Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Golston, Montgomery, Evans, Boschetti...we have some decent young talent.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=12thMan;257513]As it was stated earlier, good point I might add, the pick was kind of a moot point, because Champ was leaving anyway. The second round pick jus ensured that Portis was more or less really coming to D.C.[/QUOTE]

Yes, champ was leaving but we did own his rights and could have held out for a more fair trade from Denver or someoen else. When the redskins decide they want something they throw in whatever is necessary to make sure it happens that instant. All of the Redskins problems since Snyder came aboard have involved a general lack of patience. Snyders wants to win yesterday which is what we like most about him but that mindset has been a cloud over the Redskins decision making process.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Denver is desparate for a quaility back right now like portis. If they had portis I think they would have at least 1 or 2 more wins. I really would like to hold on to both portis and betts considering how much of a "running team" the redskins are supposed to be. Running the ball 30+ times a game is gonna require more than one QUALITY back.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257521]That was gonna be my reply exactly.[/quote]

Of course not. But you don't give up two starters for one. If your going to make that trade then we are the ones who should have gotten the better end of the deal. If not then Gibbs should have sat Bailey down and told him things are gonna change. Or they should have just paid the man and not traded him at all. Some of it was over money. They pay everyone else so why not Bailey? You already know he can ball. So you go out and pay AA and AC but not the best corner in the league? C'mon.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=TAFKAS;257525]Golston, Montgomery, Evans, Boschetti...we have some decent young talent.[/quote]

Are u kidding me? Golston has played OK. He's a rookie so he's a keeper. Evans has totally regressed. No pass rush pressure which is his strength. Montgomery and Boschetti? No thanks.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257534]Of course not. But you don't give up two starters for one. If your going to make that trade then we are the ones who should have gotten the better end of the deal. If not then Gibbs should have sat Bailey down and told him things are gonna change. Or they should have just paid the man and not traded him at all. Some of it was over money. They pay everyone else so why not Bailey? You already know he can ball. So you go out and pay AA and AC but not the best corner in the league? C'mon.[/QUOTE]

First of all, stop comparing now to 3 years ago. Second, he didn't wanna be here. He was tired of all of the coaching changes. I think he also saw what LaVar has said a lot, we just don't like to hear it. They also weren't in the business of paying their own guys and keeping them then. And, if you think Archuletta, Randle El, Carter, Lloyd, Portis, or anyone they gave big contracts to will see the end of them you're completely out of your mind. That's "the business side of football" that everyone thinks the Skins are so good at.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257538]Are u kidding me? Golston has played OK. He's a rookie so he's a keeper. Evans has totally regressed. No pass rush pressure which is his strength. Montgomery and Boschetti? No thanks.[/QUOTE]

Montgomery is also a rookie, just like Golston. Boschetti is so-so overall, I agree. I like Evans, in the right situations I think he can do and does do pretty good.

The point is we do have young linemen that we can develop. I agree though that we need another stud in the middle, not quite a superstar but close to it.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257538]Are u kidding me? Golston has played OK. He's a rookie so he's a keeper. Evans has totally regressed. No pass rush pressure which is his strength. Montgomery and Boschetti? No thanks.[/quote]

Yet, you're basing your Betts argument on one exceptional game...

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Wasn't Boschetti cut and replaced on the roster by Suisham?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;257541]First of all, stop comparing now to 3 years ago. Second, he didn't wanna be here. He was tired of all of the coaching changes. I think he also saw what LaVar has said a lot, we just don't like to hear it. They also weren't in the business of paying their own guys and keeping them then. And, if you think Archuletta, Randle El, Carter, Lloyd, Portis, or anyone they gave big contracts to will see the end of them you're completely out of your mind. That's "the business side of football" that everyone thinks the Skins are so good at.[/QUOTE]

There were a lot of more personal issues behind Champ's leaving that had little, if nothing, to do with how the organization was run. I know because I was dealing with the Redskins on a near daily basis back in those days.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=davy;257547]Wasn't Boschetti cut and replaced on the roster by Suisham?[/QUOTE]

They cut Novak and brought Bosch back

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;257548]There were a lot of more personal issues behind Champ's leaving that had little, if nothing, to do with how the organization was run. I know because I was dealing with the Redskins on a near daily basis back in those days.[/QUOTE]

I figured it was something like that, but I wasn't sure. I just know he didn't wanna come back and no amount of money was keeping him here.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257546]Yet, you're basing your Betts argument on one exceptional game...[/quote]

NO. Everytime Betts has filled in for Portis he has played well. For the most part he always comes in and does well.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;257549]They cut Novak and brought Bosch back[/QUOTE]

Shame on me, I must pay more attention. :(

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257541]First of all, stop comparing now to 3 years ago. Second, he didn't wanna be here. He was tired of all of the coaching changes. I think he also saw what LaVar has said a lot, we just don't like to hear it. They also weren't in the business of paying their own guys and keeping them then. And, if you think Archuletta, Randle El, Carter, Lloyd, Portis, or anyone they gave big contracts to will see the end of them you're completely out of your mind. That's "the business side of football" that everyone thinks the Skins are so good at.[/quote]

The problems of the past are why this team is not very good now.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257552]NO. Everytime Betts has filled in for Portis he has played well. For the most part he always comes in and does well.[/QUOTE]

4.1 yards per carry for his career isn't exactly playing well. Niether are the 2 td's he's amassed this season...giving him 8 total for his career.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257552]NO. Everytime Betts has filled in for Portis he has played well. For the most part he always comes in and does well.[/quote]

Except for the fumbles, missed blocks, and random injuries...

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257546]Yet, you're basing your Betts argument on one exceptional game...[/quote]

Stats time again. Prior to this season, how many games has Ladell had at least 20 carries in a contest? Exactly twice. Twice in a four year span, twice in 48 games.

Not coincidentally (IMO), anyway, in both games he got 20 or more carries, he went for a hunny and hit paydirt.

In '06, he's had three games with 20+ carries, and went for 100+ in 2 of them. He made up for the Philly game in which he only got 83, by dropping 124/1TD on Houston earlier in the year on 16 carries.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257554]The problems of the past are why this team is not very good now.[/QUOTE]

It's hard to say why they're not very good right now. I mean, seriously, they went to the playoffs last season. Tell me what you would have done differently this offseason or come up with something that could have actually happened then. Keeping Champ was out of the question. We've shown you tons of reasons why Betts couldn't have been the #1. Come up with a real reason why the trade shouldn't have happened.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=dgack;257557]Stats time again. Prior to this season, how many games has Ladell had at least 20 carries in a contest? Exactly twice. Twice in a four year span, twice in 48 games.

Not coincidentally (IMO), anyway, in both games he got 20 or more carries, he went for a hunny and hit paydirt.

In '06, he's had three games with 20+ carries, and went for 100+ in 2 of them. He made up for the Philly game in which he only got 83, by dropping 124/1TD on Houston earlier in the year on 16 carries.[/QUOTE]

While we're basing things on the Houston game...let's put Brunell back in!

Seriously though, he is usually hurt. He missed some of the preseason this year too. He's only once played in more than 12 games. He'll do it this year, but that's only twice in 5 years.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

My biggest complaint with the trade was Gibbs's willingness to toss in a high 2nd round pick (that ended up being Tatum Bell). True shutdown corners capable of holding their own without help are MUCH harder to come by than great running backs. If anything, Denver should have been giving us extra draft choices.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

This was overall a bad trade, but we got a team leader & great player from it, who also seems to like being here & carrying on the tradition of redskins players that love the spotlight.
I'm tired of the 'Champ didn't want to be here' line. While it's true, we still had more leverage as someone pointed out earlier. We could've franchised him & waited for the right offer, i.e. not given up a 2nd rnd. pick.
Or we could've kept him here in GW's D & let Gibbs try & convince him that the team is headin in the right direction. So he was unhappy, how many people are unhappy w/their job for periods of time, but stay & eventually like it? Lots.
Champ is still the best & a top cb is harder to find than a good rb. I always thought Betts could carry the load. Of course, we'd need to draft a backup as he's been hurt, but its not hard to find a solid backup in rnds. 3-6.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257555]4.1 yards per carry for his career isn't exactly playing well. Niether are the 2 td's he's amassed this season...giving him 8 total for his career.[/quote]

Listen. I'm not saying Betts is better than Portis cause he's not. All I'm trying to say is that you can win with Betts as your starting RB. But you have to give the guy a chance to come into his own. Has Betts ever had the chance to be the full time starter here? No. He has only been a back-up. Players need to mature and sometimes it takes some players longer than others. That 4.1 yards per carry means nothing. When Portis came here he was averaging over 5 yards per carry. I know it's gone down since he has come here. Does that mean Portis isn't as good as he use to be? No. So don't judge a guy buy that stat. And the 2 TD's? He's not going to score as much as Portis becasue Portis has had the majority of the carries. Judge Betts TD totals at the end of the season.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=freddyg12;257565]This was overall a bad trade, but we got a team leader & great player from it, who also seems to like being here & carrying on the tradition of redskins players that love the spotlight.
I'm tired of the 'Champ didn't want to be here' line. While it's true, we still had more leverage as someone pointed out earlier. We could've franchised him & waited for the right offer, i.e. not given up a 2nd rnd. pick.
Or we could've kept him here in GW's D & let Gibbs try & convince him that the team is headin in the right direction. So he was unhappy, how many people are unhappy w/their job for periods of time, but stay & eventually like it? Lots.
Champ is still the best & a top cb is harder to find than a good rb. I always thought Betts could carry the load. Of course, we'd need to draft a backup as he's been hurt, but its not hard to find a solid backup in rnds. 3-6.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SouperMeister]My biggest complaint with the trade was Gibbs's willingness to toss in a high 2nd round pick (that ended up being Tatum Bell). True shutdown corners capable of holding their own without help are MUCH harder to come by than great running backs. If anything, Denver should have been giving us extra draft choices.[/QUOTE]

Please read the prior 5 pages and see everyone's thoughts on this....

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

I just wanted to clear something up regarding Betts and his fumbles. I've seen a lot of people implying that he fumbles a lot, so I did some number crunching to see if he really is fumble prone.

In his career to date Betts has 634 total touches, this includes rushes, receptions and kick returns. Out of these 634 touches he's fumbled 8 times, or once every 79.25 touches.

To compare, Portis to date in his career has a total of 1543 touches. He's fumbled 16 times or once every 96.4 touches.

Now if you want someone who really is fumble prone, look at Ricky Williams who averages one fumble per 57.2 touches.

While one of the best in the league right now is LT. He only puts in on the ground once every 163.25 touches.

Another example is Tiki Barber who over the last 3 years has really shored up his fumble problems and is one of the better backs in the league now at not fumbling. Over the last 3 years he only gives it up once every 120 touches.

My conclusion is Betts is pretty average, he's not bad enough to call fumble prone in my opinion.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257567]All I'm trying to say is that you can win with Betts as your starting RB.[/quote]

I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are [B]2-6 [/B]when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257567]Listen. I'm not saying Betts is better than Portis cause he's not. All I'm trying to say is that you can win with Betts as your starting RB. But you have to give the guy a chance to come into his own. Has Betts ever had the chance to be the full time starter here? No. He has only been a back-up. Players need to mature and sometimes it takes some players longer than others. That 4.1 yards per carry means nothing. When Portis came here he was averaging over 5 yards per carry. I know it's gone down since he has come here. Does that mean Portis isn't as good as he use to be? No. So don't judge a guy buy that stat. And the 2 TD's? He's not going to score as much as Portis becasue Portis has had the majority of the carries. Judge Betts TD totals at the end of the season.[/QUOTE]

Okay...Betts has 1 td in 3 starts. Portis played in 9 games and had 7 tds. Betts has played in all of those and scored twice. Clinton for his career is still averaging 4.7 a carry, so he really hasn't fallen off that much.

Also, Betts got here before Clinton, if he were so good he would have been the guy then. Part of the reason he never got the chance to start is cause, like I said, he CAN'T STAY HEALTHY.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257574]I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are [B]2-6 [/B]when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?[/quote]

In all fairness the games he's started haven't exactly been when the team was firing on all cylinders. He's starting for a bad team right now.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Mattyk72;257580]In all fairness the games he's started haven't exactly been when the team was firing on all cylinders. He's starting for a bad team right now.[/quote]

That's all well and good, but how is that any different from someone saying that the Redskins can win with Patrick Ramsey? The numbers say that both of those statements are false.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257558]It's hard to say why they're not very good right now. I mean, seriously, they went to the playoffs last season. Tell me what you would have done differently this offseason or come up with something that could have actually happened then. Keeping Champ was out of the question. We've shown you tons of reasons why Betts couldn't have been the #1. Come up with a real reason why the trade shouldn't have happened.[/quote]

Well for one I would not have given a 3rd rounder for Brunell. Again that's a potential starter. Try and get Brunell after he was cut and save the draft pick, ( becasue he was going to be cut) then offer him more than anyone else. I also would not try and play AC as an everydown 4-3 end. He's not big enough to hold up against the run. As for Bailey? He wanted out. Fine. Get him outta here. But try your best to get the better of the deal. Wasn't Casserly down in Houston at the time? Cassery drafted him so try and make a deal with him? Anyone. Just make sure you get the better of the deal. Get multiple draft picks for him so you set yourself up for the future. Run it like NE does. Do you think NE would ever get rid of a guy and not get fair value? No. Look how they handled Deion Branch? Rocky M. Gave up a 2nd rounder just to move up and pick the guy? If you do that then make the guy the starter right away and deal with his mistakes. Meanwhile he's on the bench and the 2nd rounder is gone. Look, I could go on and on. But the bottom line is the lack of draft picks are killing the team now. All the money is invested in the front line players. In other words the team is too top heavy.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257582]That's all well and good, but how is that any different from someone saying that the Redskins can win with Patrick Ramsey? The numbers say that both of those statements are false.[/quote]

It's tough to make a direct comparison across two positions like that.

You could argue it either way I guess. It's true Ramsey wasn't on very good teams either.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257574]I've said this before about this same subject... The Washington Redskins are [B]2-6 [/B]when Ladell Betts starts. What is your proof or even logic for that comment?[/quote]

Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257590]Well for one I would not have given a 3rd rounder for Brunell. Again that's a potential starter. Try and get Brunell after he was cut and save the draft pick, ( becasue he was going to be cut) then offer him more than anyone else. I also would not try and play AC as an everydown 4-3 end. He's not big enough to hold up against the run. As for Bailey? He wanted out. Fine. Get him outta here. But try your best to get the better of the deal. Wasn't Casserly down in Houston at the time? Cassery drafted him so try and make a deal with him? Anyone. Just make sure you get the better of the deal. Get multiple draft picks for him so you set yourself up for the future. Run it like NE does. Do you think NE would ever get rid of a guy and not get fair value? No. Look how they handled Deion Branch? Rocky M. Gave up a 2nd rounder just to move up and pick the guy? If you do that then make the guy the starter right away and deal with his mistakes. Meanwhile he's on the bench and the 2nd rounder is gone. Look, I could go on and on. But the bottom line is the lack of draft picks are killing the team now. All the money is invested in the front line players. In other words the team is too top heavy.[/QUOTE]


That's a very good post. I actually agree with most of what you said. However, I think getting Portis for Champ and a 2 was a good deal. Champ wasn't coming back and that meant teams could hold out on the Skins and tell them "we'll wait till you get rid of him." The way the team was being run then, they wouldn't have let dead cap space get rid of a guy. I don't think they could have made a much better deal. I wouldn't have gotten Brunell at all, but that's up for discussion. Also, Carter had a good game last week, maybe he'll come around.

I agree that they need to keep some draft picks and stop signing so many front line guys.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257559]While we're basing things on the Houston game...let's put Brunell back in![/quote]

Hey, I'm looking at stats of games played, to refute the notion that Betts has had "one good game". The fact is, he historically runs well when he gets carries comparable with a starting NFL RB. When he gets 5-10 carries in a game, of course he's not going to blow anybody's skirt up.

When he gets opportunities, he has taken advantage of them.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257594]Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?[/quote]

My point isn't very good? You said that the Redskins can win with Betts, and yet, history has show that the Redskins [B]lose [/B]75% of the time when Betts starts. How is my point not very good?

And I blame Betts for the Tampa game for the fumble he gave away on a potential scoring drive.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257594]Sorry but your point is not very good. How are you going to blame Betts when TB tramples our defense?[/QUOTE]

Because Betts fumbled that game away

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257601]Because Betts fumbled that game away[/quote]

Are you seriously pinning that loss all on Betts?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=dgack;257599]Hey, I'm looking at stats of games played, to refute the notion that Betts has had "one good game". The fact is, he historically runs well when he gets carries comparable with a starting NFL RB. When he gets 5-10 carries in a game, of course he's not going to blow anybody's skirt up.

When he gets opportunities, he has taken advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

He has been alright when given the chance. However, he hasn't been healthy enough to get a whole lot of shots with this team. Like I said before once in 5 season coming into this one he has played more than 12 games. 12!

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;257602]Are you seriously pinning that loss all on Betts?[/QUOTE]

No, but without that fumble they have a much better shot at winning. They were working their way to a drive that could have gotten them right back in it, however, the fumble killed that. The D should've played better, but that hurts...a WHOLE LOT. About as much as when Stephen Davis fumbled against the Boys a few years back...

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257570]Please read the prior 5 pages and see everyone's thoughts on this....[/quote]

I did & there were several posts that I wanted to quote, too many actually.
While I echoed the sentiment of others, I also added some commentary that others hadn't - that w/the franchise tag Champ would have no choice in the matter until we negotiate. The Skins don't seem to like the franchise tag, but it has been used recently as a medium to buy time & trade disgruntled players.