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...