The Portis move in hindsight
 

This article about Betts really made me wonder:

[URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-bettsbid&prov=ap&type=lgns"]Given chance to shine, Betts ponders staying with Redskins - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/URL]

If Gibbs really knew what he had in Betts when he got here, do you think he would have still made the move for Portis?? He says he doesn't regret making the move and of course Portis is a top flight back in this league, but I wonder how things would have turned out if he thought Betts was a capable starting back. I doubt we would have been able to retain Bailey anyway, he really seemed set on getting out of here.

Just one of those things that makes you wonder.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

I've said from the beginning that we could have had an effective running game with a far less expensive running back.

Could we have taken Tatem Bell with that 2nd round pick and still have Champ Bailey?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Oh Matty not you too! Another Champ-Portis trade revisited thread. Sigh...

Seriously though, yes I think he would have made the move.

Riggins-Joe Washington
Riggins-Rogers
Byner-Riggs
Byner-Ervins
Portis-Betts

I think he likes having two starting caliber backs

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

The biggest difference between the two in my opinion is that Portis is valuable on the field even when the ball isn't in his hands, mainly because of his superior blocking skills

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS;257403]The biggest difference between the two in my opinion is that Portis is valuable on the field even when the ball isn't in his hands, mainly because of his superior blocking skills[/QUOTE]

Now that is one PRICEY blocker.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=TAFKAS;257403]The biggest difference between the two in my opinion is that Portis is valuable on the field even when the ball isn't in his hands, mainly because of his superior blocking skills[/quote]

[COLOR=black]I cannot agree with you more. Portis is all football, and I like that he's funny, a leader, and wears his costumes and boosts team morale. Those kind of things are invaluable. [/COLOR]

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

I think in hind sight, it's easy, very easy to question the Portis deal. Especially with the way Betts has come on of late. However, Betts hasn't always been healthy, so we didn't really know how much we could count on him in the past.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Based on the tone of that article I'd be pretty suprised if Betts was here next season. I could see him going to some place like Green Bay, assuming they don't resign Green. Like he said towards the beginning of the article, it would be hard for him to go back to being a backup, especially if he hits the 1,000 yard mark.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

The fact that he's open to staying and negotiations have already started are good signs.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

I love having Portis but from a cost effective viewpoint I think Betts would be very serviceable as our #1 option with Sellers as the blocking fullback. Betts is a good runner but Portis is by far tougher than Betts. I think we would see a dropoff in the total running game but would it be enough to be considered a weakness? Could we use the extra monetary resources to shore up other "weak" areas? Hmmm....is the FO thinking the same thing?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Champ wanted to leave. I don't want any player on my team that doesn't want to be here. Portis got us into the playoffs last year and I wouldnt give that back for anything.

I also would never have guessed that my 1000 post would be about the Portis Bailey trade.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

doesnt really matter what gibbs knew about betts, betts was constantly injured early in his career and couldnt show us his skills. and yeah bailey wanted out anyways, it was essentially trading a free agent

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Warpath;257420]I also would never have guessed that my 1000 post would be about the Portis Bailey trade.[/QUOTE]
What would be funny would be if your first post was also about it.
It's the circle of life and it rules us all.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Big C;257428]doesnt really matter what gibbs knew about betts, betts was constantly injured early in his career and couldnt show us his skills. and yeah bailey wanted out anyways, it was essentially trading a free agent[/QUOTE]

That's the best point. Betts couldn't keep himself on the field most of the time. He got hurt returning kicks and in a backup role a lot. That's probably another reason they went out and got Duckett. Also, it's been mentioned, but he is a horrible blocker. I feel like a lot of that pressure would have been picked up by Clinton last week. Betts hasn't performed until this season. He's looked mediocre every other time he saw significant action. I'm still weary of resigning him because a lot of people have big contract years and then it doesn't really come together for em after they get paid. A lot like baseball.

In addition to all that, the Skins had absolutely no chance of retaining Champ. He didnt wanna be here and was not coming back

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

not this again. bailey did not want to be a redskin. and the more betts plays, seems like he fumbles more and more. not something coach gibbs likes to see in his starters. and i cant remember the last time portis fumbled. anyone know how many he had last year?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Portis didn't fumble this year and he had 3 last year of which 2 were lost for turnovers.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;257464]He didn't fumble this year and he had 3 last year of which 2 were lost for turnovers.[/quote]

Uhhh... Betts has fumbled three times this season, and the one that was a turnover basically gave the game to the Bucs.

As far as the trade, as many have said, Champ wasn't going to be here regardless, so I don't think there's even an argument as to whether is was a good move or not. And it's funny to me that the same people that want to claim Portis isn't built for Gibbs' system are the same people claiming that we could have drafted Tatum Bell, who is almost exactly the same build as Portis, and seems to get injured every other week.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;257475]Uhhh... Betts has fumbled three times this season, and the one that was a turnover basically gave the game to the Bucs.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about Portis.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Mattyk72;257399]This article about Betts really made me wonder:

[URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-redskins-bettsbid&prov=ap&type=lgns"]Given chance to shine, Betts ponders staying with Redskins - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/URL]

If Gibbs really knew what he had in Betts when he got here, do you think he would have still made the move for Portis?? He says he doesn't regret making the move and of course Portis is a top flight back in this league, but I wonder how things would have turned out if he thought Betts was a capable starting back. I doubt we would have been able to retain Bailey anyway, he really seemed set on getting out of here.

Just one of those things that makes you wonder.[/quote]

I got killed when I brought this up a few weeks ago. But it's a good subject to talk about. Gibbs was away from the NFL for 11 years. He should not have been given ANY authority on personel. If a real GM was here that person should have told Gibbs that Betts has the ability to be an everydown back, and there was no need to deal for Portis. He's a 2nd rounder and those players should become your starters, not backups. He was a very productive player in college. So IMO another bad move by Gibbs.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=hesscl34;257407][COLOR=black]I cannot agree with you more. Portis is all football, and I like that he's funny, a leader, and wears his costumes and boosts team morale. Those kind of things are invaluable. [/COLOR][/quote]

Good point. You need some clowns in the locker room.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;257475]Uhhh... Betts has fumbled three times this season, and the one that was a turnover basically gave the game to the Bucs.

As far as the trade, as many have said, Champ wasn't going to be here regardless, so I don't think there's even an argument as to whether is was a good move or not. And it's funny to me that the same people that want to claim Portis isn't built for Gibbs' system are the same people claiming that we could have drafted Tatum Bell, who is almost exactly the same build as Portis, and seems to get injured every other week.[/QUOTE]

I think he was giving Portis's fumble numbers, but more importantly, you hit on the Tatum Bell thing. Thank you! Tatum is garbage if he plays for any team except for the Broncos. And ya know what? He's not that good there. He's hurt a lot, like you said, but he's having trouble beating out Mike Bell. Tatum might not hit 1000 yards and he still hasn't caught Clinton's td total THIS season. Tatum isn't that good.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257482]I got killed when I brought this up a few weeks ago. But it's a good subject to talk about. Gibbs was away from the NFL for 11 years. He should not have been given ANY authority on personel. If a real GM was here that person should have told Gibbs that Betts has the ability to be an everydown back, and there was no need to deal for Portis. He's a 2nd rounder and those players should become your starters, not backups. He was a very productive player in college. So IMO another bad move by Gibbs.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that, until this season, Betts hasn't been healthy enough to be an every down back in this league. And his sick 4.1 yards/carry for his career isn't exactly awe inspiring. Especially, not for a change of pace back. By contrast, Tatum Bell has averaged 5 yards/carry and I don't think he's THAT good. Also, Betts hasn't even caught Clinton's td production for this season. AND he's a horrible blocker.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Up until this year, coincidentally a contract year, Betts simply hadn't shown the endurance to be a consistent, every down back. Plus as good as he is (or has shown the potential to be) Portis is simply better-he's more explosive, he's a better blocker and he's younger.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=Southpaw;257475]Uhhh... Betts has fumbled three times this season, and the one that was a turnover basically gave the game to the Bucs.

As far as the trade, as many have said, Champ wasn't going to be here regardless, so I don't think there's even an argument as to whether is was a good move or not. And it's funny to me that the same people that want to claim Portis isn't built for Gibbs' system are the same people claiming that we could have drafted Tatum Bell, who is almost exactly the same build as Portis, and seems to get injured every other week.[/quote]

Why would we have drafted Bell if Betts was already here?

I agree, Champ wanted out. Fine. But don't give Den. a 2nd rounder and Champ for Portis. WTF was that all about?????? Basically they got two starters and we got one. They got the better of the deal. And say what you want about Bell, he is not an everydown back. But when he is healthy he seems to do very well. I believe he averaged over 5 yards a carry last year.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=jdlea;257491]The problem is that, until this season, Betts hasn't been healthy enough to be an every down back in this league. And his sick 4.1 yards/carry for his career isn't exactly awe inspiring. Especially, not for a change of pace back. By contrast, Tatum Bell has averaged 5 yards/carry and I don't think he's THAT good. Also, Betts hasn't even caught Clinton's td production for this season. AND he's a horrible blocker.[/QUOTE]

Beat me by one minute. But yeah, I totally agree

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=ArtMonkDrillz;257481]I was talking about Portis.[/quote]

Oops. My fault. :spank:

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

You need more than one good RB. Rock Cartwright does not qualify.

If we didn't trade for Portis, we would have needed to acquire somebody else to complement Betts. Now, did we need to give up the 2nd round pick in the Portis Bailey deal? I don't really think so.

RBs are like pitching in baseball, you can never have too many.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257491]The problem is that, until this season, Betts hasn't been healthy enough to be an every down back in this league. And his sick 4.1 yards/carry for his career isn't exactly awe inspiring. Especially, not for a change of pace back. By contrast, Tatum Bell has averaged 5 yards/carry and I don't think he's THAT good. Also, Betts hasn't even caught Clinton's td production for this season. AND he's a horrible blocker.[/quote]

Ok. I agree with you on that. Betts had not shown much. So let Rock C. and Kenny Watson be the back ups. Remember Kenny W? He ran well and so did Rock during the Spurrier years. I just think that you can win with average RB's. But you can't win with a bad defense. You can't hide that. I always believe that you keep the draft picks and stockpile.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257482]If a real GM was here that person should have told Gibbs that Betts has the ability to be an everydown back, and there was no need to deal for Portis. He's a 2nd rounder and those players should become your starters, not backups. He was a very productive player in college. So IMO another bad move by Gibbs.[/quote]

Yeah, and that GM would probably be fired considering Betts managed to be injured every year of his career, in spite of the fact that he never even had 100 touches before this season.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257493]Why would we have drafted Bell if Betts was already here?

I agree, Champ wanted out. Fine. But don't give Den. a 2nd rounder and Champ for Portis. WTF was that all about?????? Basically they got two starters and we got one. They got the better of the deal. And say what you want about Bell, he is not an everydown back. But when he is healthy he seems to do very well. I believe he averaged over 5 yards a carry last year.[/QUOTE]

They would have needed Bell because Betts isn't an every down back. He's not a guy who can stay healthy for 16 weeks while carrying the load. Until this year, he hasn't stayed healthy for a whole season yet. And there're still 4 games left. Also, he was out early in the preseason, if memory serves me correctly. Anyway, they would have needed another back because Betts isn't a real #1 and he's not reliable.

Beyond that, [B]Bailey wasn't coming back.[/B] Period. He didn't want to be a Redskin. He wasn't going to resign. He didn't like it in Washington and wasn't going to resign. What could the Skins have done? Denver could've just signed him or the Skins could have kept a malcontent as a franchise player. They had to give up the 2 or they wouldn't have gotten the deal done. Champ should basically be taken out of the consideration of the trade because he wasn't going to be a Skin, one way or another. Who cares about the 2, anyway? What's the last starter the Skins got from the second round? Smoot? Cause Rocky hasn't seen the field yet. C'mon, the 2's not that big of a deal. And besides, they gave up a 3 for Duckett and he never sees the field...

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;257500]Ok. I agree with you on that. Betts had not shown much. So let Rock C. and Kenny Watson be the back ups. Remember Kenny W? He ran well and so did Rock during the Spurrier years. I just think that you can win with average RB's. But you can't win with a bad defense. You can't hide that. I always believe that you keep the draft picks and stockpile.[/QUOTE]

You couldn't have made the argument about the D till this year. They were fine with Smoot and Springs. They were okay with Springs and Harris last year and they were better with Springs and Rogers till this year. If they had drafted a defensive guy, he wouldn't have seen the field anyway, because apparently Williams doesn't care how a vet is playing, he won't pull him for a rookie.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

Let me throw this out there: If we put Portis on the trading block, can we fetch a first round pick for him?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257500]Ok. I agree with you on that. Betts had not shown much. So let Rock C. and Kenny Watson be the back ups. Remember Kenny W? He ran well and so did Rock during the Spurrier years. I just think that you can win with average RB's. But you can't win with a bad defense. You can't hide that. I always believe that you keep the draft picks and stockpile.[/quote]

So the defense has been bad for the first time since Portis has been here and Betts had one exceptional game and all of the sudden(three years later) getting Portis was a bad move... talk about a knee jerk.

And I can't even comment on a Kenny Watson reference...

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

I never liked the trade because I thought we gave up to much by adding a draft pick along with the best CB in the league...[B]but[/B] Portis has been a great player for the redskins so it's long overdue to let this debate go.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=celts32;257512]I never liked the trade because I thought we gave up to much by adding a draft pick along with the best CB in the league...[B]but[/B] Portis has been a great player for the redskins so it's long overdue to let this debate go.[/quote]


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.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=jdlea;257504]You couldn't have made the argument about the D till this year. They were fine with Smoot and Springs. They were okay with Springs and Harris last year and they were better with Springs and Rogers till this year. If they had drafted a defensive guy, he wouldn't have seen the field anyway, because apparently Williams doesn't care how a vet is playing, he won't pull him for a rookie.[/quote]

Your correct. BUT A GM would have saw this coming. Springs has a history of not staying healthy and it started to catch up with him last year. And it sure caught him this year. So a young corner OR TWO was in need. They got Joe S. off the scrap heap. Wynn was getting and is old. Same for Daniels. Where are the drafted young quality replacements that are being groomed in the system? We don't have any and that's why teams like TB run us over.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=skinsfan69;257517]Your correct. BUT A GM would have saw this coming. Springs has a history of not staying healthy and it started to catch up with him last year. And it sure caught him this year. So a young corner OR TWO was in need. They got Joe S. off the scrap heap. Wynn was getting and is old. Same for Daniels. Where are the drafted young quality replacements that are being groomed in the system? We don't have any and that's why teams like TB run us over.[/quote]

And a single second round draft pick two years ago would have fixed all those problems?

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[QUOTE=Southpaw;257520]And a single second round draft pick two years ago would have fixed all those problems?[/QUOTE]

That was gonna be my reply exactly.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

[quote=12thMan;257505]Let me throw this out there: If we put Portis on the trading block, can we fetch a first round pick for him?[/quote]

He might be on the block because Betts is now getting paid starter money. He would command more than a 1st rounder. I would trade him for a 1st rounder and a starter. Texans would be a perfect team. Kubiak coached him in Den.

Re: The Portis move in hindsight
 

We knew Champ wanted to leave which meant everyone who we would be trading with knew as well. The "other team" had the upper hand in negotiations.