T.J. Duckett Conspiracy

I'm also asking why we haven't been using him in perfect situations to use him. In these pivotal points in the game, we have stuck with someone else and they weren't able to get the first down. Duckett 9 time out of 10 was able to pick up these short conversions and it makes me wonder why we have him at all?

What the big deal? If we aquired TJ for insurance, can we not deal him if he is now not needed? Why are we not feeling good about Portis returning early? Have we lost something?

This assumes that we will trade him before the deadline, which we won't.

I'm irked by the move to acquire him as well. It was a knee-jerk reaction to Portis's shoulder. Way too much to give up for insurance. I mean we already had Betts for crying out loud. Betts wouldn't set the world on fire as a starter, but then again neither would Duckett.

Retarded move if you ask me. Gibbs' nervous nelly nature got the best of him on that move.

If it's about the depth chart as Coach Gibbs explained, then deactivate James Thrash and get Duckett in there. I've got a lot of questions for Coach Gibbs and I'm getting tired of the same lame explanation he has given. "We the coaching, should have prepared better, or nothing seemed to go our way. Of course it's not going your way, when every time he mentions how hard it is to play in the Meadowlands and then calls plays that did'nt stretch the field nor did I see any three to four receiver sets. It seemed Gibbs played right into the strengths of the Giants and away from the strengths of what won the game last week. Throw the fuckin' ball to Moss and let him do his thing. Damn is it that hard?

I for one am extremely pissed at the cavalier attitude we have toward using draft choices to build good, cheap depth. Champ for Portis? Sure, and we'll throw in a 2nd round pick for good measure. Brunell about to get cut by the Jags? Wait, we'll give you a 3rd for him. Trade up to get Jason Campbell? Here Denver, take 3 more of our picks, including a #1, and we won't let the kid see the light of day. Same with Duckett, but we "only" gave up a 3rd so that he can ride the pine. Then there's Brandon Lloyd - let's give up a 3rd and a 4th, sign him to a long term contract, then throw him the ball about as often as we threw it to Taylor Jacobs.

Wonder why we have no depth? We keep trading picks for guys with limited roles. Is this any way to build a long-term winner? I love how New England and Philly stockpile draft picks, and build a team through the draft first and fill the few remaining holes with free agency. I call that the "anti-Danny" approach to running a football team. I hope that Gibbs and The Danny can win consistently with their approach, but I won't hold my breath on that.

I agree. I'm all for trying to improve our team thru the draft and free agency but let's not go overboard, which i believe will eventually hurt us.

BTW- Someone mentioned we could just trade Duckett. Who is going to give us a 3rd rounder for him? 4, 5, 6? Not likely.

This does seem like the one area where it's hard to argue that the FO has "a master plan that we should all wait patiently for". Giving away picks is going to hurt us down the road, especially since it is doubtful we will be able to recoup picks on many of these players.

This assumes that we will trade him before the deadline, which we won't.

I'm irked by the move to acquire him as well. It was a knee-jerk reaction to Portis's shoulder. Way too much to give up for insurance. I mean we already had Betts for crying out loud. Betts wouldn't set the world on fire as a starter, but then again neither would Duckett.

Retarded move if you ask me. Gibbs' nervous nelly nature got the best of him on that move.

Betts was also hurt at the time the move was made.

Given Portis's history of shoulder problems going back to last year, coupled with Betts' extensive injury history, was it really a knee-jerk reaction to acquire a proven back? With how heavily the offense is based on the running game, god forbid Portis and Betts were both out and we were down to Cartwright taking the full workload, I can only imagine the complaining that we didn't address the RB situation properly enough.

Maybe it was a move that has proved to be unnecessary with Portis appearing to be at or very close to 100% and Betts remaining healthy. But the logic at the time was sound in making the move, and it might prove to still be a good move depending on what happens the rest of the way.

I for one am extremely pissed at the cavalier attitude we have toward using draft choices to build good, cheap depth. Champ for Portis? Sure, and we'll throw in a 2nd round pick for good measure. Brunell about to get cut by the Jags? Wait, we'll give you a 3rd for him. Trade up to get Jason Campbell? Here Denver, take 3 more of our picks, including a #1, and we won't let the kid see the light of day. Same with Duckett, but we "only" gave up a 3rd so that he can ride the pine. Then there's Brandon Lloyd - let's give up a 3rd and a 4th, sign him to a long term contract, then throw him the ball about as often as we threw it to Taylor Jacobs.

Wonder why we have no depth? We keep trading picks for guys with limited roles. Is this any way to build a long-term winner? I love how New England and Philly stockpile draft picks, and build a team through the draft first and fill the few remaining holes with free agency. I call that the "anti-Danny" approach to running a football team. I hope that Gibbs and The Danny can win consistently with their approach, but I won't hold my breath on that.


This team gives away draft picks like Xmas presents, it amazing. If memory serves I think the skins only have something like 1 pick in next year's draft. How this builds the team for the future (as JG said he was going to do whe he was re-hired) I'm not really sure. I know of no perennially successful teams that abandon the draft like the redskins do. Maybe that's why the redskins have not been very successful since 1992.

On the John Riggins show yesterday, I heard that Duckett wants to stick around, even though he's been inactive the last few weeks. My theory is that the Washington front office thinks Betts will leave after this season, so they have pretty much assured Duckett that he'll be the #2 tailback next season. Like I said, it's just my theory, but why else would a potentially #1 running back be content with being inactive, week after week?

yeah, I heard he was content also. but wasn't he getting frustrated in ATL, being #2? what makes washington any different? more money?

yeah, I heard he was content also. but wasn't he getting frustrated in ATL, being #2? what makes washington any different? more money?

Money would be my guess. Snyder has never had a problem throwing money around. Then again, Duckett could just be singing the company line, and being a team player. Maybe he's stewing under the surface.