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?