No first round swap for ‘Skins-Broncs

[hogs86]

I got this from Great Blue North Draft Report


No first round swap for ‘Skins-Broncs… According to media reports in both cities, Denver will receive Washington's 3rd round pick at the 2007 draft to complete the three-way trade last summer that also included Atlanta. Depending on this weekend’s results, the Broncos could still also get a fourth-round pick from the Redskins in 2008. The original language of the deal was rather vague and had left open the possibility that the Redskins and Broncos could end up swapping their first-round picks. Denver had wanted a high third-rounder when they parted with WR Ashley Lelie as part of the deal. And with the 5-10 Redskins guaranteed a top 10 pick this coming April, the Broncos will get their high 3rd rounder. Denver sent Lelie, who was holding out, to Atlanta in the three-way trade, while the Redskins got running back T.J. Duckett from Atlanta. The extra third-round pick will give the Broncos ammunition if they want to trade up. It was a high third-round pick that Denver packaged to improve its draft position and select quarterback Jay Cutler in April.

[redskin_rich]

Yeah, Joe Gibbs kind of confirmed this in his presser yesterday but here is a link for anybody who still has doubts:
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4904768

Denver will receive Washington's third-round pick in 2007 and a fourth-round pick from the Redskins in 2008. With the Redskins drafting anywhere from No. 3 to No. 10, the Broncos will reach their goal of getting a high third-round pick for Lelie.

[redskin_rich]

I had no problem with the trade at the time, because Portis was hurt and we had high hopes for the season. As it turned out, the season was a bad one and the trade was further made bad by the lack of use TJ got.

One positive that came out of it was that Betts proved to be not only an excellent backup but a worthy starter and we got him re-signed at a bargain price, without having to compete in the open market.

Now, I'm not going to say that the trade for TJ precipitated the Betts re-signing or Ladell's strong performance but I don't think anybody should assume that this would have happened without the trade for Duckett.

In other words, we shored up a position that could have been in major flux, so we aren't complete losers in this deal. The method has questions but the result is favorable.
I am, in no means, condoning the squandering of draft picks but if it had a factor in helping us shore up the RB position, I am OK with that. Think about if Betts hadn't re-signed and we still had that 3rd pick.

[guinness4health]

this trade has been beat to death.... now i hope that they won't get the 2008 4th so that we don't have to ever hear about it again....

[LATrueRedskin]

So, we're already without a 4th rounder for 2008? Nice...

[bigcmr]

So, we're already without a 4th rounder for 2008? Nice...

oh yeah we always have to give extra to denver...leage rules!!!

[SpicyMcHaggis]

It would have been difficult for us to pull off a worse trade. Really. I have trouble imagining how we could have realisticalyl screwed it up more. Just thinking about it makes me sick. Infact, it's better if I leave this thread.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I had no problem with the trade at the time, because Portis was hurt and we had high hopes for the season. As it turned out, the season was a bad one and the trade was further made bad by the lack of use TJ got.

One positive that came out of it was that Betts proved to be not only an excellent backup but a worthy starter and we got him re-signed at a bargain price, without having to compete in the open market.

Now, I'm not going to say that the trade for TJ precipitated the Betts re-signing or Ladell's strong performance but I don't think anybody should assume that this would have happened without the trade for Duckett.

In other words, we shored up a position that could have been in major flux, so we aren't complete losers in this deal. The method has questions but the result is favorable.
I am, in no means, condoning the squandering of draft picks but if it had a factor in helping us shore up the RB position, I am OK with that. Think about if Betts hadn't re-signed and we still had that 3rd pick.
What?? What did the trade have to do with Betts's performance? TJ has practically never seen the field..what difference would it have made in Betts's production if Rock and Sellers split his whopping 35 carries?
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no way in the world that this trade can be spun to make it look remotely positive. We have just thrown away one first day pick, and possibly one more pick. Those are the facts. Anything else is blindly defending Gibbs and the FO.

[dukeuch]

Now, I'm not going to say that the trade for TJ precipitated the Betts re-signing or Ladell's strong performance but I don't think anybody should assume that this would have happened without the trade for Duckett.

In other words, we shored up a position that could have been in major flux, so we aren't complete losers in this deal. The method has questions but the result is favorable.
I am, in no means, condoning the squandering of draft picks but if it had a factor in helping us shore up the RB position, I am OK with that. Think about if Betts hadn't re-signed and we still had that 3rd pick.

Look, this trade was a loser all the way around. At the time we got Duckett, Portis was hurt, and Duckett still did not play. Nobody could tell me what the purpose was then, nor now, when if we had plans on how to use TJ, they would have been revealed by actually playing him. If the purpose was to get a backup for Betts, then we gave up too much. I think Cartwright is a fine third stringer.

But I cannot see how signing Duckett can in any way have any effect on Betts' signing or performance, unless one were to say that by acquiring Duckett and not playing him Betts reached the conclusion that he really was the first backup. Not that it's that important, but I just don't get matters, but when you say that "nobody should assume this would have happened without the trade...". WHy?

[CNYSkinFan]

I don't know what I can add toi this thread other then my worst fears have come true. We will be paying in draft picks in 2008 for a player who most likely will only play in DC in 2006. I don't fault Gibbs with the exception that he pulled the trigger on the deal. Vinny and Snyder did the negotiations iMO and they get the brunt of the fauult here. A real GM would have realized the price was too high and informed the coaching staff they would have to do with Bettts, Rock, and Nemo.

[Redskin4Life]

It's so easy to say that now guys but honestly we were expected to have high aspirations this season. We were in the playoffs last year and we improved offensively and defensively, personnel wise. Then our best offensive weapon goes down with a shoulder injury.

What are we to do then? Betts has NEVER been injury-free as a Skin. Rock fumbles every three handoffs. And Nemo isn't even sure what he is... a FB or RB. We needed a quality RB with starter experience that wanted to be here... and Duckett has said repeatedly BEFORE this year that he wanted to play on a team where they grind it out.

The move made sense and I still support it. Yea we lost a first day pick but so what? We were supposed to go back to the playoffs this year and if we didn't try to find a quality RB at the BEGINNING of the season, I would have been more pissed about the FO doing nothing. Yea, TJD didn't work out but then again a lot of guys don't work out. We needed to do something at RB with Portis going out.

I liked the point system trade because it was completely innovative and could be the future of the trading players for picks. If things had worked out as planned and we ended up in the playoffs again, we would have probably only switched first and the trade would have been done. Then what would everyone be complain about?!?!?

I'm so sick of everyone whining about this trade. It was ONE PICK. If we were the team we thought we were last year, we wouldn't worry so much about the loss of a first day pick (it would have been a late 3rd). We found out this year that we've got more problems than we thought we had. ONE PICK isn't going to fix anything.

No one seems to complain about giving up a first day pick for Brunell. No one seems to fuss too much about giving up a pick along with Champ to get Portis. Why so much fuss about this???

[joethefan]

I had no problem with the trade at the time, because Portis was hurt and we had high hopes for the season. As it turned out, the season was a bad one and the trade was further made bad by the lack of use TJ got.

One positive that came out of it was that Betts proved to be not only an excellent backup but a worthy starter and we got him re-signed at a bargain price, without having to compete in the open market.

Now, I'm not going to say that the trade for TJ precipitated the Betts re-signing or Ladell's strong performance but I don't think anybody should assume that this would have happened without the trade for Duckett.

In other words, we shored up a position that could have been in major flux, so we aren't complete losers in this deal. The method has questions but the result is favorable.
I am, in no means, condoning the squandering of draft picks but if it had a factor in helping us shore up the RB position, I am OK with that. Think about if Betts hadn't re-signed and we still had that 3rd pick.

Rich that was my thinking as well, but ducket is gone after this season right so in turn we rented him for one season with a 3rd round pick? Right?

[CNYSkinFan]

It's so easy to say that now guys but honestly we were expected to have high aspirations this season. We were in the playoffs last year and we improved offensively and defensively, personnel wise. Then our best offensive weapon goes down with a shoulder injury.

What are we to do then? Betts has NEVER been injury-free as a Skin. Rock fumbles every three handoffs. And Nemo isn't even sure what he is... a FB or RB. We needed a quality RB with starter experience that wanted to be here... and Duckett has said repeatedly BEFORE this year that he wanted to play on a team where they grind it out.

The move made sense and I still support it. Yea we lost a first day pick but so what? We were supposed to go back to the playoffs this year and if we didn't try to find a quality RB at the BEGINNING of the season, I would have been more pissed about the FO doing nothing. Yea, TJD didn't work out but then again a lot of guys don't work out. We needed to do something at RB with Portis going out.

I liked the point system trade because it was completely innovative and could be the future of the trading players for picks. If things had worked out as planned and we ended up in the playoffs again, we would have probably only switched first and the trade would have been done. Then what would everyone be complain about?!?!?

I'm so sick of everyone whining about this trade. It was ONE PICK. If we were the team we thought we were last year, we wouldn't worry so much about the loss of a first day pick (it would have been a late 3rd). We found out this year that we've got more problems than we thought we had. ONE PICK isn't going to fix anything.

No one seems to complain about giving up a first day pick for Brunell. No one seems to fuss too much about giving up a pick along with Champ to get Portis. Why so much fuss about this???

Maybe it is because Portis is an all-pro back and Brunell turned in an pro--bowl quality year last year while leading us to the playoffs. Add to that both have been on the squad for three years and probably beyond.

Duckett was a one year insurance policy. And we are not giving up one pick as you state over and over again. Most likely we are giving up a 4th or 5th rounder in 2008 as well. I count that as two, but hey that is just me.

You can play the what if game all you want, but those who were gainst this trade when it happened (l;ike me) were against it in spite of the promise of a Superbowl season because we felt Betts was a better overall back then Duckett and more apt to the scheme and that a 3rd was too high a price to pay for a one year shot in the arm.

No one imagined he would be used as little as he has been, that just makes the trade look even worse.

[CNYSkinFan]

Rich that was my thinking as well, but ducket is gone after this season right so in turn we rented him for one season with a 3rd round pick? Right?
and possibly a 4th next year.

[Redskin4Life]

Maybe it is because Portis is an all-pro back and Brunell turned in an pro--bowl quality year last year while leading us to the playoffs. Add to that both have been on the squad for three years and probably beyond.

Duckett was a one year insurance policy. And we are not giving up one pick as you state over and over again. Most likely we are giving up a 4th or 5th rounder in 2008 as well. I count that as two, but hey that is just me.

You can play the what if game all you want, but those who were gainst this trade when it happened (l;ike me) were against it in spite of the promise of a Superbowl season because we felt Betts was a better overall back then Duckett and more apt to the scheme and that a 3rd was too high a price to pay for a one year shot in the arm.

No one imagined he would be used as little as he has been, that just makes the trade look even worse.

I thought the trade wasn't completed so we don't know if we're giving up another pick or not. It's possible that we only have to give up the 3rd and that would be only one pick right?

I understand most everyone's frustration with this trade but honestly what has Betts, Rock and Nemo done PRIOR to this season to make you think that we wouldn't need a back if Portis went down??? We needed another guy. Yea we RENTED him for a season. But someone could make the argument that Brunell was rented for one good season too.

It's just one pick and the real reason for frustration is the poor season the defense has had... not the fact that we lost a first day pick for Duckett. You don't want to talk about "what ifs", that's fine. But the truth is we were a playoff team last year with a good to great defense that got exposed this year. Most of our losses can probably be hung on them. And the understanding I had of the deal was if we were only 4-5 picks apart, we would only have to swap firsts to get this done.

[CNYSkinFan]

I thought the trade wasn't completed so we don't know if we're giving up another pick or not. It's possible that we only have to give up the 3rd and that would be only one pick right?

It depends on where we finish. If we win on Saturday we most likely will have to give up a 4th n 08. If we lose we most likely will not have to. But then the 3rd round pick we are giving up is higher value. This whole point value trade is the stupidest thing I have ever seen and there is a reason teams don't do it. Real GMs know that guaranteeing a top 10 pick in the 3rd round is tantamount to selling your soul.

I understand most everyone's frustration with this trade but honestly what has Betts, Rock and Nemo done PRIOR to this season to make you think that we wouldn't need a back if Portis went down??? We needed another guy. Yea we RENTED him for a season. But someone could make the argument that Brunell was rented for one good season too.

If someone made that argument I would point to the 3 seasons Brunell has had with us and tell him he is an idiot and try....mind you I say try,...to resist the urge to slap him with a fish. And Betts had a decent backup season the year before, and Rock did well in spot duty as well. You roll with injuries in the NFl, not panic because of them. Seattle did not panic when Alexander went down, now they are on the verge of winning their division. If we were a supberbowl team we could have dealt with a long term portis injury and still get into the playoffs. if we weren't then we had no buisness making the trade in the first place.

It's just one pick and the real reason for frustration is the poor season the defense has had... not the fact that we lost a first day pick for Duckett. You don't want to talk about "what ifs", that's fine. But the truth is we were a playoff team last year with a good to great defense that got exposed this year. Most of our losses can probably be hung on them. And the understanding I had of the deal was if we were only 4-5 picks apart, we would only have to swap firsts to get this done.

Have I or anyone else ever blamed a loss on Duckett? Ever? No. We bemonan the fact that at the least we are loosing a 3rd round pick (and maybe a 4th on 08 you keep forgetting that) when we have holed in the secondary, linebacker, & offensive & defensive lines that could have been filled by a pick there. Cooley and Dockery are 3rd round picks. Would you trade them for a back that would run less then 50 times in your upcoming season because you wanted "insurance"? Of course not, but then again you are not the Redskins FO.

[BIGSEF3]

I dont know about you guys, but i'd RATHER swap 1st rounders than than give up the 3rd and 4th.

A 1st, 3rd and 4th would conceivably give us 2-3 starters at reasonable prices. With our high 1st rounder, were going to likely end up with another carlos rogers type player. The draft is a crapshoot and i'd rather have several lowerround picks than one high 1st rounder.b Youve got a greater chance of getting key contributors.

[CNYSkinFan]

I dont know about you guys, but i'd RATHER swap 1st rounders than than give up the 3rd and 4th.

A 1st, 3rd and 4th would conceivably give us 2-3 starters at reasonable prices. With our high 1st rounder, were going to likely end up with another carlos rogers type player. The draft is a crapshoot and i'd rather have several lowerround picks than one high 1st rounder.b Youve got a greater chance of getting key contributors.
It is Denver's call, and they would rather have the third (and rightfully so). That way if they want to move up they can do so at their will, with any trading partner they want.

[Oregonian]

It's so easy to say that now guys but honestly we were expected to have high aspirations this season.
I think the problem is that moves like this trade are exactly why all our high aspirations have been about 100 miles off the mark.

And there was some hope that maybe we would have learned not to keep on doing these bone headed give away trades.

[BIGSEF3]

It is Denver's call, and they would rather have the third (and rightfully so). That way if they want to move up they can do so at their will, with any trading partner they want.

I figured... Think theres any chance we decide to trade down? it seems very un-skins like, since we always like to trade up or throw away picks, but it sure would be nice.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Since I don't want to make this thread boring, I'll just say that whatever CNY says regarding this matter counts for me as well. And he has a much calmer and more articulate way of stating his opinion, so I'll let him be my spokesman. I could sum up my opinion in about one sentence, but this is a family site so I'll refrain from doing so.

[redskin_rich]

What?? What did the trade have to do with Betts's performance? TJ has practically never seen the field..what difference would it have made in Betts's production if Rock and Sellers split his whopping 35 carries?
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no way in the world that this trade can be spun to make it look remotely positive. We have just thrown away one first day pick, and possibly one more pick. Those are the facts. Anything else is blindly defending Gibbs and the FO.
It absolutely had an effect on Betts. The moment the trade was made Betts and Cartwright were burning up their phone calling their agents and throwing a fit. Betts took the motivation and did something he never did before, stay healthy and prove he was a viable Back in this league.
I'm not trying to justify the trade, it was a very irrational move but I'm trying to find a positive to the whole thing instead of constantly whining about it. You disagree, fine. Whine on then, I'll get you some cheese.

[chrisbcbu]

It is Denver's call, and they would rather have the third (and rightfully so). That way if they want to move up they can do so at their will, with any trading partner they want.

Actually i think Denver would want our 1st instead of a measly 3rd round pick. Denver is probably going to finish in the 15-20 range maybe lower, and if they could just swap first rounders since we will probably have a top 5 pick im sure they would do that in a heartbeat.

But with such a big difference in points between our 1st and their 1st it wont happen so we will be out a 3rd and possibly 4th in 08.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

It absolutely had an effect on Betts. The moment the trade was made Betts and Cartwright were burning up their phone calling their agents and throwing a fit. Betts took the motivation and did something he never did before, stay healthy and prove he was a viable Back in this league.
I'm not trying to justify the trade, it was a very irrational move but I'm trying to find a positive to the whole thing instead of constantly whining about it. You disagree, fine. Whine on then, I'll get you some cheese.
I'm not whining on it. It was a ridiculous trade, made worse by the way Duckett was not used. That's just the way it is.
If you really believe that Betts stayed healthy because he threw a fit and called his agent, then I really don't know what to say.

[openallnight]

It absolutely had an effect on Betts. The moment the trade was made Betts and Cartwright were burning up their phone calling their agents and throwing a fit. Betts took the motivation and did something he never did before, stay healthy and prove he was a viable Back in this league.
I'm not trying to justify the trade, it was a very irrational move but I'm trying to find a positive to the whole thing instead of constantly whining about it.

I agree with what you're saying RR about the move's effect on Betts and Rock but, I think you're underestimating coach Gibbs a bit. The move was a brilliant psychological ploy to light a fire under Betts and Rock. Yea, the 3rd rounder was a steep price to pay. But, I think the play we're getting out of Betts now makes it well worthwhile. Plus, it sends a message to the entire team to not get complacent or you will get replaced.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

I agree with what you're saying RR about the move's effect on Betts and Rock but, I think you're underestimating coach Gibbs a bit. The move was a brilliant psychological ploy to light a fire under Betts and Rock. Yea, the 3rd rounder was a steep price to pay. But, I think the play we're getting out of Betts now makes it well worthwhile. Plus, it sends a message to the entire team to not get complacent or you will get replaced.
:lol1:

[wewantdallas]

I was definitely surprised by how well Betts did this year, but on the other hand, I've always said that he was a good back. I've always loved how he ran the ball, even under Spurrier. I think it's yet another black mark on this coaching staff that they didn't understand how much potential Betts had before making this trade. You'd think these guys, who work with him every day, would have a better appreciation for his talent and potential.

I did and do understand the panic at Portis' injury, but they should've thought this through a lot more intently and not jumped the gun so quickly. Duckett has been absolutely horrible this year. He runs like a cheerleader.

Thank God Betts already signed with us and hasn't made the situation more of a disaster.

But, nothing we can do now but move on. I'm ready to.

[Redskin4Life]

The move was a brilliant psychological ploy to light a fire under Betts and Rock.

What's wrong with that statement, Spicy?? Here's some FACTS that seems to get lost in all of this... prior to this season:


Betts has rushed for no more than 371 yards in any season
Betts was in 48 games during those seasons
Betts had 7 CAREER TDs (5 Rush, 1 Pass, 1 ST)
Betts averaged 3.98 ypc
Cartwright had 632 CAREER yards on 139 carries in 60 games
Rock had 7 TDs in 4 seasons (6 Rush, 1 Pass)


These two weren't even ADEQUATE replacements for Portis. The fire was lit under their butts by the Duckett trade and they both have turned into real football players.

[Redskin4Life]

Duckett, in comparison, ran for NO LESS than 380 a season and averaged about 8 TDs a season!?!? Why wouldn't they trade for him when you put those facts together!?!??

[LATrueRedskin]

What's wrong with that statement, Spicy?? Here's some FACTS that seems to get lost in all of this... prior to this season:


Betts has rushed for no more than 371 yards in any season
Betts was in 48 games during those seasons
Betts had 7 CAREER TDs (5 Rush, 1 Pass, 1 ST)
Betts averaged 3.98 ypc
Cartwright had 632 CAREER yards on 139 carries in 60 games
Rock had 7 TDs in 4 seasons (6 Rush, 1 Pass)


These two weren't even ADEQUATE replacements for Portis. The fire was lit under their butts by the Duckett trade and they both have turned into real football players.

Betts still doesn't score many TDs, though. Portis has 3 more TDs than Betts despite 98 fewer carries and being on IR for the last 7 or so games. I know what you're saying, but Betts was in a contract year as well. He did rise to the challenge this year, but we'll see what he does next year with a spankin' new contract and Clinton Portis breathing down his neck. I like what Betts has done this season, but even Olandis Gary had one good season in the NFL. Betts needs to put together a chain of 2 or 3 seasons like this one.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

What's wrong with that statement, Spicy?? Here's some FACTS that seems to get lost in all of this... prior to this season:


Betts has rushed for no more than 371 yards in any season
Betts was in 48 games during those seasons
Betts had 7 CAREER TDs (5 Rush, 1 Pass, 1 ST)
Betts averaged 3.98 ypc
Cartwright had 632 CAREER yards on 139 carries in 60 games
Rock had 7 TDs in 4 seasons (6 Rush, 1 Pass)


These two weren't even ADEQUATE replacements for Portis. The fire was lit under their butts by the Duckett trade and they both have turned into real football players.
What does any of this have anything to do with Duckett?

[Redskin4Life]

It depends on where we finish. If we win on Saturday we most likely will have to give up a 4th n 08. If we lose we most likely will not have to. But then the 3rd round pick we are giving up is higher value. This whole point value trade is the stupidest thing I have ever seen and there is a reason teams don't do it. Real GMs know that guaranteeing a top 10 pick in the 3rd round is tantamount to selling your soul.

That's a bit over the top a statement but I still don't see what the problem is with offering points instead of picks. We don't know what is being offered yet since we aren't privy to the trade details. And I definitely don't trust the media on that... we'll just have to wait and see what's given up.

If someone made that argument I would point to the 3 seasons Brunell has had with us and tell him he is an idiot and try....mind you I say try,...to resist the urge to slap him with a fish.

You might want to check out his stats before throwing that comment out there. Two of his worst TD outputs were in 04 and 06 with 7 and 8 TDs respectively (even extrapolating to a 16 game season doesn't help -- 12 and 14 TDs). In 04, Brunell had his worst yard per attempt average ever as a pro. In '06, we know those stats don't tell all with the late game stat padding along with the Texans game. His worst ever completion percentage for a season was in '04. It could be argued...

And Betts had a decent backup season the year before, and Rock did well in spot duty as well. You roll with injuries in the NFl, not panic because of them. Seattle did not panic when Alexander went down, now they are on the verge of winning their division. If we were a supberbowl team we could have dealt with a long term portis injury and still get into the playoffs. if we weren't then we had no buisness making the trade in the first place..

See posts above...

Have I or anyone else ever blamed a loss on Duckett? Ever? No. We bemonan the fact that at the least we are loosing a 3rd round pick (and maybe a 4th on 08 you keep forgetting that) when we have holed in the secondary, linebacker, & offensive & defensive lines that could have been filled by a pick there. Cooley and Dockery are 3rd round picks. Would you trade them for a back that would run less then 50 times in your upcoming season because you wanted "insurance"? Of course not, but then again you are not the Redskins FO.

Again, my point is that we thought we were a good team based on the fact that the offense got some needed pieces and the D was intact for the most part. There was no reason not to think we wouldn't be AT LEAST a playoff team again (and if AL had just gone with what was working in two or three of those games we probably would be... but I digress). We lost our main RB and the star of the team. Without him, we needed a reliable RB which Betts and Cartwright had not shown prior to this season.

These arguments maybe different from you and Spicy but it doesn't mean they're wrong. And for every Dockery and Cooley you give me, I can give you Bauman and Harrison back...

[Redskin4Life]

What does any of this have anything to do with Duckett?
The fact that we needed someone that was reliable at RB which these guys weren't when Portis went down... that's the point.

[Redskin4Life]

Betts still doesn't score many TDs, though. Portis has 3 more TDs than Betts despite 98 fewer carries and being on IR for the last 7 or so games. I know what you're saying, but Betts was in a contract year as well. He did rise to the challenge this year, but we'll see what he does next year with a spankin' new contract and Clinton Portis breathing down his neck. I like what Betts has done this season, but even Olandis Gary had one good season in the NFL. Betts needs to put together a chain of 2 or 3 seasons like this one.
True and more reason to think that we needed a RB like Duckett. He didn't work out but no one really understands why. Statistically, a 3rd plus some juice would have been a steal if he was used in the same manner as he was in ATL.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Again, my point is that we thought we were a good team based on the fact that the offense got some needed pieces and the D was intact for the most part. There was no reason not to think we wouldn't be AT LEAST a playoff team again (and if AL had just gone with what was working in two or three of those games we probably would be... but I digress). We lost our main RB and the star of the team. Without him, we needed a reliable RB which Betts and Cartwright had not shown prior to this season.

These arguments maybe different from you and Spicy but it doesn't mean they're wrong. And for every Dockery and Cooley you give me, I can give you Bauman and Harrison back...
They are wrong. And the proof is there. Portis was injured basically for the whole season. And Duckett got exactly 35 carries. It was never a question who was going to start between him and Betts. It was Betts all the way. So you think it is justifiable to trade a 3rd round pick (and maybe more) for a 3rd string RB? That is just insane. Especially considering the fact that RB is pretty much the easiest position to play in the NFL, and there are tons of examples of teams just putting in some guy off the street and that guy being at least decent.
And one more thing. If Betts and Cartwright were not good enough to be the second and third running backs, could you please explain to me why the running back depth chart during Gibbs's first 2 years was 1)Portis 2) Betts 3)Cartwright? If your reasoning is correct, we should have made this trade 2 years ago.
And it seems pretty presumptuous to say that there was no reason to think we would be at least a playoff team. It's not like we had won the SB 2 years straight and were playing in a horrible division. We had the 6th seed in the NFC, are playing in a traditionally tough division, and the NFL every year is filled with teams that crumble from one year to the next.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

The fact that we needed someone that was reliable at RB which these guys weren't when Portis went down... that's the point.
Uhm, yeah, except for the fact that this so-called reliable RB never played, and the so-called unreliable RB was named the undisputed starter from the moment Portis went down.
So either it was an idiotic trade to begin with because we did not need a new RB, or it was an idiotic trade because the FO had not done their homework on Duckett, and got a RB who was far worse than they expected.

[skinsfan36]

ahh i just want to forget about this trade

[SpicyMcHaggis]

ahh i just want to forget about this trade
That's gonna be easy..at least until April 28th...

[CNYSkinFan]

Ok for the claravoyant among us who think Betts got better because we traded for Duckett, I just don't know what to say. betts was going to have agood year because he was in a contract year, he did not need the motivation of Duckett. Why is it so hard for redskin fans to admit the team made a big honkin mistake on this one. I do not hate the team, I defend them at times, even when I do not neccessarily agree with them at the time (see the Campbell trade). But this one was apure out and out panic move. It had nothing to do with motivating Betts, it had nothing to do with Superbowl aspirations. Portis went down, Joe panicked, Vinny enabled and got owned by the Denver front office and brought in a back that did not fit our system and could not be used. Once we got him here Gibbs and Saunders saw that and that is why Duckett was not used.

It was a complete travesty and case in point for why in the very least the FO needs to be changed and A GM who can say no is brought in.

[Redskin4Life]

Uhm, yeah, except for the fact that this so-called reliable RB never played, and the so-called unreliable RB was named the undisputed starter from the moment Portis went down.
So either it was an idiotic trade to begin with because we did not need a new RB, or it was an idiotic trade because the FO had not done their homework on Duckett, and got a RB who was far worse than they expected.
Statswise, Duckett seemed a pretty good back in a system he wasn't suited for. This is the system he would have done well in but for whatever reason he didn't.

Statswise, Duckett was a better backup than Cartwright and Betts combined. But Betts showed he's more talented than he's shown previously and Duckett showed less adaptablity in this system than was hoped for.

All in all, Duckett didn't work out and the 3rd (hopefully not anything more) went into the garbage despite the fact that Duckett was a more natural compliment (big back) to Portis than Betts is. But oh well, the TJD experiment is over and we lost potentially 2 picks for it. I can see the FO's hope that TJD was going to be the one they signed but they got a good back that had a great half of the season. Let's see if he keeps it up...

I've said my piece and I'm sure both CNY and Spicy would prefer I shut it down.... guys we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[OCSKINSFAN]

Ok for the claravoyant among us who think Betts got better because we traded for Duckett, I just don't know what to say. betts was going to have agood year because he was in a contract year, he did not need the motivation of Duckett. Why is it so hard for redskin fans to admit the team made a big honkin mistake on this one. I do not hate the team, I defend them at times, even when I do not neccessarily agree with them at the time (see the Campbell trade). But this one was apure out and out panic move. It had nothing to do with motivating Betts, it had nothing to do with Superbowl aspirations. Portis went down, Joe panicked, Vinny enabled and got owned by the Denver front office and brought in a back that did not fit our system and could not be used. Once we got him here Gibbs and Saunders saw that and that is why Duckett was not used.

It was a complete travesty and case in point for why in the very least the FO needs to be changed and A GM who can say no is brought in.

I agree with all you said except I do believe it had to do with the Team's superbowl aspirations (remember the Brunell quote from the pre season). Betts was a question mark as a starter and Rock is not an NFL running back. However, there simply would not be any reason to make the trade giving up so much unless the team felt it needed to assure it had a solid running back core for a playoff run. If the team believed it did not have a significant super bowl shot, the trade would not have been made.

[darkwing99]

I agree with what you're saying RR about the move's effect on Betts and Rock but, I think you're underestimating coach Gibbs a bit. The move was a brilliant psychological ploy to light a fire under Betts and Rock. Yea, the 3rd rounder was a steep price to pay. But, I think the play we're getting out of Betts now makes it well worthwhile. Plus, it sends a message to the entire team to not get complacent or you will get replaced.


Spin my brother , spin away to your hearts delight:rolleyes:

[BIGSEF3]

Spin my brother , spin away to your hearts delight:rolleyes:

Personally, I think it had more to do with Danny just wanting to spend more money. He realized that neither Carter, Archuletta, Lloyd, or Randel El would perform nearly well enough to earn their rediculous contracts and figured if the Skins traded two good draft picks for a player in the last year of his contract and would not really contribute at all to the team, then we would all forget about those first 4 bonehead moves and focus on the last one.

PS - To clarify, Carter is starting to come along and I love ARE, but neither of them are performing on caliber with their contract, IMHO.

[rskinsfan10]

Personally, I think it had more to do with Danny just wanting to spend more money. He realized that neither Carter, Archuletta, Lloyd, or Randel El would perform nearly well enough to earn their rediculous contracts and figured if the Skins traded two good draft picks for a player in the last year of his contract and would not really contribute at all to the team, then we would all forget about those first 4 bonehead moves and focus on the last one.

PS - To clarify, Carter is starting to come along and I love ARE, but neither of them are performing on caliber with their contract, IMHO.Dare I ask are you serious?

[chrisbcbu]

Personally, I think it had more to do with Danny just wanting to spend more money. He realized that neither Carter, Archuletta, Lloyd, or Randel El would perform nearly well enough to earn their rediculous contracts and figured if the Skins traded two good draft picks for a player in the last year of his contract and would not really contribute at all to the team, then we would all forget about those first 4 bonehead moves and focus on the last one.

PS - To clarify, Carter is starting to come along and I love ARE, but neither of them are performing on caliber with their contract, IMHO.

umm. i cant tell if you are being serious! If you are please pass the pipe! ;)

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Personally, I think it had more to do with Danny just wanting to spend more money. He realized that neither Carter, Archuletta, Lloyd, or Randel El would perform nearly well enough to earn their rediculous contracts and figured if the Skins traded two good draft picks for a player in the last year of his contract and would not really contribute at all to the team, then we would all forget about those first 4 bonehead moves and focus on the last one.

PS - To clarify, Carter is starting to come along and I love ARE, but neither of them are performing on caliber with their contract, IMHO.
???????????????

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Dare I ask are you serious?
:lol1: I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that question either...

[CNYSkinFan]

:lol1: I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that question either...
eh...it's as good an answer as any lol

[SpicyMcHaggis]

eh...it's as good an answer as any lol
Yeah..I guess...lmao...

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree with what you're saying RR about the move's effect on Betts and Rock but, I think you're underestimating coach Gibbs a bit. The move was a brilliant psychological ploy to light a fire under Betts and Rock. Yea, the 3rd rounder was a steep price to pay. But, I think the play we're getting out of Betts now makes it well worthwhile. Plus, it sends a message to the entire team to not get complacent or you will get replaced.
This has got to be sarcasm, lol. The FO has been writing storyline after storyline that would struggle to be as complex as a Curious George book. Now, all of a sudden, Vinny weaves together a tale that would confuse Hitchcock? LMAO.

[redskin_rich]

Just for the record, I was only pointing out a positive that emerged from the situation, in that Betts proved he is a worthy RB and we got him re-signed. This all may have happened, regardless of the trade but I believe the added motivation certainly helped. I never stated that was part of any plan or that I thought that the Duckett trade was anything less than irrational and shortsighted, in hindsight. I liked it at the time and have no problem admitting I was wrong. I know CNY was immediately against the move and I give him his deserved props, in being correct on his initial call.

In the future (and now), this will be chalked up as a mistake but at least I can point out a positive that came about during it.

[Emmanouel8]

I think a 1st round round swap would have turned out better for us. a high 3rd could have netted us a starter on the O line, or a quality LB we are in need of both.

All the more reason to hire Ernie Grunfeld to run the FO 2007. I'd love to have Deshaun Stevenson off the bench scoring...

[gibbs4pres]

So you think it is justifiable to trade a 3rd round pick (and maybe more) for a 3rd string RB? That is just insane.

I don't think anyone was thinking 3rd string when we signed him. I think they were thinking of him as back-up to Portis if Betts still fumbled. Yes I personally think that if Betts hadn't had a stellar second half of the year and it had been TJ, we all would have loved the trade.

and there are tons of examples of teams just putting in some guy off the street and that guy being at least decent.
That's why I have no problem loosing late rounders. Not much different than an undrafted FA, just more hype. In fact I think the undrafted players seem to want it a bit more. IMHO

[whitskins]

I think a 1st round round swap would have turned out better for us. a high 3rd could have netted us a starter on the O line, or a quality LB we are in need of both.

All the more reason to hire Ernie Grunfeld to run the FO 2007. I'd love to have Deshaun Stevenson off the bench scoring...

Why are we in need of a starter on the OL? They are absolutely dominating right now and look like one of the elite units in the NFL. Unless Dockery leaves via FA I don't see why any improvements would need to be made to the starting lineup on the OL.

[VegasSkinsFan]

Why are we in need of a starter on the OL? They are absolutely dominating right now and look like one of the elite units in the NFL. Unless Dockery leaves via FA I don't see why any improvements would need to be made to the starting lineup on the OL.


Only thing to do would be to lock up wade, pucillo for depth. Wade looked pretty decent when he played.

[Skins7ny]

I just read the Denver Post article posted on the first page of the thread.
If our deal with the Broncos guaranteed them the equivalent of a high 3rd round draft pick, and we are drafting no worse than 7th in the round (as it now appears), then WHY ARE WE ALSO GIVING THEM OUR 4th in 2008? Doesn't this year's high 3rd satisfy the 250 (or 265, whatever it is) point requirement?
Someone please enlighten me on this.

[akhhorus]

I just read the Denver Post article posted on the first page of the thread.
If our deal with the Broncos guaranteed them the equivalent of a high 3rd round draft pick, and we are drafting no worse than 7th in the round (as it now appears), then WHY ARE WE ALSO GIVING THEM OUR 4th in 2008? Doesn't this year's high 3rd satisfy the 250 (or 265, whatever it is) point requirement?
Someone please enlighten me on this.

Our 3rd rounder will be worth between 245 and 220 points, the 4th rounder we're adding is worth about 38 points. Its about fair.

[Swirvi]

In other words, we shored up a position that could have been in major flux, so we aren't complete losers in this deal.

No, we pretty much ARE big fat losers in this deal.

[shally]

No, we pretty much ARE big fat losers in this deal.

it is similar to any insurance policy you might buy.. if you live, then the money has been wasted..
where they missed th eboat was not trusting the judgment of byner who apparently felt our reserves were good enough to get the job done without TJ.
above all, had gibbs sensed that the team was going to finish 5-11 there is no way they make the trade.. they thought (wrongly) this was a team that was going deep into the playoffs this year. hindsight is always 20/20

[danny's stogie]

it is similar to any insurance policy you might buy.. if you live, then the money has been wasted..
where they missed th eboat was not trusting the judgment of byner who apparently felt our reserves were good enough to get the job done without TJ.
above all, had gibbs sensed that the team was going to finish 5-11 there is no way they make the trade.. they thought (wrongly) this was a team that was going deep into the playoffs this year. hindsight is always 20/20

Bingo. After Portis went down no one would have said they were comfortable with just Betts and Rock, anyone who says this in hindsight is flat out lying. Betts could never stay healthy and Rock fumbled constantly. But, they without a doubt needed to add another running back. That's not problem with the deal, my issue is with their choice of RB. I've never been impressed with Duckett as a player, he's just been hyped up because of his size. Instead of dealing a 3rd for him they would have been better off signing a few cuts and trying them all out.

[CNYSkinFan]

Again I don't think many on here would argue that the Redskins were not trying to buy an insurance policy, they were. The problem is they overpaid, and overpaid to the extreme. It's bad enough they decided to trade away a first day pick for a guy who ended up getting less then 50 carries. That in itself would be cause for criticism. But they did the stupid draft value point thing assuring the Broncos of two future draft picks. If they sincerely thought that the Redskins were a team ready to make a deep playoff run, why guarantee a top draft pick in the third round? If we were a team runnign deep into the playoffs our pick would be a low 3rd round pick, thus making it necessary to give up additional picks (the swap of firsts would not work as our pick would have been equal to or behind the broncos).

It just nmade no sense all the way around, and we are paying two draft picks for a one year insurance policy. Meaning in 2008 we will still be paying for a player that left the Redskins in 2006. Sure we bought an insurance policy, but it cost so much we may not be able to pay the mortgage.

[danny's stogie]

Again I don't think many on here would argue that the Redskins were not trying to buy an insurance policy, they were. The problem is they overpaid, and overpaid to the extreme. It's bad enough they decided to trade away a first day pick for a guy who ended up getting less then 50 carries. That in itself would be cause for criticism. But they did the stupid draft value point thing assuring the Broncos of two future draft picks. If they sincerely thought that the Redskins were a team ready to make a deep playoff run, why guarantee a top draft pick in the third round? If we were a team runnign deep into the playoffs our pick would be a low 3rd round pick, thus making it necessary to give up additional picks (the swap of firsts would not work as our pick would have been equal to or behind the broncos).

It just nmade no sense all the way around, and we are paying two draft picks for a one year insurance policy. Meaning in 2008 we will still be paying for a player that left the Redskins in 2006. Sure we bought an insurance policy, but it cost so much we may not be able to pay the mortgage.

If they had acquired a quality player in exchange for the 3rd round pick plus then it's a fine trade. My problem with it is that they panicked and didn't bother to realize that Duckett has never been a good player, he's always run softer than his size, tip-toeing and without authority. Gibbs had a positive impression of him as a person from his time in Atlanta, but they rushed the player evaluation stage. Duckett was supposed to be the change-up to Dunn in Atlanta, but as Dunn wore down toward the end of each and every season Duckett failed to pick up the slack (pretty ironic the similiarities between the role he was supposed to play in Atl and in DC).

[shally]

Again I don't think many on here would argue that the Redskins were not trying to buy an insurance policy, they were. The problem is they overpaid, and overpaid to the extreme. It's bad enough they decided to trade away a first day pick for a guy who ended up getting less then 50 carries. That in itself would be cause for criticism. But they did the stupid draft value point thing assuring the Broncos of two future draft picks. If they sincerely thought that the Redskins were a team ready to make a deep playoff run, why guarantee a top draft pick in the third round? If we were a team runnign deep into the playoffs our pick would be a low 3rd round pick, thus making it necessary to give up additional picks (the swap of firsts would not work as our pick would have been equal to or behind the broncos).

It just nmade no sense all the way around, and we are paying two draft picks for a one year insurance policy. Meaning in 2008 we will still be paying for a player that left the Redskins in 2006. Sure we bought an insurance policy, but it cost so much we may not be able to pay the mortgage.

again, hindsight...and another mistake when it comes down to it..

[redwolf1218]

If they had acquired a quality player in exchange for the 3rd round pick plus then it's a fine trade. My problem with it is that they panicked and didn't bother to realize that Duckett has never been a good player, he's always run softer than his size, tip-toeing and without authority. Gibbs had a positive impression of him as a person from his time in Atlanta, but they rushed the player evaluation stage. Duckett was supposed to be the change-up to Dunn in Atlanta, but as Dunn wore down toward the end of each and every season Duckett failed to pick up the slack (pretty ironic the similiarities between the role he was supposed to play in Atl and in DC).
that's a major part of the problem, getting guys they like "as a person" instead of guys they like as a football player.

[danny's stogie]

that's a major part of the problem, getting guys they like "as a person" instead of guys they like as a football player.

Lol, actually, I think the problem is that either do one or the other. They need to do both with each and every player personnel decision they make.

[shally]

Lol, actually, I think the problem is that either do one or the other. They need to do both with each and every player personnel decision they make.

so, which type was arch ? we know which type lloyd was supposed to be.. how about fauria ?

[danny's stogie]

so, which type was arch ? we know which type lloyd was supposed to be.. how about fauria ?

I think GW liked Arch as a player, but failed to recognize that he had some personality failings that would lead to poor play (if there's any other explanation more circuitous). Fauria, who heck is that?

[shally]

I think GW liked Arch as a player, but failed to recognize that he had some personality failings that would lead to poor play (if there's any other explanation more circuitous). Fauria, who heck is that?

i am not sure it was personality failings that doomed arch this year.. i think physically he could not do what was asked of him in pass coverage.. his recognition skills weren't that great either, i will admit, but it was not the primary reason for his terrible play

[Oregonian]

i am not sure it was personality failings that doomed arch this year..
Agree, I think personality is AA's best quality. He is bright, articulate and a team player. He handled his benching this year with amazing dignity in my opinion.

The problem is he wasn't getting it done on the field. He plays smaller and slower than you would expect, and it was apparent what a huge liability he was from the first preseason game.

[bigcmr]

Every time I think about this trade I get sick to my stomak. 3rd and 4th for a guy that was rented and hardly used for 1 year.