Would Portis playing have made a difference in the outcome?

[fortdick]

If a healthy Portis had played, would have changed the outcome of the game? Not just the score, but who won.

[RedskinzOwnU]

Not a chance... unless portis can score 28 points with no passing attack.

[dwills1]

of course....we need him bad!

[.Guy.]

yes, actually getting somewhere on the ground would have oppened up the passing game

[NewCliche21]

That absolutely would've given us a much, much better chance. Run, run, pass works when the "run, run" part actually gains a yard or two.

[Jofizz]

Not a chance... unless portis can score 28 points with no passing attack.

Running opens up the pass, and vice-versa.

Absolutely would have been a different game.

[SoCalSkins]

If he started at QB we might have had a chance.

[roy182]

WHO CARES? We are in football hell while brunell plays for this team.

[drums and skins]

Absolutely. We would have had more time of posession if he/the team actually got some good yards on the ground.

"Unless he could score 4 TDs" doesn't mean anything considering the whole game would have been different through time of posession...It would have been a lot closer in score if portis was healthy, IMO.

[Soc12]

Defitely would have helped, dunno if it would have helped enough though. Sure as hell can't wait til we get them at FedEx, hopefully with a 100% healthy Portis.

[skinsngibbs4life]

springs would have helped more

[box8276]

Portis and Springs would have made a large difference. Look what our weaknesses are so far. Secondary trouble (on springs side) and no consistent running game, yes that makes boonell look worse.

[Jofizz]

If he started at QB we might have had a chance.

Your signature is an embarassment to the Redskins nation.

Show some respect, man.

[scrol14]

Dumba** question. You win as a team and lose as a team. The bad thing about that analogy is the play of the QB dictates all facets of a game:

3and outs means more time for the D
Missing open receivers means they will start slacking b/c they know rag arm can't get them the ball.
No completions means 8 in the box.
slow QB= BLITZ
Stat Mark Brunell had 197yards passing----69yards in 3.5 quarters and 128in the last 7:43 minutes WOW

[bryceb07]

we would have lost by 3 instead of 17

[909997]

umm i still think we would have lost but it would have been a close game

[JPM285181]

Not a chance... unless portis can score 28 points with no passing attack.Portis carried the team to 5 straight last year and Brunell was equally inept.

[Sephiroth]

Not a chance... unless portis can score 28 points with no passing attack.

Defense blew too.

[[[ghost]]]

Certainly. It would be foolish to say that having Portis in the backfield would have lead to a victory, but I thoroughly believe that had Portis been back there, our Running game would have taken off, as well as passing. Not only is Portis a great athlete that he is dangerous catching the ball, but he's a tremendous blocker in the backfield. Its almost as if he enjoys taking on speeding linebackers.

[mi6]

No! The Skins would still needed play from their QB, and wouldn't get it.

[fortdick]

Dumba** question. You win as a team and lose as a team. The bad thing about that analogy is the play of the QB dictates all facets of a game:

3and outs means more time for the D
Missing open receivers means they will start slacking b/c they know rag arm can't get them the ball.
No completions means 8 in the box.
slow QB= BLITZ
Stat Mark Brunell had 197yards passing----69yards in 3.5 quarters and 128in the last 7:43 minutes WOW

So, I take it you think Portis would not have made a difference?

BTW, what do you really think of Brunell?