jivelikenice Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Great contract by us considerign the deal Chester Taylor signed last offseason (I believe $ 5 million per year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtle Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Good move by the FO. Keep the real skins together!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dceezown Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Pople look.....KC= L. Johnson/ P. Holmes WAS= Portis / Betts I will take LJ / PH! 2 greats vs 1 in WAS. Betts is noway near Holmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Wow the FO sucks if it over pays for a FA, then it sucks because it pays market value to keep one of it own players having a career year . You know it was in 1998 when Davis emerged aftyer 4 years on the pine but in 1998 he emerged as a FB blocking for skip hicks ... he won the open competition in the following year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedExFielder Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I will take LJ / PH! 2 greats vs 1 in WAS. Betts is noway near Holmes. Priest is done isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Welcome back Ladell!!!! CP+Betts=very good one-two punch @ RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Holmes is done and Johnson came on after his first season in which he looked like a potential bust. There was a collective sigh of relief in KC about the development of Larry Johnson. He was a guy the team invested a high pick in and dollars. Portis has shown that when healthy, despite not having a Trent Green or comparably talented quarterback to play off of, he can be a back that gets 1,500 yards and scores 10-15 touchdowns. That is the classic definition of an elite back. I think we are splitting apples and oranges here. I would rather have Tomlinson than either Johnson or Portis. But you can win a Super Bowl with ANY of the three. It is what you do on the OL and at quarterback that is going to determine whether that back has a chance to get into a Super Bowl and perform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portis4President Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 The guy at NFL Fanhouse had some refreshing thoughts on Betts' signing: Sure these numbers may seem like minutia at this point in the year but they'll become extremely relevant when Danny takes his lapdog out for a Springtime shopping spree. What matters most to me is that this is the first sign of a possible change in the owner's philosophy. Locking up Betts before free agency shows that the front office is committing to their core players. Maybe now instead of letting a Ryan Clark go in favor of an Adam Archuleta they'll be willing to invest in continuity. I'm thrilled to see a hard working Redskin get rewarded for all his done for the team, if they had let Betts go in favor of TJ Duckett we'd all start sounding like Steve Czaban. Amen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Command The 414 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 good move, I've actually come around to thinking that if given the chance Betts could be a very good #1 for us...given the right situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin81 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Glad to see that we took care of our own. However any talk about him being the starter is insane. Hes not half the back that a healthy Portis is. Portis ability to pick up the blitz alone pushes him past Betts. That said hes a great back to spell Portis with and hopefully we wont have to run CP into the ground like last season. The terms were reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 again, this entire saga shows how messed up things were in September when Portis and Springs were injured and the team seemed headed for a tailspin on both sides of the ball. The Redskins panicked and made the deal for Duckett before Betts even had the CHANCE to show what he could do. That was a mistake. Especially as the team was negotiating a possible extension with him at the time! Why extend a guy's contract if you don't trust him to be a backup and do his job when called upon? Did Duckett show anything in 4 years in Atlanta to indicate he was going to do more than bulldoze on third and short? The front office here became unhinged from reality for a few weeks and it cost the team dearly. An experienced GM like Bobby Beathard didn't allow situations like that to become a crisis where the club made moves that hurt us down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I agree with thoses who think the Skins have too much $$$ invested in the RB slot. Not a good move IMO ... skins should have let Betts test the market ... then offer him a lower contract. The $$$ should go to resigning Cooley and Dockery. The FO still does not know what it is doing. Considering some of that is gonna be used this season it was a smart move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Worthy Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I feel bad for Duckett. The FO lowered his value. Whoever picks him up (Eagles) are going to get a bargin for him. And if he goes to Philly what would you have a Westbrook/Duckett combo. Not good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I don't know that Dockery warrants a new contract for big dollars given his performance to this point. Is he going to improve or has he hit a plateau already at 26? Dockery does some things well in the run game straight ahead man on man, but has definite liabilities as a pass protector. You can't pull him as he is too slow off the ball at 340. So, the question is how much does he want? If the answer is he wants $10-$15 million guaranteed, I think the Redskins need to look for a cheaper, more versatile replacement. That is one reason I am really upset the team wasted a #3 pick on Duckett. That #3 pick could have landed us a OL or DL who might have been able to come in and help us a rookie. Instead we are now left with one pick in round 1 and then have to wait until Day 2 to make a second selection. You can't build a championship team this way. Whether we move down and pick up extra draft picks or trade a player or two off the current roster, the Redskins need to accumulate more than 4 picks in April to help improve the depth of this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 pft.com POSTED 8:21 p.m. EST; LAST UPDATED 9:34 p.m. EST, December 8, 2006 BETTS DEAL A BAD ONE? Several league insiders have spoken out regarding the contract extension signed by Redskins running back Ladell Betts, who was only four games away from getting a chance to test the free-agent market. The deal, per the Associated Press, is worth $11 million over five years. A league source tells us that the contract pays out $7.5 million over the first three seasons, and includes a $3 million signing bonus. Those numbers are nothing to sneeze at. But with Betts so close to hitting the open market, why not see what he could get to go somewhere else and be the starter? LaMont Jordan did that very thing two years ago. A backup with the Jets, Jordan snagged from the Raiders a five-year, $25 million contract that pays twice the amount Betts will make over the first three years. Chester Taylor, a backup with the Ravens, inked a four-year, $14.1 million deal in March to become the go-to guy with the Vikings. Teams that might be in the market for a tailback for 2007 include (as we see it) the Jets, the Browns, the Texans, the Broncos, the Giants, and the Packers. We realize that, because Betts has been carrying the load of late, there was an increased chance that he might get injured in December, which could have killed his value in March. Still, he possibly left a lot on the table by taking the money now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 The thing about Duckett is he will have a frsh set of legs next year hardly used. Before trading for him they should have made sure he would sign. BUT if you look at it this way they dont bring in Duckett, Betts goes on to have a 1000 yard season decides to test the waters he now signs with the eagles for roughly a little more then we have a third round pick and 2 positions to fill it with. It wouldnt surprise me if Betts does finish out the season strong he gets traded for a draft pick and a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I think this is the 1st smart contract I've seen in awhile. 11 mil over 5 years for a RB who could see a lot of carries isn't a lot, plus with the money up front. It'll be cheap to have him around in a couple of years, and if he doesn't pan out, it'll be cheaper to cut him. Win/Win for both sides I guess. These guys trip me out every couple years with something like this. The difference is that we actually signed the guy. Usually its "We'd like to keep Pierce here but he isn't worth 25M over 5-6 years for us" Then we go and throw down more than that for guys like Arch Deluxe, Carter, and Lloyd, Randel EL, etc. Makes no sense. Hopefully this means they are going to change things but we will see. I think it may just be that we don't have all that much cap space. At least they got a guy signed DURING THE SEASON! Lets all hope Betts doesn't get injured again next week. It would fit the season perfectly if he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 The thing about Duckett is he will have a frsh set of legs next year hardly used. Before trading for him they should have made sure he would sign.BUT if you look at it this way they dont bring in Duckett, Betts goes on to have a 1000 yard season decides to test the waters he now signs with the eagles for roughly a little more then we have a third round pick and 2 positions to fill it with. It wouldnt surprise me if Betts does finish out the season strong he gets traded for a draft pick and a player. Yeah, maybe they used Duckett in bargaining with Betts. If Betts didn't resign then they could have just resigned Duckett. Remember Betts was pretty pissed when Duckett was picked up. No way they trade Betts now. They'd have to eat the bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 well, I really doubt the Redskins strategy involved giving up potentially two Day 1 picks for Duckett just to get Betts to agree to a more modest contract extension Duckett was brought here because the team had a crisis of confidence when Betts twinged a hamstring after Portis was injured and the staff was worried that Ladell would fail to answer the bell as the primary back, so an insurance policy was purchased at very high cost. This team has made mistakes with picks before. We traded a #1 and #2 picks for Gerald Riggs and he never ran for 1,000 yards for this team. In fact he became the backup to the player the Redskins acquired in a side deal that year, Earnest Byner. Byner became the true workhorse back that took the team to the SB. But Riggs wasn't considered a bust outright in those days because he contributed in short yardage, scored 13 touchdowns in 1991 and because there was no cap his salary didn't swamp the Redskins ability to acquire other players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grhqofb5 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Sorry, but I'm just having a really hard time getting excited about anything our front office does. What was that old saying.... "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Betts is pretty good as a RB and a good receiver coming out of the backfield. He needs to work on his strength, because IMO he goes down too easily after arm tackles. He also seems to have issues with stumbling from time to time. I'm glad that we didn't overpay for him. Now we need to start thinking about extending #47. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 the point of most of my posts has been that in fact the Redskins don't have a front office, they have a coaching staff that huddles on personnel decisions and then Joe goes to Cerrato and Snyder to go get the players the 'consensus' decides are worthwhile............ that is not how a functioning NFL front office works. the GM on most clubs EVALUATES the recommendations of the staff and negotiation takes place to arrive at the right decision to be made. On some clubs the GM has the final word, on others the HC and GM go to the owner or Team President and present their arguments. either way, the coaches don't have control of the process in their own hands. this is just the kind of malfunctioning system that produced the Archuleta signing. no one on the personnel side looked at the cumulative injuries at age 28 or the fact #40 was a clear liability in coverage and pushed for a different choice at strong safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbar3383 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 the point of most of my posts has been that in fact the Redskins don't have a front office, they have a coaching staff that huddles on personnel decisions and then Joe goes to Cerrato and Snyder to go get the players the 'consensus' decides are worthwhile............that is not how a functioning NFL front office works. the GM on most clubs EVALUATES the recommendations of the staff and negotiation takes place to arrive at the right decision to be made. On some clubs the GM has the final word, on others the HC and GM go to the owner or Team President and present their arguments. either way, the coaches don't have control of the process in their own hands. this is just the kind of malfunctioning system that produced the Archuleta signing. no one on the personnel side looked at the cumulative injuries at age 28 or the fact #40 was a clear liability in coverage and pushed for a different choice at strong safety. You are wrong about many things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSKINS_08 Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Im glad we got Betts a contract extenstion..Portis and Betts will be a great 1-2 combination next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 the point of most of my posts has been that in fact the Redskins don't have a front office, they have a coaching staff that huddles on personnel decisions and then Joe goes to Cerrato and Snyder to go get the players the 'consensus' decides are worthwhile............that is not how a functioning NFL front office works. the GM on most clubs EVALUATES the recommendations of the staff and negotiation takes place to arrive at the right decision to be made. On some clubs the GM has the final word, on others the HC and GM go to the owner or Team President and present their arguments. either way, the coaches don't have control of the process in their own hands. this is just the kind of malfunctioning system that produced the Archuleta signing. Don't let Art hear you say that! He has always maintained that our F.O. structure actually gives us an advantage in player aquisition. Of course that argument might hold water IF the guys we were targeting worked out most of the time. no one on the personnel side looked at the cumulative injuries at age 28 or the fact #40 was a clear liability in coverage and pushed for a different choice at strong safety. Careful, careful. You don't want to have Mr. Snyder put a stop payment on your check this week. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.