Football Outsiders has their post-draft analysis of the NFC East up, go enjoy. Author is a guest, one Mike McGibbon, and all seems to be in order in the story. I found no glaring errors, though I'm not sure the Redskins got, as McGibbon wrote, 10 draft picks as a result of our 1st round draft pick trade (I thought we gave up a 1st, 3rd, 5th ro a 2nd, 2nd, 4th. It's been a minute, though, so maybe my memory doesn't serve).

Either way, McGibbon knows a lot more about our undrafted free agents than I do, and thus I direct your attention to some guys to watch, per him:

Undrafted Free Agents

In all, the Redskins brought in 13 undrafted rookie free agents. Of those 13, four were offensive linemen. And of those four, Florida State’s Shannon Boatman and New Mexico’s Devin Clark may have the best chance to make the team, given that both started for most of their final two seasons. Dorian Smith, an All-Pac 10 first-team defensive end from Oregon State, will also challenge for a spot.

Quick look at the roster reveals that Shannon Boatman has already been lost. He, uhh, failed a physical. Tough break, guy. But both Dorian Smith and Devin Clark are, as of this writing, still with the team. The team has a lot of defensive ends (nine) and certainly more than we will by final cuts. Locks would be, in my opinion, Phillip Daniels and Andre Carter as starters with Demetric Evans and Chris Wilson backing up. Let's speculate that the team keeps 9-10 defensive linemen, and you have to imagine Kedric the Barbarian, Mt. Gomery, and Cornelius Griffin, with Lorenzo Alexander and Ryan Boschetti both in good position to make the team (although Alexander could make the team in any number of his superhuman capacities, so maybe he wouldn't even count as a D-Linemen). We're in need of upgrade on the defensive line, but that doesn't mean any rookie can just step in and take the spot of one of the more established veterans. That might've been the case a few years ago, but young linemen Anthony Montgomery, Chris wilson and Kedric Golston have started a youth movement at that position. Until Griffin and Daniels take the long walk, the Dorian Smiths of the world will have to earn a place on this team.

At offensive line I think recent injuries may encourage Coach Zorn -- a former expansion team quarterback who knew a thing or two about the perils of a bad offensive line -- to keep a larger than normal contingent of offensive linemen on the roster. Locks are the starters, obviously, in Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Chris Samuels, Casey Rabach, and Pete Kendall. I think Fabini and Stephon Heyer will probably be around as well. I hope Chad Rinehart makes the team, and he should. On Todd Wade I'm indifferent, as he hasn't done much to impress. We'll need to keep someone about to backup Casey Rabach at center; with versatile Mike Pucillo gone, the spot as of now belongs to Kyle DeVan, unless there is someone else on the team who can snap the football and block effectively.

Question to readers is: We've got a good crop of undrafted rookie free agents. These things are remarkably difficult to predict, and we are really at the mercy of the team in telling us who has impressed thus far, but is anyone willing to go on record on who will or will not make the roster? Who will be this year's Stephon Heyer (acknowledging that his position was aided in large part by factors outside control or prediction: injuries)? I'm aspecifically soliciting commentary on players local to reader(s) markets that maybe the rest of us haven't seen play so much.

[Note by Skin Patrol, 05/15/08 2:58 PM EDT ] Redskin Report has an update:

Just after the new arrest was made, it was announced that one suspect has pled guilty.  Venjah Hunte pled guilty to 2nd degree murder and burglary.  Hunte was sentenced to 29 years in jail and has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the cases of the other suspects.

My prediction is that the others will follow shortly with plea bargains, assuming prosecutors put those offers on the table, though the admission of Venjah Hunte could close off such an option, since they won't need much more evidence to convict the others.

[Note by Skin Patrol, 05/14/08 4:16 PM EDT ] Here is the video from AP news, I believe:

 

 

Per Redskins Insider:

A fifth person has been charged in connection with the shooting death of Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor, a spokesman in the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office said Wednesday.

Timothy Brown, 16, of Fort Myers, Fla., has been charged with first-degree felony murder and armed burglary of an occupied dwelling, according the spokesman, Ed Griffith. Brown was arrested Tuesday and booked into a Lee County jail. It is unclear when he will arrive in Miami. No initial court appearance has yet been set...

...in a sworn statement to the police, one of the defendents, Rivera, said there were five, rather than four, people who drove together from Fort Myers to Taylor's house in Miami on the night of the break in.

This comes after the recent news that the prosecutors in the case will not seek the death penalty for any of the defendants. Ostensibly this applies to the newest defendant, Timothy Brown, as he is the youngest of the group. Acknowledging that his innocence is presumed until a guilty verdict is handed down, if young Brown did participate one can only imagine the sweat he's lost over the course of the past months. If Rivera (and others?) are willing to take the stand and testify to Brown's participation in the act, I wonder how juries will respond to this defendant's refusal to come forward before compelled to do so by investigators.

First degree murders in Florida amount to Capital Felonies, although the state won't seek the death penalty. Florida Statute § 782.04 (1)(a)2(d) reads:

The unlawful killing of a human being:

When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

d. Robbery

Other predicate offenses for felony murder include burglary and home-invasion robbery, so there are actually a few theories the prosecution could proceed on under felony murder. Armed only with the extremely limited legal knowledge attainable by watching Law & Order or taking a 1st year Criminal Law course in Law School, felony murder is a legal concept used to increase the severity of punishment for murders committed (even without premeditation) in the course of some other felonies, precluding assault in some jurisdictions such as Florida (since assault is pretty much always a predicate felony in a murder -- you don't murder people with harsh language).

Felony murder does ratchet up the seriousness of the crime in many places to a capital felony, which carries with it the possibility of a death sentence. The preceding statute lists the punishment as a first degree murder under the capital felony statute § 775.082. That statute reads, in part:

(1) A person who has been convicted of a capital felony shall be punished by death if the proceeding held to determine sentence according to the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death, otherwise such person shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be ineligible for parole.

Since the death penalty is off the books in this case, the minimum sentence available for the defendants (presuming they are all charged with first degree felony murder) is a life in prison with no possibility for parole.

I have nothing invested in a death penalty verdict for any of them, as I think justice prevails under a life sentence. Reasonable minds are free to disagree on that point. I am not a legal expert whatsoever (I'm actually not even a very good law student) but I have to think that the reason the state withdrew the death penalty is because of a lack of aggravating circumstances that would necessitate the death penalty along with the existence of mitigating circumstances that militate against such a verdict. § 921.141 lists those circumstances, which include, aggravating first, though not an exhaustive list:

1. Prior felonies by defendant and they're on probation
   
2. Previously convicted of a capital felony (which seems unlikely, since that means the current felony would need to be committed in prison or after escape) or of felony involving use or threat of violence against others
3. Defendant knowingly created a risk against a great number of people
4. Capital felony committed while in the course of a number of felonies, including robbery or burglary (this seems odd, since it would mean the existence of aggravating circumstances in all or virtually all felony murders)
5. Murder committed in the course of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest
6. Especial heinousness, atrociousness, or cruelty of crime
7. Victim was under 12 years of age or disabled
8. Murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated with no pretense of moral justification

Etc. you get the picture. Mitigating circumstances, again not an exhaustive list:

1. Defendant has no significant criminal history
2. Defendant was under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at time of crime (legal concept, think crime of passion)
3. Victim consented
4. Defendant was accomplice to the person who committed capital felony and defendant's participation was relatively minor
5. Defendant's age
6. Other circumstances in the victim's history

I guess the previously reported assertion that the prosecution would have to prove premeditation to get the death penalty relates to that particular aggravating circumstance. Some mitigating circumstances exist, notably the age of the main defendant (Rivera, who was 17 at the time of the murder) and the tangential participation of some or all of the others, as they weren't the trigger men.

In any event, the above legal analysis is probably wrong, unhelpful, and certainly miles away from professionally done. It is explicitly amateur, so please don't hold me responsible when some or all of this turns out to be wrong, but that's the best I could do. Hope that clears up felony murder in Florida.

I don't know how newsworthy this is as I recall reading something to this effect a while ago, but just to remind, per a Mike Sellers Q&A:

Q: Does it help that the terminology of the running game is the same as last year?
A: "Well, that's pretty much half the offense right there. For us, it makes it easier. It makes it less of a learning curve. All we have to learn is the passing part of the offense. It's just a matter of getting the pass routes down. It's why everybody is moving forward so fast."

He goes farther, I'll emphasize:

Q: Is there enough of a smash-mouth element to this offense?
A: "Like I just said, we still have the same running game from last year. It's exactly the same. Nothing has changed, so I'll still be doing the same [blocking] that I'm normally doing. It's just the passing game that's different."

The story also says Mike Sellers is listing 284 pounds this season (at 6'3). Pro Bowler Mack Strong, by comparison, lists 253. (Pete Schmitt is 252, he's got room to grow.) I'm not saying that our DEs need to be larger, but Mike Sellers is at least bigger than any of ours, and he's carrying substantial weight over any linebacker who dares stand between Clinton Portis and the 2nd level of the opposing defense. Mike Sellers is large, in charge, and will eat up would-be tacklers alive.

First, in case you missed it, the Redskins started OTAs (Organized Team Activities -- like twister and tag and if no one gets hurt they get capri suns when it is all over with pb and j sammiches (no crusts!!)) sans the rookies. Gary Fitzgerald says:

With the three-day mini-camp over, the Redskins moved right into voluntary Organized Team Activity sessions on Monday.

Gone were the rookies, 23 in all, and tryout players.

Rookies returned to their respective colleges to complete their spring classes. Most will return in early June for a final series of OTA practices.

Word on offense growing pains is that the team is struggling slightly with the apparently long snap counts we plan to employ this coming season. If the Seahawks could make it work at Qwest field under the loudest conditions in the NFL, I have every faith we can make good under Coach Zorn on handling our business at scrimmage. Now, if we could just pipe in some crowd noise...

Kidding. I think piping in crowd noise is chicken poopey strategy for cowards. It is on fans to show up and be loud and make that other guy's quarterback hear your clever wit from the upper deck even if it means scaring the kids and possibly doing permanent damage to your voice box  in the process. Any idiot can operate a noise machine. John Henry beat the steam-drill.

In other good news, Shawn Springs is about. Remember that a year ago Shawn Springs didn't make it back to Redskins camp for voluntary workouts, instead choosing to stay in Arizona. On accident. Because he lost his phone (hey athletes really are like the rest of us!). "That happens." <-- direct quote from Springs. It's a miracle players ever made it to voluntary team meetings before the invention of the cell phone. Did they? I'm just a kid.

Elsewhere, a Jim Zorn quote from the article caught my eye but I want to tread carefully for fear that I'll misintrepret it -- that's common 'round here. To begin with, I was always under the impression that, though everyone knew the game, no one was willing to speak of it. And "the game" is where the player agitates (by, for instance, missing all voluntary team meetings) to get traded. Maybe I'm wrong in that, because we've been blessed (spoiled, lucky?) to have avoided the worst of the emerging normal player negotiation strategy where the best way to increase your paycheck is to decrease your worth to the people currently holding rights. We're especially lucky given that the strategy was made famous by Drew Rosenhaus, and he represents some Redskins. To quote his own website (quoting to elsewhere, mind you):

Wildly successful agent Drew Rosenhaus has never experienced a player holdout he didn't enjoy.

I have a number of concerns with this strategy from a team standpoint, but we'll get to those momentarily. Again, proceeding slowly, I was under the impression that coaches and owners didn't typically even acknowledge this strategy, let alone any of its merits (for the player). And then we get this, from the Gary Fitzgerald
article, emphasis added:

Zorn said he expects players to attend the voluntary OTAs unless they have an excused absence.

He jokingly calls OTA practices "voluntary mandatory."

He added: "These are voluntary, but we've made our points as coaches that we need everybody here. We're not doing anything more or different than other teams. Other teams have OTAs and other teams want their players [to attend] as well.

"If you have a contract issue or you're disgruntled--there are a thousand reasons [to not attend OTAs]. But if you don't show up just because you didn't want to show up, I think that's wrong."

Unfortunately I think he's right. If you do have contract issues than, if you're going to miss anything, it might as well be voluntary workouts. But I'd be more content with new head coach Jim Zorn not being so naked about the entire thing. I'd prefer fire-and-brimstone-you-damn-well-better-show-up else dogs with bees in their mouths that shoot the bees at you when they bark will get you. Then again, maybe that's why I'm not an NFL head coach.

Personally, I have a real problem with players agitating over contracts. If you sign a contract, you should honor it. The typical justification for that move (and admittedly, I'm now in fisticuffs with a straw man, which isn't especially fair to the opposing position) goes something like: Well teams can cut players whenever they want, so why shouldn't players be able to negotiate new contracts?

I'd respond that they negotiated a binding contract that included the terms they, the player (and in most cases, to greater degree, their agents), is now sour on. Teams are indeed free to cut players, but there's nothing preventing players, far as I can tell, from demanding no-cut clauses in their contracts. They don't, obviously, because it would dramatically reduce the amount the other party to the contract was willing to dish out. But practically speaking, players do write into their contracts defenses against arbitrary cuts and general team meanie face cruelty towards the player -- NFL contracts provide guaranteed moneys.

The obvious retort, and I don't much like granting it, is that missing the OTAs isn't messing with the contract and, in any event, teams pony up to the table just as players do, and if they wanted mandatory Team Activities they could force the issue, but don't. Let me make it clear that I'm not suggesting any player, ever, in the history of the sport, has had a contractual responsibility to show up to a voluntary workout. What I am offering is merely a mini-rant against the general strategy of contractual agitation. If you sign a contract, you should honor it. And you should honor not merely the technical word of it, but also its spirit, which includes not seeking a breach. (To [those players who do agitate] credit, I'm sure they could give a deuce about my "respect" but should care about their moral responsibility to their families, who depend on the player's financial compensation.)

But what am I complaining 'bout?

The Redskins had full attendance for Monday's OTA practice.

Hail to that, at least for now.

Quickly, Mr. Irrelevant eloquently captures my own delayed reaction to the schedule:

That same stretch was rough enough to get Head Coach Jim Zorn's attention and could very well get the attention of Redskins nation should the team find itself in an early season winning deficit. We always do best ~ 5-6, though, right? You can also find schedule reactions here, here, here, and here. Also, the NFL failed in scheduling the Cowboys last Texas Stadium regular season game against someone besides the Redskins. Epic, epic fail NFL. Someone should go make a diary about it. Be civil.

Besides the early grueling road schedule, the big word is our three prime time games:

There might be some possibility of flex scheduling to get us in prime time but I'm not entirely sure how that works. Anyways, how do we do in prime time? I tried looking it up. In 2007 we had three prime time matchups on a Monday, Sunday, and Thursday night. Results:

1. Redskins 20, Eagles 12
   
2. Bears 16, Redskins 24
   
3. Redskins 22, Giants 10

Ya, so far so good, 3-0. We had three in 2006 not counting any flexible scheduling games we might have received, though I'm assuming it couldn't have been many considering the way we played the rest of that miserable season. Results:

1. Vikings 19, Redskins 16
   
2. Redskins 10, Cowboys 27
   
3. Giants 34, Redskins 28

Doh.

Returning to this year, prime candidates for flex scheduling from week 11 on look to be...

Washington @ Seattle, November 23rd: Barring a total collapse by either or both teams, the story carries enough uncreated drama to garner national attention. Jim Zorn, presuming at least a decent season, returns to his professional football home where he spent damn near 15 years, 8 of them as a player.

Either NYG or Philly @ Washington, November 30th/December 21st: Probably a stretch regarding the Giants, as the nation will already have tired of watching us duke it out with them nationally. But the Eagles especially has a chance depending on how both teams are playing and the playoff implications of the game. Considering the NFC East is good for at least one, maybe two wild card teams per year, there's a good bet at least one of us will need that win.

Washington @ Baltimore, December 7th? Probably a stretch but this piece wouldn't have worked without at least three paragraphs. I mention this only to reiterate my frustration that the NFL scheduled the final regular season game to be played at Texas Stadium as between Dallas and the Ravens? Why? What non-existent rivalry is that supposed to perpetuate?

I'm actually hoping it is this latter explanation, since NFL execs so clueless as to the draw of a Redskins-Cowboys close out that Texas Stadium finale game would similarly be clueless about the how the Cowboys season will shake out.

It was an opportunity to inject one more great historical anecdote into the greatest rivalry in the NFL and the league blew it.

Idea premised on something done better elsewhere. My amigo at Behind the Steel Curtain hosted an Adopt-A-Steeler program last year where he had reader(s) pick specific Steelers players and focus on them during games. A sampling:

I think it's a grand idea that lends itself to the offseason where actual information is in short supply thus necessitating, for content's sake, unnecessary speculation and increased magnification of player activities. If anyone is down for this idea go right ahead and "adopt" a player and make it your offseason's and continuing 2008 season's mission to focus far too much on their career. Whoever picks Chris Cooley will find no shortage of content on which to rant.

I lead by example. As you well know my obsession with Pete Schmitt has no rational basis but I support it nonetheless. He is a long shot to even make the roster, let alone see any field as he competes with Nemo for backup fullback. If ever there were a player not to adopt, this is it, as I could be childless within a matter of weeks. Despite all that I sally forth undeterred, especially since it's so easy to identify the relevant Pete Schmitt related content that needs pimping at Hogs Haven: anything and everything written about Pete Schmitt. If you're already sick of Pete Schmitt related news, prepare to get sicker, because I'm adopting him. Per Redskins Insider:

ESPN's insultingly stupid Who's Now competition could not possibly have captured the nowness of Schmitt, who is so absolutely now proper spelling of his name is still new and exciting. If SB Nation had a Wisconsin-Whitewater blogger, I'd ask them to do a full expose on Schmitt's history with that program. (Aside: SB Nation does have a Tennessee blog and if you are at all as interested in linebacker prospect Jerod Mayo as the Redskins are, click these words.) In case you didn't know, Pete Schmitt was a first team All-WIAC collegiate football player. In case you didn't know, and I didn't, WIAC is the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.

So adopt your own player, or don't. Just a thought for an otherwise boring offseason, though please, by all means, let me monopolize the conversation with my shitty content.

In other news, mercifully Ben and the Curly R have returned, with force, as he documents in great detail the entire history of the Redskins coaching search in toto more effectively than I've seen anywhere else on the internet. He also has a way with pictures and clever subtitles that I envy. Enjoy.

Oh yea; TexSkins writes things, I get credit. This is why I blog.

[editor's note, by Skin Patrol] Last week I wrote a post about Redskins cap guru Eric Schaffer being swooned over by the Saints (we retained him). I received more than one email about that post -- I don't think that's ever happened before -- suggesting that Eric Schaffer was a good bit better at his job than I was giving him credit for. I was trying, unsuccessfully, to suggest that indeed he was better than the team's financial reputation and the fact that the Saints sough him (action is greater than) spoke more highly of him than anything the likes of me or others have written about the team's financial situation (mere words).

More importantly, though, is that I keep pounding this podium called Hogs Haven swearing the same tired cap rubric about how restructures are wrong, dead cap hits are wrong, etc. etc. when in fact there are more than a few ways to skin a salary cap and I certainly don't have a monopoly on cap methodology. In fact I'm not a cap expert at all. I know very little about it. I received a very well put together email from "a reader in the midwest" who suggested a few reasons why prolonging salary cap payments can often times be a good idea. And the worst part about the email, which runs contrary to my entire personal cap philosophy, is that the writer was absolutely correct; salary caps increase over time and thus dollars spent in future caps are worth less than dollars spent in current caps. He makes the point far more elegantly than I can, so I'll defer now to him and hope you all enjoy. Thanks again to reader from the midwest, and reader(s) are all on notice that I love talking Redskins, love receiving emails, and encourage you guys to spam me at hogshaven@yahoo.com. Take it away "reader from the midwest":

Good stuff. Throw your own hats into the ring in the comments section.

The least controversial measure of inefficient salary cap use would probably be the amount of dead cap hits, since dead cap hits are paid for on players who are necessarily no longer part of the franchise and thus incapable of contributing anything to the team. In essence they are always less valuable than the money being spent on them, since their value to the team is zero and the amount spent on them is some amount more than zero, sometimes amounts hundreds of thousands, millions, higher.

And we haven't been so efficient at avoiding dead cap hits, per Jason La Canfora:

There are a couple of interesting points. I think we have had our fair share of bad contracts, such as the obvious Adam Archuleta and Brandon Lloyd fiascos. I've just said that dead cap space is about as useful a measure for a team's cap efficiency as anything else, so it is telling that we lead the league in wasted spending there as well. And finally Jason's last bit lends weight to the thinking that it simply isn't all that clear how decisions are made, by whom, on this team.

The reason the above question was raised about VP of football administration Eric Schaffer's degree of blame (or praise?) for the Redskins financial situation is because Your Washington Redskins aren't the only team that wants to employ him:

The reason for the cock block cited by Jason would be our proximity to the draft, which makes plenty of sense. There's no point giving up an additional mind so close to the 2008 NFL Draft.

Schaffer has been called our cap guru (perhaps ironically, I'm not sure) and was promoted within this organization at least as recently as 2005. And now he is being sought out by the Saints to interview for their own depleted football administration department.

So the question becomes: For a franchise that is so frequently criticized (by the likes of me) for its questionable cap strategies, excessive dead cap space, annual concerns over cap management, and frequent questionably large contracts to players that don't pan out, why is it that we have a guy who is wanted not only within the organization but elsewhere? It's one thing for the franchise itself to say "We have a high opinion of Eric Schaffer" but quite another for some other team to go out on a line and seek an interview with him. Are the Saints that dumb? Or is Eric Schaffer just lucky?

Or perhaps there's just something to be said for a guy who tends to a cap that media commenters and bloggers almost perennially challenge as untenable yet remains, year after year, tenable. How do the Redskins make a big splash in free agency, except this year of course, without facing the consequences of the cap? I don't know, I'm not smart enough to answer that question, but there are reasons to believe that Eric Schaffer is, reasons the Saints find compelling.

PS: We have a brand new Saints Blogger so go welcome him to SB Nation. He cites to a steroids story that does not involve any Redskins. Huzzah.

PPS: I don't care how much obviously smarter Eric Schaffer is than I am, I'm still against the current strategy of constantly restructuring contracts from unguaranteed base salaries to guaranteed but prorated bonuses. I will continue to beat that drum until the day I die, regardless of empirical evidence supporting the strategy. I'm simply too committed at this point to retreat now. My mantra is: If you must be wrong about something, it's best to do so spectacularly.

Yesterday this space thought Aqib Talib might be a good direction with the 21st pick in next year's draft based on the way the SBNation Mock Draft shook out. But we could have gone in a different direction, towards safety for instance:

I'll agree with mmford10 to the extent that I'm not yet sure that Doughty is a starter quality safety. He played like it for spurts last year, though I attributed that to him simply overachieving. However, at least one teammate thinks Reed Doughty has what it takes. Chris Cooley said, in response to a question about who will have a "break out" season in 2008: I wonder about the significance of our tight end listing two defensive players as potential break out stars of 2008, but it surely makes sense. Chris has to line up against the safeties in coverage and they account for him on the field more than, say, the defensive linemen do.

I still think that in the event we do draft a safety in the 1st round, it should signal that Reed Doughty's days as starter in Washington are numbered. He was drafted by Gregg Williams and was thrust into the starting position after the tragic death of Sean Taylor. The way he played in 2007 went a long ways towards justifying him at least the opportunity to compete for that starting position, but by no means solidified him as the Redskins' starting safety for the immediate and distant future. I am rooting for the guy, though.

This was all really just an excuse to post another one of Chris Cooley's 20 Q&As with readers of his site. Besides revealing that he loves beer, all beer, and I love beer, all beer too, he also provided the best of all possible answers for a hypothetical co-ed tag team match involving Chris and his fiancee vs. a well known rival couple:

Per Wikipedia's entry on The Great American Novel: Putting to rest debate over the theme and concept of the next Great American Novel, there can be no question that it will involve wrestling and beer and high fives and Chris Cooley will author it.

In the 2007 season, Clinton Portis quietly had the most productive receiving season of his career. I say quietly because it was not an earth shattering receiving year -- his 389 yards receiving was only nominally higher than his previous high of 364 -- and did not result in any touchdowns. However, the rub going into the '08 season was that Ladell Betts (at least relative) advantage over Portis was that he was more apt at receiving out of the backfield. Portis is a better runner and is about the best blocking running back in the National Football League.

From the looks of it, CP is a more complete back now. While his numbers were good, not great, they were efficient. I was browsing STATS NFL leaderboard and stumbled across a few interesting numbers:

1. Clinton Portis was the NFL's sixth leading rusher last year. In general, individual rushing yards are down from years past, where even LT, in a league-leading effort, could not surpass the 1500 yard mark. I attribute the change to an increase in running back by committee systems, though welcome alternate explanations in the comments.
   
2. Portis was ninth in the NFL in YACs; interestingly he had more YACs than he had receiving yards.
   
3. He was third in the league in percent of passes caught. This should be caveated by noting that many of these passes were short yardage, as he caught them behind the line of scrimmage. Still, what you want out of your running back is to make those kinds of catches and get some YACs afterwards, and Portis did both about as well as anyone else in the league.

It wasn't all good, though. CP, who has usually been good at protecting the football, set a career high with 6 fumbles, five of them lost. (Note: Jason Campbell led the league in lost fumbles, with eight.) I think the sample size on fumbles is small enough where this can be viewed as an anomaly. The good news is that Portis appears a much better receiving threat out of the backfield than he was in years past, making it all that much more difficult for opposing defenses to account for his presence.