More media hate

Carnage · 04-26-2004, 04:35 PM

The trade made sense cap wise. We had better get used to giving away picks because we are already dishing next years.

sportscurmudgeon · 04-26-2004, 04:49 PM

Matty:

I have to quibble with you on your interpretation that the deal was Portis for a 2nd round pick because Bailey was a goner anyway. Remember, Bailey was the "franchise player" so he wasn't going anywhere unless the Skins made a deal for him.

The test of the deal is to see what Tatum Bell turns out to be for Denver.

SUPPOSE Portis gains 1500 yards and Bell gains 1300 yards. Then the skins gave up Bailey for a difference of 200 yards per year. NOT A GOOD DEAL!!

SUPPOSE Portis gains 1500 yards and another 500 yards receiving and Bell only gains 800 yards. MONSTER GOOD DEAL!!

Frankly, the fact that the Skins were able to get an elite player (Portis) in a deal involving one of their players who was in a snit over contract negotiations is a pretty remarkable thing in the first place.

MTK · 04-26-2004, 06:02 PM

Bailey was franchised, but let's face it, he wasn't coming back. Maybe the 'Skins did have to sweeten the deal a bit to move him, but in the big picture I think it's a deal that will work out fine for both sides. Mediots like King like to make it seem like the 'Skins were absolutely raped in the deal, which just isn't the case.

Phinehas · 04-26-2004, 06:06 PM

If Portis gains 1500 yards this season, I don't care what Tatum Bell does. I'll still call it a good deal for the Redskins.

--Phin

MTK · 04-26-2004, 06:52 PM

Good call Phinehas. If Portis has a big year and helps take the Skins back to the playoffs I could really care less what Bell or Bailey do for Denver. The deal is done and over with, no sense in crying over it now.

Ghost · 04-26-2004, 06:58 PM

Champ is going to cost Denver more in terms of salary cap space than Portis will count against our cap ... and I believe it was that very issue that had Denver demanding our second rounder. I wonder if Peter King will still be talking about that stupid friggin second rounder when Portis is running roughshod all over the NFC East this year.

TV Announcer: "Another 150-yard, 2 TD game for Clinton Portis ... man, the Redskins sure got fleeced in that deal with Denver, didn't they? They could have had ... Tatum Bell."

Everyone talks about how important a shut-down CB is but I think a stud RB is a lot more important to a team's success. If you can't run the ball, you're not going to win. If you don't have a shut-down corner, there are things you can do to cover up that deficiency. You can't cover up a nonexistent running game, which is what we were looking at before the Redskins traded for Portis.

Do I wish we could have kept the second round pick? Sure. But keeping it wasn't an option and I'm happy to give it up for Portis. Peter King is an idiot just like most of these self-annointed media experts.

SmootSmack · 04-26-2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost

Champ is going to cost Denver more in terms of salary cap space than Portis will count against our cap ... and I believe it was that very issue that had Denver demanding our second rounder.

I think you hit it right on the head there Ghost.

Jamaican'Skin · 04-26-2004, 07:14 PM

I have to agree with Ghost. We had a shutdown corner last year, but no running back, and where did that get us? Now we have a decent replacement and a great running back.

JWsleep · 04-27-2004, 01:16 AM

The FO believed Champ was going to hold out if we kept him. That's why it was no-win. So we had to deal him for the best we could get. Other teams knew this, so we had to make an offer that mattered. We got lucky that Portis wanted out and Denver was confident he could be replaced (they've had so many good runners, etc). So we moved Champ, picked up Portis, and cleared some cap room in the process. For this privledge, we had to give up something of value, viz, a second round pick.

Here's the real question: Was there a BETTER deal out there for Champ? I have not heard it. The Lions decided to keep their picks (a very smart move) and I haven't heard of any other legit offers. It was deal Champ or deal with a hold out. Seems like a pretty good deal, IMHO.

Redskins8588 · 04-27-2004, 01:51 AM

Who was in the second round that was better than Portis? Tatum Bell?!?!? What has he done? Portis is proven in the NFL. Who knows what Tatum Bell will do in the NFL, he could be the next best thing, or he could be a flop. I like the fact that we do not have to worry what Portis can or can not do, we already know.

offiss · 04-27-2004, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Look at it this way, we got Portis for a 2nd round pick. What's wrong with that?

Was there a Portis in this years' second round? We'll have to wait and see but I doubt it. Gibbs talks of getting a proven guy when he talks about Portis and what they gave up. Bailey was a goner anyway.

Even though I as well thought we could get that deal done without a 2nd rd pick, it is what it is, if we get 1 undrafted sleeper this year we will have made up for it, It will come down to this, if portis does for us as he did for denver we win this deal, but if he's not a special back for us, then denver win's, I know denver feel's that the system makes the back, believing that any back with speed can be a clinton portis, only time will tell, for the record I wasen't as big of a fan of bailey as other's, personally I think this kid deangelo hall will be much better than bailey. OH yea, and also don't forget about Ade Jimoh. lol

bridaman51 · 04-27-2004, 07:19 AM

Nobody gives any respect to the abilities of Fred Smoot. Bailey was not coming back, franchise tag or not he was GONE. We got a dominant RB for Gibbs offense, running behind what will be a strong O-line. But dont count our secondary out, I truley beleive Smoot is the real deal, and then you put in Springs, and now Taylor. I say Chump WHO?

Redskins_P · 04-27-2004, 10:06 AM

http://www.cleveland.com/browns/plai...5459201294.xml

One of the Postons claims that Gibbs won't sleep well since he didn't draft Winslow. I can't wait to see Taylor lay a big hit on Winslow.

Beemnseven · 04-27-2004, 10:24 AM

While I wanted our second round pick as much as anyone else, I still feel better about the trade when we think of it in terms of trading a 2nd rounder for Clinton Portis. I also agree that Bailey wanted no part of the Redskins anyway. He would have been a distraction, and it's better to let a player go who doesn't want to be a member of this team.

Somebody made an excellent point a while back when the whole thing went down, I think it was Brudlee: There's a good possibility that we will get more interceptions since the ball will be thrown more at both sides of the field. While Champ was shutting down a receiver, he almost never got INTs because the ball wasn't going anywhere near him. With Smoot, Springs, and Taylor, our turnover ratio should improve.

One final thought: We had Champ Bailey and his 'shutdown' game for four years. What did it get us? How many championships did we get because of him? Answer: NONE.

BrudLee · 04-27-2004, 11:41 AM

That sounds like me.

God, I am wise beyond my years.

04-27-2004, 01:16 AM	#24
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,702	The FO believed Champ was going to hold out if we kept him. That's why it was no-win. So we had to deal him for the best we could get. Other teams knew this, so we had to make an offer that mattered. We got lucky that Portis wanted out and Denver was confident he could be replaced (they've had so many good runners, etc). So we moved Champ, picked up Portis, and cleared some cap room in the process. For this privledge, we had to give up something of value, viz, a second round pick. Here's the real question: Was there a BETTER deal out there for Champ? I have not heard it. The Lions decided to keep their picks (a very smart move) and I haven't heard of any other legit offers. It was deal Champ or deal with a hold out. Seems like a pretty good deal, IMHO. __________________ Hail from Houston!

04-27-2004, 10:06 AM	#28
Redskins_P Fight for old DC! Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Aldie, VA Age: 46 Posts: 4,101	More hating from Winslow/Postons http://www.cleveland.com/browns/plai...5459201294.xml One of the Postons claims that Gibbs won't sleep well since he didn't draft Winslow. I can't wait to see Taylor lay a big hit on Winslow.

04-27-2004, 11:41 AM	#30
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	That sounds like me. God, I am wise beyond my years. __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

04-26-2004, 04:35 PM	#16
Carnage Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 473	The trade made sense cap wise. We had better get used to giving away picks because we are already dishing next years.

04-26-2004, 04:49 PM	#17
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Matty: I have to quibble with you on your interpretation that the deal was Portis for a 2nd round pick because Bailey was a goner anyway. Remember, Bailey was the "franchise player" so he wasn't going anywhere unless the Skins made a deal for him. The test of the deal is to see what Tatum Bell turns out to be for Denver. SUPPOSE Portis gains 1500 yards and Bell gains 1300 yards. Then the skins gave up Bailey for a difference of 200 yards per year. NOT A GOOD DEAL!! SUPPOSE Portis gains 1500 yards and another 500 yards receiving and Bell only gains 800 yards. MONSTER GOOD DEAL!! Frankly, the fact that the Skins were able to get an elite player (Portis) in a deal involving one of their players who was in a snit over contract negotiations is a pretty remarkable thing in the first place.

04-26-2004, 06:02 PM	#18
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 51 Posts: 99,427	Bailey was franchised, but let's face it, he wasn't coming back. Maybe the 'Skins did have to sweeten the deal a bit to move him, but in the big picture I think it's a deal that will work out fine for both sides. Mediots like King like to make it seem like the 'Skins were absolutely raped in the deal, which just isn't the case.

04-26-2004, 06:06 PM	#19
Phinehas Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 106	If Portis gains 1500 yards this season, I don't care what Tatum Bell does. I'll still call it a good deal for the Redskins. --Phin

04-26-2004, 06:52 PM	#20
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 51 Posts: 99,427	Good call Phinehas. If Portis has a big year and helps take the Skins back to the playoffs I could really care less what Bell or Bailey do for Denver. The deal is done and over with, no sense in crying over it now.

04-26-2004, 06:58 PM	#21
Ghost Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 298	Champ is going to cost Denver more in terms of salary cap space than Portis will count against our cap ... and I believe it was that very issue that had Denver demanding our second rounder. I wonder if Peter King will still be talking about that stupid friggin second rounder when Portis is running roughshod all over the NFC East this year. TV Announcer: "Another 150-yard, 2 TD game for Clinton Portis ... man, the Redskins sure got fleeced in that deal with Denver, didn't they? They could have had ... Tatum Bell." Everyone talks about how important a shut-down CB is but I think a stud RB is a lot more important to a team's success. If you can't run the ball, you're not going to win. If you don't have a shut-down corner, there are things you can do to cover up that deficiency. You can't cover up a nonexistent running game, which is what we were looking at before the Redskins traded for Portis. Do I wish we could have kept the second round pick? Sure. But keeping it wasn't an option and I'm happy to give it up for Portis. Peter King is an idiot just like most of these self-annointed media experts.

04-26-2004, 07:14 PM	#23
Jamaican'Skin The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Kingston, Jamaica Age: 37 Posts: 2,418	I have to agree with Ghost. We had a shutdown corner last year, but no running back, and where did that get us? Now we have a decent replacement and a great running back.

04-27-2004, 01:51 AM	#25
Redskins8588 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ridgway, PA Age: 45 Posts: 2,519	Who was in the second round that was better than Portis? Tatum Bell?!?!? What has he done? Portis is proven in the NFL. Who knows what Tatum Bell will do in the NFL, he could be the next best thing, or he could be a flop. I like the fact that we do not have to worry what Portis can or can not do, we already know.

04-27-2004, 07:19 AM	#27
bridaman51 Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Roanoke Virginia Age: 46 Posts: 335	Nobody gives any respect to the abilities of Fred Smoot. Bailey was not coming back, franchise tag or not he was GONE. We got a dominant RB for Gibbs offense, running behind what will be a strong O-line. But dont count our secondary out, I truley beleive Smoot is the real deal, and then you put in Springs, and now Taylor. I say Chump WHO?

04-27-2004, 10:24 AM	#29
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 50 Posts: 5,311	While I wanted our second round pick as much as anyone else, I still feel better about the trade when we think of it in terms of trading a 2nd rounder for Clinton Portis. I also agree that Bailey wanted no part of the Redskins anyway. He would have been a distraction, and it's better to let a player go who doesn't want to be a member of this team. Somebody made an excellent point a while back when the whole thing went down, I think it was Brudlee: There's a good possibility that we will get more interceptions since the ball will be thrown more at both sides of the field. While Champ was shutting down a receiver, he almost never got INTs because the ball wasn't going anywhere near him. With Smoot, Springs, and Taylor, our turnover ratio should improve. One final thought: We had Champ Bailey and his 'shutdown' game for four years. What did it get us? How many championships did we get because of him? Answer: NONE.

More media hate

Locker Room Main Forum