graffjd Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Did I hear Byner correctly on the John Riggins show? Duckett would be third string to CP and Betts! I love the deal as a compliment to the team but does that make sense? Something doesn't smell right to me. I'm wondering if they are talking up Bett's for the potential trade value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c4man5282 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 you sure did i heard it myself also but he also said the rb situation is a competition i believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgunderson Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Riggo also asked him about the possibility of a trade and Byner said (paraphrasing) "We got all these guys in here now and we're going let them compete and see how the chips fall." Not exactly shooting down the idea. I think if Duckett impresses, Betts is gone for a OL or DB. And they definitely are talking Betts up, especially by saying that they "expect" all the RBs to make the final roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Why wouldn't that make sense? Duckett is the new guy, and still needs to digest the offense. Until he proves that he deserves more playing time than Betts, that is where he's going to be. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truant Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Trading Betts would take away one of the key players for Saunders offense. Saunders loves that Betts can catch out of the backfield. If Portis, Betts and Duckett give us the best chance to win, then count on all three being here this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I think if Duckett impresses, Betts is gone for a OL or DB. And they definitely are talking Betts up, especially by saying that they "expect" all the RBs to make the final roster. Duckett still needs to learn the offense. In this, Betts is way ahead of Duckett. I really think we probably won't see Betts traded, if just that Betts is probably more valuable to us than most things we could get in trade for him at this point. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeronimobrat Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Riggo also asked him about the possibility of a trade and Byner said (paraphrasing) "We got all these guys in here now and we're going let them compete and see how the chips fall." Not exactly shooting down the idea.I think if Duckett impresses, Betts is gone for a OL or DB. And they definitely are talking Betts up, especially by saying that they "expect" all the RBs to make the final roster. That would be my theory also as being that Bryner is doing the absolute right thing: letting the talking be done on the football field. You can't possibly expect him to say that "Duckett will be the second string to Clinton Portis" without seeing him in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It would make sense that Betts is ahead of him at this point because Betts has been in the system the entire offseason. Duckett has to play catch up and learn the offense. But I would imagine that once he does get up to speed, Duckett would move ahead of Betts on the depth chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Why wouldn't that make sense? Duckett is the new guy, and still needs to digest the offense. Until he proves that he deserves more playing time than Betts, that is where he's going to be.Jason In addition, I think getting overly excited about "2nd string" or "3rd string" isn't valid here, because these backs will frequently be used two at a time, or spell each other based on the situation. Obviously Portis will get a lot of carries, but after him, there could be a lot of mixing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgunderson Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Trading Betts would take away one of the key players for Saunders offense. Saunders loves that Betts can catch out of the backfield. If Portis, Betts and Duckett give us the best chance to win, then count on all three being here this year. It just doesn't make sense to keep 4 tailbacks (taking Sellers out of the equation as he is a FB). And Rock is too important on special teams to be cut. Or maybe not. I don't know. But I'd be shocked if Betts, Duckett AND Rock are all on the roster come 9/11, unless Portis aggravates his shoulder. And it doesn't take long for a RB to learn the offense. The only part he really needs to learn is blitz pick-up in the pass protection schemes, and that isn't rocket science. Besides that he just needs to be told to run left, right or up the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjKam1 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It's way to early to begin predicting how things will fall with the order of depth, we need to see Duckett perform in our offense in a pre-season game, and allow the coaches to game-plan with Duckett in the lineup. I can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgunderson Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 It's way to early to begin predicting how things will fall with the order of depth, we need to see Duckett perform in our offense in a pre-season game, and allow the coaches to game-plan with Duckett in the lineup. I can't wait! I can guarantee this -- each and every RB will be running their arses off in NE this weekend. Should be fun to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Why wouldn't that make sense? Duckett is the new guy, and still needs to digest the offense. Until he proves that he deserves more playing time than Betts, that is where he's going to be.Jason Duckett proved that he deserves more playing time just by what we were willing to give up in a trade for him. His proof is in his highlight films. His talent is not in question, how long it takes him to retain the playbook is however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 you don't give up a #3 and possibly a #4 pick as well to get a #3 running back. that said, this staff believes players earn their time. Taylor didn't start right away. McIntosh is still behind Warrick Holdman. Veteran guys like Fauria and Patten have to compete for time. Duckett will have to prove he can perform. But clearly, the staff believes he can or else they wouldn't have made the deal. Betts was the #2 pick of another GM at another time. The current Redskins' staff is not locked into Betts in any regard beyond what they believe is best for the team. If he drops to #3 or is traded it is no skin off Joe Gibbs' nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpfan Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Makes sense to me. Ducket is the goalline and short yardage back, not necessarily Portis' backup. Betts will be the main backup. Rock will still make the team as a ST player and a very good 4th option in case of injuries to Betts or Portis which has certainly happened before. I think this will shape up pretty well for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaRou Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Did he actually say "third string"? Seems to me he's more of a situation guy for those short yardage plays...and even as a decoy on short yardage plays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allskinz Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Anyone else notice Rock was left out of the conversation of running backs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Cartwright was not slated to get many carries in 2006, this is what is annoying to me about his sounding off. before the trade it was supposed to be Portis, then Betts and then Sellers on short yardage and goal line. Cartwright was designated as usual for special teams with the HOPE that there would be additional carries in the backfield. But not only was it NOT a guarantee it also wasn't a strong probability. Right now, Rock should understand where he is in the NFL hierarchy - he is a capable backup player who at 27 has to play ST well to remain in the NFL and earn a nice paycheck. He will never be a frontline player who takes top billing. I know the Rams game last year raised his hopes of getting a chance to start in the NFL, but I don't see that happening in Washington unless some pretty amazing things occur in the alignment of the stars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Of course Duckett is 3rd String right now, he hasn't even practiced with the team yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I don't think he was hoping to get starts at some point, but I think he probably felt that he might get some opportunities and that's why he resigned. Now, someone has come in and has started ahead of him on the depth chart. I'd be frustrated too in his position, especially when I've had some good production when I've been in. For some reason, people want to bust on Rock, but he does have a career 4.5 yard average. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumodat Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I think it makes sense Duckett is 3rd string. Betts is a good RB, and has a better grasp of our offense. I think Duckett will be a situational back. I said the other night that the offense should install GW type "packages" half jokingly, but I think that is basically what it will be. If Portis were to go down, Betts would probably be in, with Duckett still rotating in. Again, I think Duckett will be used in specific offensive packages, and as a situational back. No one on this team is going to own any spot light. There is just too much talent. Which, by the way, isn't a bad problem to have!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 By the time that he learns the offense he will be listed at 2nd string. Hell I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the field ahead of Betts by week 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graffjd Posted August 24, 2006 Author Share Posted August 24, 2006 Did he actually say "third string"?Seems to me he's more of a situation guy for those short yardage plays...and even as a decoy on short yardage plays. He said Duckett would be the third man in.. or something to that point. But he definitely said third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blloyd33 Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Being number 3 when number 2 is unable to play due to injury makes number 3 .... ah, um, someone help me out here. Can someone write the equation for me? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSF Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 I am interested to watch how he plays with the team this Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.