FARAPS Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I apologize if this has been repeated over and over but I was talking football with a buddy of mine and we were discussing the problems with our teams and one thing came to mind. I mentioned how the duckett trade hurt us because we lost a valuable draft pick which could have easily landed us a quality starter on defense and my buddy agreed and pointed to the Shawn Alexander situation a few years ago. I'll remind you about a couple years ago when shawn alexander was on the trading block for a second rounder and absolutely no one went for him. The thing that drives me crazy is that seattle couldn't get a second rounder for a consistent all-pro back and we give up a third rounder for a freaking 3rd string running back!! I know it was insurance for when Portis was injured but it makes no sense whatsoever. Portis was hurt in pre-season and was clearly going to heal in the near future and in the mean time we had betts, yet we had to give up a third rounder for "insurance". You just don't go trading for players everytime a good player gets injured. We got two quality players in the late rounds with Golston and Montgomery, think about what we could have gotten with a third rounder in what is supposed to be a deep draft. It frustrates me because we have so many needs on defense (DE, LB, CB) and we could have filled one with a third round pick but instead spend it on the position we are most deep in. Sorry for the rant but Finals are coming up and I need to get my frustration out somewhere. Lets hope things come together in the offseason making things clearer. Go Redskins, you kill me but I can't help loving you guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DButz65 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 At the time we needed a RB cause Portis's status was uncertain, the Skins thought there would be some problems there if CPs injury didnt get better. Gibbs stated this numerous times. So at the time it was a great move, but it didnt turn out that way, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FARAPS Posted December 11, 2006 Author Share Posted December 11, 2006 At the time, Portis had a shoulder injury in preseason. The injury was supposed to keep him out only until the first game of the season. This was known before the trade was made. Even if it wasn't, why jump the gun and make the trade before you know his status?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotalRecall Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Well, we have great depth now at the RB position. So, we don't need to go look for one in the offseason. TJ isn't hurting the football team. The defense, turnovers, and penalties are hurting the team right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Giving up a third round draft choice to rent a backup player unfamiliar with your system to finish out the season is gross negligence. The man is a UFA after the season. A third rounder for Brunell, the equivalent of a first and second for Portis, trading up to get the players we want in the draft, three for Campbell, two each for McIntosh and Cooley...we treat draft picks as though they have no value. So, how is this win now strategy working out? Gibbs 2.0 is now 21-26 with a thin roster that can't afford injuries at most positions, especially on the defensive side of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 At the time we needed a RB cause Portis's status was uncertain, the Skins thought there would be some problems there if CPs injury didnt get better. Gibbs stated this numerous times. So at the time it was a great move, but it didnt turn out that way, get over it. It was never a great move, period. You don't give up a 3rd round pick for a one year rental. We had Rock Cartwright still on our roster and we could have picked up a veteran in free agency to give us one more warm body. There is absolutely no way of defending this move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llcamino Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Was Duckett this soft in Atlanta? I didn't pay attention to him much in ATL. I'm amazed everytime he touches the ball and falls down like a wet dish rag. I was one of the people calling for him to play earlier, but I'm over that now...I've seen enough. I'm sure the Eagles were glad we kept him away from them when he couldn't punch it in from the 3! Or is it that he's not willing to give up his body for a team that sat him for 8 games to protect their trade reprecussions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 The knock on Duckett in Atlanta was that despite his size he played like a finesse back. Tiptoeing to the hole rather than hitting it hard, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcameronmk Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It wasn't necessarily a bad decision. It just shows how uncommitted the management is with developing our own talent, which reflects more the fundamental problems Dan Snyder has than the trade itself. He has little patience. He wants talent NOW, which is now biting him on the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It wasn't necessarily a bad decision. It just shows how uncommitted the management is with developing our own talent, which reflects more the fundamental problems Dan Snyder has than the trade itself. He has little patience. He wants talent NOW, which is now biting him on the ass. I take it that you don't believe that Joe Gibbs is really in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It wasn't necessarily a bad decision. It just shows how uncommitted the management is with developing our own talent, which reflects more the fundamental problems Dan Snyder has than the trade itself. He has little patience. He wants talent NOW, which is now biting him on the ass. How on earth can you say it wasn't a bad decision? Duckett can opt for free agency after this season and undoubtedly will. We wasted a 3rd round pick for a guy that won't be here in 2007. Chris Cooley was a 3rd round pick, remember him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Well, it depends how you look at it. If you look at it with the perspective that shoulders can be recurring injuries and we were likely to lose Portis again and if you look at Betts injury history, then you might get a bit worried. Rock in spot duty. Sure. As a full time starter, I'm not sure he could pull it off. I think the Redskins really thought that this was a Superbowl contender. If it was, then the Duckett pick was worthwhile insurance. I didn't get the pick in the moment, but thought just like Betts did that it was a vote of no-confidence in him and that it meant his demotion. It is a terrible trade in hindsight, a desperate trade (you always get ripped off when you make a desperation play), and a poor decision. It is a reason why you need someone with a longer range vision than a coach. It was a bad decision, but not an incompetent one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 "At the time we needed a RB cause Portis's status was uncertain, the Skins thought there would be some problems there if CPs injury didnt get better. Gibbs stated this numerous times. So at the time it was a great move, but it didnt turn out that way, get over it." baloney. it was a panic move and it also suggests that after 3 seasons the team STILL didn't know what it had in Betts. the lack of use of Duckett also suggests the team didn't do its homework. we have BAFOONS running this team from a FO perspective. 2 playoff appearnces in 14 years. WE ARE THE BUNGLES OF OLD. A TOTAL JOKE. and the patronizing of the fans is especially galling. we have been played for fools for a long, long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It was never a great move, period. You don't give up a 3rd round pick for a one year rental. We had Rock Cartwright still on our roster and we could have picked up a veteran in free agency to give us one more warm body.There is absolutely no way of defending this move. You are 100 percent correct! In fact, this can be said for far too many moves this team has made since Snyder took over. Like most fans, I thought Gibbs would correct this, but he hasn't. He's unfortunately bought into the Snyder mentality and it's killing this team. Had we sat CP down for a few games to allow him to completely heal and used Duckett in his stead, then I could see their thinking. But we didn't use Duckett at all! And now that he's being used, he's showing the soft side that kept him from the starting lineup in Atlanta. It's a sad new tradition this team has created for itself. Yankee-like spending, but Arizona Cardinals-like results. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It was a bad decision, but not an incompetent one. Sorry Burgold, but it was incompetent. Just like the numerous other incompetent moves this team has made during the Snyder regime. It made no sense at the time (especially considering how we used him) and it makes no sense now. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_giaquinto Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 It's a sad new tradition this team has created for itself. Yankee-like spending, but Arizona Cardinals-like results.H At least the owner will spend. You could have Arizona-like spending every year, cementing your place at the bottom like an anvil around the ankle. Our spending is frivolous and worse, uninformed, but at least he's open to spending. We just have to get true football people in and trust them to make the important personnel decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Sorry Burgold, but it was incompetent. It made no sense at the time (especially considering how we used him) and it makes no sense now.Hail, H Sure it did if we were on a Superbowl run. Betts has missed games every year due to injury, despite playing a limited role. Portis had an injury that was bound and did impact him over and over again until the IRed him. If we were that Superbowl team, if the D hadn't imploded, if Brunell hadn't aged 30 years offseason, then having that insurance back made sense. It wasn't a good decision, it wasn't a decision I agreed with, but you could understand why they went there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llcamino Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 At least the owner will spend. You could have Arizona-like spending every year, cementing your place at the bottom like an anvil around the ankle. Our spending is frivolous and worse, uninformed, but at least he's open to spending. We just have to get true football people in and trust them to make the important personnel decisions. Arizona 4-9 Washington 4-9 I don't have time to look it up, but something tells me our ticket prices are higher! I hear what you're saying about having an owner willing to spend, and the need for a football guy in the FO......but we need to be careful about thinking that we're somehow better than a team like Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 it was a panic move and it also suggests that after 3 seasons the team STILL didn't know what it had in Betts. Right. Makes you wonder why they think they can evaluate the talent on OTHER teams, doesn't it? As to the knock that Betts is injury prone...you don't suppose that running back kickoffs had anything to do with that, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailSkinz1 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Sure it did if we were on a Superbowl run. Betts has missed games every year due to injury, despite playing a limited role. Portis had an injury that was bound and did impact him over and over again until the IRed him. If we were that Superbowl team, if the D hadn't imploded, if Brunell hadn't aged 30 years offseason, then having that insurance back made sense. It wasn't a good decision, it wasn't a decision I agreed with, but you could understand why they went there. We can agree to disagree on this one. But we made the trade after what, three games or something? That's hardly a Super Bowl run. If you don't want to blame incompetence for the trade, then you have to consider the way we've used him incompetent. When CP was playing through his injuries, Duckett rode the pine, so what was the point? To play CP until he could no longer play and then play Betts? I fail to see where the plan for Duckett came into play. Hail, H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I'll agree with that. The use and esp. the non use of Duckett was really mind blowing. Right now, that pick up was a complete disaster. In the moment, I could have rationalized it. Afterall, it was still preseason and the Redskins had their offense and defense playing ultra vanilla and when it was unveiled... they fooled themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Duckett has always been soft (look at some of the posts in the thread about his highlight video, a few months before he was traded for) When he gets emotional, he runs well. Other times he is soft. he just can't be consistent. The fact that he has been sitting probably doesn't help either... Lets also not act like Ladell is the second coming of Jim Brown, he's run well, Jason Campbell's arm has opened up the running game (gee imagine that...) and the O-Line has played well. CP would have had at least 2 TDs and an extra 50 yards in each of the last 2 games. The Duckett trade was one of the worst ever. Such a horrible move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Sure it did if we were on a Superbowl run. Betts has missed games every year due to injury, despite playing a limited role. Portis had an injury that was bound and did impact him over and over again until the IRed him. If we were that Superbowl team, if the D hadn't imploded, if Brunell hadn't aged 30 years offseason, then having that insurance back made sense. It wasn't a good decision, it wasn't a decision I agreed with, but you could understand why they went there. It was a panic move. It showed a real lack of patience and savvy by the FO. And it proved why having the coach making all the personnel moves isn't always a good idea. This trade was purely short-term over long-term. The Steelers were in the market for Duckett too, but they weren't going to pay that price for a 1-yr rental. So they were patient and picked up Najeh Davenport after the Packers cut him. Same style RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 On Redskins radio they are saying the Duckett move is going to cost us a 3rd round pick this year and a 4th in 2008. A 3rd and a 4th round pick for a one year rental. Absolutely terrible. This team needs a GM but will never get one because Joe Gibbs' is the team President. Bringing one in wouldn't mean much because they wouldn't have the authority needed to disagree with the head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebster21 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 would you be saying this if Portis was injured for the entire season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.