On the continuing Portis experiment...
Like many fans and his own teammates, I'm enamored of Josh Portis' talent and would enjoy seeing him play more.
I think the coaches would like to use him more, too. The way they see it, each time he plays is like a tryout. If he inspires the coaches' confidence, he "wins" the opportunity for more snaps.
Remember that we've long heard that Portis had some troubles managing the offense. I think coaches are still wary of him making mistakes.
But I don't believe things have changed much from several weeks ago when James Franklin told me:
"This is what I’ve told him and really everybody on our team: If he gets four plays and he makes those four plays really good, I would be an idiot not to give him more plays. If he gets five plays and three of them aren’t any good, I would be an idiot to keep putting him in. So he’s in control of his own fate.”
Comments
The success he has had is primarily as a runner. How, can they commit to giving him more time when he has not shown the ability to lead the passing game or at least complete a few passes? It think the whole approach is a little strange. If you want to give him a shot let him throw it! If not why mess with Turners rhythm?
Posted by: bob | October 7, 2008 4:01 PM
why not put him in a whole series instead of one play here one play there.
-----FROM JEFF---
I wonder the same thing. The more he's played, the better he's done (note Middle Tennessee and Eastern Michigan, his two best games).
Posted by: fkterp | October 7, 2008 4:27 PM
As I said in my last comment I am an Ohio State fan so this is an objective view from the four or five Terps games I have watched. Portis is very interesting because he is a dual-threat QB similar to a QB we have named Terrelle Pryor. One of my main concerns with his is that he relies to much on his legs. That has been an observation that is pretty common among QB's with this type of talent. There is a lot of talent but can the coaching staff incorperate this kind of QB is the question.
Posted by: Rebuilding | October 7, 2008 5:30 PM
Why don't they put them both in the backfield for a couple of plays. The defense wouldn't know what to do.
Posted by: Dean | October 7, 2008 7:25 PM
I also feel that Turner shows enough now to be given time develop timing and consistency with the receivers. I do think it is important to develop Portis as well. However, we should first focus on getting one good starter then, if the situation permits, let Portis play after the lead is safely in hand. Unfortunately with this defense that will never be the case. Really, we should experiment with getting rid of the bend don't break.
Posted by: Pterp | October 8, 2008 12:42 AM
With Portis, why not get creative and use both Portis and Turner in the backfield? Defenses wouldn't know who to defend. Portis can run or throw, the center could hike to either player, or Turner could pitch it to Portis who could run or throw. we could score 50 points a game.
Posted by: csquare | October 8, 2008 6:44 AM
To the degree the current telephone book-thick UM playbook has the kind of option plays Ralph ran while O-coordinator at Georgia Tech, then Portis clearly the better "option", so to speak. Problem is-- the UM playbook just keeps getting thicker each season-- I doubt there are many QB's out there with the physical and mental ability to master all of it.
So-- my suggestion would be to lean it out and decide what kind of offense UM wants to run, and then pick the QB best able to run it, period, as opposed to shuffling in QB's to run the various elements and it seems at times, the randon number generator style of play calling. As it now stands, offensive continuity will continue to suffer as future opponents break down UM game film, and this will likely translate into more, not less, issues related to offensive execution. It's hard to get three plays ahead of the opposition's D-coordinator when the UM O-coordinator is seemingly too busy trying to out-guess himself.
Unless Ralph has abandoned his time-honored philosophy going back to the Bobby Ross days of seeking a balanced run-pass attack, the fact UM passing attack ranks nationally in the bottom third (86th of 120) and the rushing well into the upper-third (48th), suggests a number of things, to include a lack of a vertical game? The fact the O-coodinator has to come up with so many different gimmicks to try and get the ball into Bey's hands further suggests the lack of the vertical in the passing attack.
So, if for whatever reason UM cannot get the ball down the field, maybe UM figures it needs to get the opposing D's stretched sideline-to-sideline? Maybe that is why we are seeing Portis making these episodic visits to the huddle?
Memo to the UM O-coordinator: please see assessment above- "QB By Committee" ain't going to work. Decide what you want/need to do, then get the best 11 kids on the field to run it, period.
Posted by: Bryce Be Quick | October 8, 2008 9:23 AM
The last count I saw was that out of the 25 plays Portis was put in on, 21 of them were running plays. How can he have 5 good plays in a row when the defense knows exactly what he is going to do everytime he comes in? It has to be frustraing to Portis that the defense is licking it's chops to hit a scrambling QB every time he gets in!!! Why they didn't just put him in and let him play the entire fourth quarter against VA is beyond me? What did they have to lose?
Posted by: dcghosts | October 9, 2008 9:04 PM