We traded for T.J. Duckett?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by redsk1

I like Duckett, but don't like this deal. Last time I checked Betts was doing a pretty good job and we didn't need alot of help on goal line situations if I remember right. To give up a 3rd rounder for a potential 3rd string rb? A couple years ago we picked up some guy named...Cooley in the 3rd, right?

We didn't trade for Duckett for him to be 3rd string.

I fully expect we'll see Betts moved in the coming weeks.

One of our main weaknesses the past two years has been goal line running. Duckett is going to improve that 100%.

I like Betts, and I think the staff really does too. But he's too injury prone to be counted on. He's nursing a sore hammy right now for crying out loud.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We didn't trade for Duckett for him to be 3rd string.

I fully expect we'll see Betts moved in the coming weeks.

One of our main weaknesses the past two years has been goal line running. Duckett is going to improve that 100%.

I like Betts, and I think the staff really does too. But he's too injury prone to be counted on. He's nursing a sore hammy right now for crying out loud.

That's the crux of this deal. Betts has to go. It simply doesn't make a whole ton of sense otherwise. There is no need for us to have 3 starting level RBs when we have great needs at OL and CB. Betts gets moved for either a pick or depth.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

That's the crux of this deal. Betts has to go. It simply doesn't make a whole ton of sense otherwise. There is no need for us to have 3 starting level RBs when we have great needs at OL and CB. Betts gets moved for either a pick or depth.

I have been thinking on this one all morning and that is the only logical conclusion. As I mentioned in another post yesterday, when I reviewed the game tame, Betts looked very slow to the hole, and indecisive in his cuts. I think Betts has not proven out to be what Saunder's wanted and he is in a unrestricted FA contract year.

Duckett, on the other hand , could be more in line with what Saunders is looking for in a #2 back and is a restricted FA next year, making it easier for us to keep him if we want to. That said, he will undoubtedly want to be paid this coming offseason, especially if this works out well this year.

I say the next team who's #1 or #2 RB goes down with an injury this preseason will be able to get Betts from us for a 3rd or 4th rounder or a young O-line prospect.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Let's also remember that Betts is on the last year of his deal. It's better to get a back that's probably better than he is, rather than worrying about signing him next year OR finding a rookie RB in the draft.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Hopefully we can trade away one of the backs we have now for OL or CB help. I'm not sure about this deal yet or how TJ will fit in with our group of guys. Whats his character like , is he a Gibbs guy?

[MTK]

We'll be exchanging first round picks, not giving one up completely.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We'll be exchanging first round picks, not giving one up completely.

Ok, that changes things then.

[MTK]

Here's how the deal would work, WE'RE NOT GIVING UP A 1ST!

Based on the teams' finish this season, the Broncos, at best, could end up with the Redskins' first- and third-round picks in the 2007 draft if the Redskins finish with a worse record than the Broncos.

In that scenario, the Broncos and Redskins would flip-flop first-round picks, with Denver moving up in the opening round and the Redskins moving down. The Broncos would then get the Redskins' third-round pick as well.

If the Redskins finish with a better record than the Broncos, Denver gets the Redskins' third- and fourth-round picks in April.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Here's how the deal would work, WE'RE NOT GIVING UP A 1ST!

OK, that makes more sense.

[gibbsisgod]

if we do swap first round picks we are talking about picks in the latefirst round. probably 25th or worse so its not that big of a deal if we have to swap them.

[Skins_4_Lyfe]

Yesssssssss...I love it, I was always saying that Portis was being overused and didn't think he had any business running up the middle as much as he does. Now maybe he'll be able to make it through the whole season without those knagging injurues.

[gibbsisgod]

probablr destanations for betts: Indy, Jets, SF.
anyone else?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

probablr destanations for betts: Indy, Jets, SF.
anyone else?

My guess would be the Jets are the main possible destination.

Indy seems to be fine with their RB situation, and Gore seems to be pretty safe as SF's starter.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

probablr destanations for betts: Indy, Jets, SF.
anyone else?

Nah, i don't think SF is a likely destination, they just named Frank Gore their starter for a reason, it would be unlikely to name the guy your starter than trade for another back. I'm thinking the Jets might, even though they just picked up Barlow, although it's not likely they will. I don't understand why Saunders gave Betts all this praise, and now it looks like we're trying to trade him, unless Saunders was just trying to make Betts look good so we could get a better offer.

[amorentz]

As a budding lawyer Im always looking for ways to mess with the interpretation of contract language...so Im hoping that they forgot to put this part into the trade agreement. All stories specify "record" as the thing on which the trade turns. However, consider this scenario: We finish 10-6 or 11-5 and the Broncos finish a game or two better than us. However, we make it through the wild card rounds to the Superbowl, at which point we are automatically given the #31 or 32 pick regardless of record. If the record portion of the trade agreement has already been triggered, could we possibly end up with a better draft pick?

Now Im sure they thought of this during negotiations, but hey, always gotta look for the loopholes!