I don't think Portis is a lock to outperform Tiki, but he's the guy I would go with as well for the reason stated above.
Additionally, I don't know about trusting old man Brunell at QB, but Portis will definitely get a few more scoring opportunities in the red zone, and doesn't rely on his QB for that. Basically, Portis is a much bigger part of that offense, whereas Tiki has Plax and Shockey to contend with, as well as the possibility of losing some touches to Jacobs.
It's time to put down the crack-pipe and step away from the keyboard.
I would go with Portis.It really comes down to Portis/Tiki based on the consensus. Forgetting the pages and pages of debate, I would make it simple and go with the younger guy of the two. Or you could be off the wall and draft someone like Steven Jackson.
Portis is my choice at 4. Improved O-line pushes me to Portis on this one. I just can't buy into Tiki at #4 the way some others can. Some have really researched these two and found some nice stats like running plays called per game as an example. Some say Eli brings more to the passing game than Brunell and defenses can focus more on stopping the run vs. Wash.
The way I see it, Gibbs loves to run and Portis is doing the running. Portis can handle the job and the O-line is better. Al Saunders will devise a way to include a passing attack to keep defenses honest (watch out for Cooley!). The mere fact Tiki could lose some goal line carries is a risk I am not taking with the #4 pick if possible.
Portis is a nice solid pick if you miss out on the top 3. Take Portis and be glad you are not drafting later.
I love Tiki, but even I'd take Portis, mainly due to his potential redzone production. That's the key here, as while Tiki often gets taken out, Portis will likely see more redzone carries thanks to Saunders. Even with Tiki's monster yardage last year, he put up 9 tds, and Jacobs pilfered 7 tds from him (and should've had several more ). Hell, Ricky Williams had 6, and he split carries with Ronnie and was suspended early in the year. Portis, on the other hand, has the same OC that played a part in Priest Holmes scoring 21 tds in 2002 and 27 tds in 2003, Priest scoring 14, LJ scoring 9, and Blaylock scoring 8 tds in 2004, and LJ scoring 20 tds in 9 starts in 2005. Granted, KC's o-line was better than Washington's, but all you can ask for from a fantasy rb is the opportunity to score in the redzone. With KC leading the league in rushing tds from 2002-2004, and finishing second only to Seattle (thanks to Alexander's record year) in 2005, I'd say the Saunders has a propensity for punching the ball in with his running back. As I've said, I like Tiki, I just don't like having my 1st round pick sitting on the sideline when his offense is in the redzone.
QB - C. Newton WR - L. Fitzgerald WR - S. Smith (Car) RB - M. Turner RB - C. Johnson TE - A. Gates W/R/T - B. Wells K - S. Janikowski DEF - NYJ
BN - M. Ryan BN - J. Battle BN - P. Thomas BN - J. Ringer BN - V. Cruz BN - B. Pettigrew BN - SF D
i've jumped on the portis trian as well for the same reasons as above. i just overall like him over tiki withthe additions they have made this offseason.
Kensat30 wrote:It really comes down to Portis/Tiki based on the consensus.
People act like there is a law against drafting contrary to the consensus. Maybe it is "off the wall" like you said, but I think Jackson is the clear choice. Portis and Tiki are both coming off of large workloads that went into the playoffs. Both teams are looking to decrease their workload. I don't trust Brunell to keep the pressure off Portis. He (Brunell) pretty much had a career year last year. Don't bet your #4 pick on it repeating. In my opinion, Jackson has the highest upside. We all know Tiki won't be scoring many TD's. Washington's offense isn't exactly stellar. Jackson is the only one with a legitimate shot at 15+ TD.
Kensat30 wrote:It really comes down to Portis/Tiki based on the consensus.
People act like there is a law against drafting contrary to the consensus. Maybe it is "off the wall" like you said, but I think Jackson is the clear choice. Portis and Tiki are both coming off of large workloads that went into the playoffs. Both teams are looking to decrease their workload. I don't trust Brunell to keep the pressure off Portis. He (Brunell) pretty much had a career year last year. Don't bet your #4 pick on it repeating. In my opinion, Jackson has the highest upside. We all know Tiki won't be scoring many TD's. Washington's offense isn't exactly stellar. Jackson is the only one with a legitimate shot at 15+ TD.
Uhhh why? Is it the crap o-line that stirrs you to love Jackson? or perhaps the lack of defense which would mean more passing situations? or perhaps the fact that he has to learn a new system and doesn't really have anyone to spell him when he needs it... Or maybe its Bulger coming back from a shoulder injury and having to learn a new system...
You gave all those "compelling" reasons that Clinton and Tiki have questions (not to mention your great tiki wont be in the top 13 thread) but you don't really seem to put together an argument for Jackson.... If its a gut feeling I'd go a little eaiser on the forcefull speak...
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by ampant » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:26 pm 
). Hell, Ricky Williams had 6, and he split carries with Ronnie and was suspended early in the year. Portis, on the other hand, has the same OC that played a part in Priest Holmes scoring 21 tds in 2002 and 27 tds in 2003, Priest scoring 14, LJ scoring 9, and Blaylock scoring 8 tds in 2004, and LJ scoring 20 tds in 9 starts in 2005. Granted, KC's o-line was better than Washington's, but all you can ask for from a fantasy rb is the opportunity to score in the redzone. With KC leading the league in rushing tds from 2002-2004, and finishing second only to Seattle (thanks to Alexander's record year) in 2005, I'd say the Saunders has a propensity for punching the ball in with his running back. As I've said, I like Tiki, I just don't like having my 1st round pick sitting on the sideline when his offense is in the redzone.
