am

Well we drafted a short yardage back didn't we? He should help out a lot and should be fun to watch when Portis is taking a breather.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

Skins History Buff
Posts: 4831
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby welch » Fri May 13, 2005 9:15 pm

The H-back is a Blocker and decoy. He's good.


Exactly the point that made Joe Gibbs, Dan Henning, and Don Breaux invent the H-back.

They figured that a tight-end would be a better blocker and better receiver than a typical fullback. Also that a small halfback (Joe Washington) would be a weak blocker when they handed the ball to their regular fullback (John Riggins). Their solution was to switch between Washington and Riggins, the lightning bolt and the sledge-hammer, but always to have someone like Doc Walker as lead blocker.

ch1
Posts: 3625
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 pm
Location: virginia beach

Postby crazyhorse1 » Sat May 14, 2005 7:21 pm

Thanks for the football and history lessons, but perhaps much of the problem is that I have not expressed myself well.
What I am wondering is whether or not the Skins should use a full back, as well as an H Back, not just on short yardage plays, but on typical plays. I simply don't believe we have a strong enough blocking OL to keep sending Portis into the line from the present formation. I'm actually for trading the guy if we can't figure out how to use him or acquire the personnel needed for his type of running game pretty much pronto. Otherwise, we'll waste his career and our chances.

Skins History Buff
Posts: 4831
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:36 pm
Location: New York, NY

Postby welch » Sun May 15, 2005 9:11 am

What I am wondering is whether or not the Skins should use a full back, as well as an H Back, not just on short yardage plays, but on typical plays.


Maybe. Think of Gerald Riggs, designated TD scorer, matched with Rickie Ervins. And Ernest Byner the general-purpose runner.

Or George Rogers and Kelvin Bryant.

---
User avatar
Posts: 18553
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:55 am

Just to revisit this thread, what do you guys think of it now?

We have Broughton and White who have been drafted and are bulky guys.

I envision a few scenarios if one or both of them are drafted.

1. Backups to Portis and Betts.
2. Learning the H-back position. This would allow us to use Cooley at the TE position in certain plays. I think this would definately add more confusion to the defense.
3. Short yardage.
4. A traditional fullback to Portis
5. Dual RB formation with Cooley and Royal at TE.

I think these two kids bring us that short yardage power we need on crucial 3rd down and redzone conversions. If the o-line is blocking well enough then Portis will be able to get in but if he tries once and can't punch it in, twice at the most...lets bring in the heavy hitters to push that line.
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby damimac1 » Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:08 pm

I like the fact Portis will have a lead back...I think this part of our offense is the least of our concerns.

piggie
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Art_Monk » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:02 pm

damimac1 wrote:I like the fact Portis will have a lead back...I think this part of our offense is the least of our concerns.


I absolutely agree with you. The O could use some help in other places. I am excited to see what they bring tonight.
Fan of #81 4 life

piggie
User avatar
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:29 pm
Location: Washington, DC

Postby MarcusBeNimble » Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:39 am

I think its way to early to consider using an H back and fullback because our o line has a lot of prove. There are potential pro bowlers in at least 3 out of 5 positions along the line and I did indeed see some large holes being opened up for CP in the few moments that Gibbs acutally showed something of what he might have up his sleeve this year.
"Never get less than 12 hours sleep, never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city, and never go near a lady with a tattoo of a dagger on her hand. Now you stick with that, and everything else is cream cheese." - Teen Wolf

Hog
User avatar
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: Redskinz Country!!!

Postby Cooley47 » Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:59 pm

ummmmm no. Portis's system throughout college and especially in Denver was not running behind anyone. It was running alone and finding holes.

He is not taught to run behind people and that is why he is still somewhat struggling in our system. The last thing he needs is another lead blocker
I miss you 21.

God I wish we had a second round pick.

---
User avatar
Posts: 18553
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 12:55 pm
Location: AJT

Postby Chris Luva Luva » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:02 pm

Cooley47 wrote:ummmmm no. Portis's system throughout college and especially in Denver was not running behind anyone. It was running alone and finding holes.

He is not taught to run behind people and that is why he is still somewhat struggling in our system. The last thing he needs is another lead blocker


You bring up an excellent point, one that was made a lot during this Sundays game. I think we're still trying to run a little bit of those systems.

I wonder if we need to stick to one and perfect it. If we're going to keep Portis for the long haul then we need to put him in a system that utilizes him the best. I love Gibbs running schemes but I still feel that Portis isn't the back to run it effectively. If Ricky wasn't so weird and we didn't have Portis, I'd snatch him up and I can only imagine how well he'd run it! :shock:
Fios - Arbiter of All Positive Knowledge

Kaz - "Was kinda obvious since we all know you're not a moron"

Return to Football 101