IChiefLikeCP26 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Well, Duckett was worth a third rounder...but we didn't use him/need him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 What kind of cornerback or safety do you think we could get in the third round? The third round isn't necessarily for starters. He's good value for the trade, I think. He never plays and is gone in a few months. His value is "0." I have contributed nearly as much to the 2006 'Skins. And I'm a short white guy watching on tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 What I do know is, the gamble we took by getting him for a third round pick was probably about equal to or better than the gamble of actually USING that third round pick. Except third round picks stay for three to four years. He is gone next month. Bye bye. See ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I don't see a way to polish this turd. Jason If Jason can't defend the trade, it is truly indefensible. It's like Om saying, "You know, I don't have a good feeling 'bout this team." Or Bubba saying, "All in all, that game was officiated well." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The guy is a first round talent that we grabbed for a 3rd rounder. That can only be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digger Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I think the Duckett move was a great one. That's one less uniform to wash after each game, and that's much more environmentally friendly than some back that goes out there, runs hard, and gets all dirty. A few more players like him and I think the ‘Skins should get a tax break from the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The guy is a first round talent that we grabbed for a 3rd rounder. That can only be right. ....four one year. Also, first round talents tend to - what's the word for it? oh yea - Play! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The guy is a first round talent that we grabbed for a 3rd rounder. That can only be right. Problem is we didn't grab him. We barrowed him, then didn't use him and next month he's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 If you base the trade solely on what it meant for 2006, it was positive. We (arguably) got a year out of a guy instead of waiting until the 2007 season. What? Are you serious? I hope this is a sarcastic post. Either that, or you just nominated yourself for the annual Vinny Cerrato Worst Personnel Man in Football Award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The guy is a first round talent that we grabbed for a 3rd rounder. That can only be right. Does giving up a third rd pick, possibly dropping down in the 1st rd and possibly losing TJ make that right? I don't see how anyone on here could justify this trade considering what has transformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The guy is a first round talent that we grabbed for a 3rd rounder. That can only be right. This just boggles my mind. Do you really believe this? I don't understand at all. Should I feel sorry for this kind of thinking, or just laugh? Here's the deal: we paid a 3rd rounder and the equivalent of a 4th rounder. Two picks, not one. And we got a 3rd string running back in the last year of his contract in return. That's "right"? I guess I'm wrong: we could do worse than Vinny Cerrato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 If Jason can't defend the trade' date=' it is truly indefensible. It's like Om saying, "You know, I don't have a good feeling 'bout this team." Or Bubba saying, "All in all, that game was officiated well."[/quote']Hey, I've been on record from day one of the trade not likeing it. It is the one bad move I think the front office made. I actually did like signing Arch and Lloyd. Unfortunately, it hasn't quite worked out yet for those. (And may or may not work out in the end.) But, at least they were signed to multi-year contracts. I've spent the year looking for the grand plan for Duckett, and I still don't see it. With Betts resigned, I don't see how Duckett fits here in the long term. It is really the only move that didn't really make that much sense. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I think the Duckett move was a great one. That's one less uniform to wash after each game, and that's much more environmentally friendly than some back that goes out there, runs hard, and gets all dirty. A few more players like him and I think the ‘Skins should get a tax break from the government. A tax break? Yeah, I think they're due one under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, ADA Protections for People with Mental Disabilities. Vinny would fill out the paperwork, but he ate all his crayons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 In other words, how would you have felt if we got a guy like Duckett in the third round via the normal route (drafting him)? I say it wasn't a bad move. Most teams would jump at a third round pick like that! And he's still pretty young, with pretty low mileage. With 3 RB's all locked up I'd be pretty pissed if we drafted another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 The guy is a first round talent that we grabbed for a 3rd rounder. That can only be right. No, that usually means something's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 If Jason can't defend the trade' date=' it is truly indefensible. It's like Om saying, "You know, I don't have a good feeling 'bout this team." Or Bubba saying, "All in all, that game was officiated well."[/quote']Or Art saying "Vinny Cerrato is a valuable asset to the Redskins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Does giving up a third rd pick, possibly dropping down in the 1st rd and possibly losing TJ make that right? I don't see how anyone on here could justify this trade considering what has transformed. Nothing has happened with trading picks, though. It's still an unsolved mystery what is going to happen come draft day. If you know, then please enlighten the rest of us so we can all intelligently speak about it. Until then, all the talk about trading first rounders is just conjecture. We also don't know what will happen with TJ this off-season. What if the FO resigns him for cheap and then orchestrates a trade for a MLB or CB? You people are so quick to assume the negative before ANYTHING has even happened. At least wait and see before you go calling it a busted trade. As it sits now we have a guy who was drafted in the 1st round, and we acquired him for a 3rd rounder. There is nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Should I feel sorry for this kind of thinking, or just laugh? Do you know something about the trade that I don't? If so you should speak up because there is an entire thread dedicated to figuring that out. Until we know the status of TJ for next season, how can you make a judgement for or against it? Wouldn't that be an assumption, and now I get to laugh at you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Nothing has happened with trading picks, though. It's still an unsolved mystery what is going to happen come draft day. If you know, then please enlighten the rest of us so we can all intelligently speak about it. Until then, all the talk about trading first rounders is just conjecture. We also don't know what will happen with TJ this off-season. What if the FO resigns him for cheap and then orchestrates a trade for a MLB or CB? You people are so quick to assume the negative before ANYTHING has even happened. At least wait and see before you go calling it a busted trade. As it sits now we have a guy who was drafted in the 1st round, and we acquired him for a 3rd rounder. There is nothing wrong with that. Because I am just as confused as everyone else and have never claimed to know what the end result of that 1st rounder I chosose to throw around the word "possibly" in regards to that "unsolved mystery." We are just exploring the scenarios that COULD take place and so far the majority agrees that this could "possibly" be a terrible trade. Your argument that we got 1st round talent for a 3rd round pick would and will be justified if we would've and will utilize that talent and then I'll agree with your logic. But, if my scenario does play out, don't you agree that this would've been a bad move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 We are just exploring the scenarios that COULD take place and so far the majority agrees that this could "possibly" be a terrible trade. Your argument that we got 1st round talent for a 3rd round pick would and will be justified if we would've and will utilize that talent and then I'll agree with your logic. But, if my scenario does play out, don't you agree that this would've been a bad move? You don't think Duckett on the roster might have had something to do with Betts playing like he has? Maybe just MAYBE having Duckett sitting there made Betts step up his game to a level that would keep TJ off the field. Up until this season Betts had the injury bug now all of a sudden he is playing career ball. Thing to make you go hmmmmmm. Regardless of that particular angle you can't argue with the fact that we have a 1st round talent on our roster and we gave up a 3rd for it. We are speaking in the present tense here. Who knows what will happen in the future? If Duckett leaves and signs somewhere else for 2007, then it can be declared that we wasted a 3rd rounder. If he stays, what will you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I don't and didn't really like the trade... particularly for what we gave up (much like the Portis trade - I liked getting Duckett but the cost seemed too high for me), however I wanted to look at this from the coaches perspective. FYI, I don't buy that if Portis and Betts were both injured then we should just say "it's not our year" and move on as someone mentioned. Betts had hamstring problems at the time and has had a few injury concerns. Coaches either weren't sure that Cartwright could be our #1 (he's proven he can in a single game - see STL last year - but who knows over the course of the year), or were concerned that were he elevated to starter we'd have to take him off of teams, particularly returning kicks. Perhaps coaches were concerned that were the above situation to occur, then Broughton would be our backup - he has struggled at times and they may not have had confidence in him for this role yet (especially if something happened to cartwright and Broughton was forced into the #1 slot. Sure, sellers could fill the role of TJ, but then who fills the role of Sellers? Yes, there is Wright and Broughton, but how much of a downgrade would that be (more importantly, how big of a downgrade would the coaches perceive this to be?)? All in all, my take is that the idea was a good one, but the picks given up and the brevity of the contract make this a highly questionable move. On the other hand, if we resign duckett (not that I expect this) and he becomes a force as our short yardage back next year (working w/ the o-line and coaches in the offseason may help this) then I can live with giving up the picks for him. Unfortunately, I think Broughton or White will be up to speed by next year which could nullify any need or justification for having Duckett on our roster. If neither of the two are up to speed then we need to question coach Byner and put a couple of more ticks in the bad moves column for this franchise. My dos centavos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 We also don't know what will happen with TJ this off-season. What if the FO resigns him for cheap and then orchestrates a trade for a MLB or CB?Wait a minute. Before you were going off how Duckett's a 1st rd talent. Now he's going to resign cheap? Sorry, that ain't happening. Only way he resigns is if the Skins overpay him. Then if that happens, they have to find a team willing to trade for an overpaid/overrated RB. No team's going to do that before the draft. If you haven't noticed, RBs don't bring a lot of value in a trade unless the Skins are the team trading for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 There is no way to defend this trade. Give it up. Resign Duckett and trade him? Please. Why would he resign with the Skins? You think he likes getting 40 carries a season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGibbs Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 You don't think Duckett on the roster might have had something to do with Betts playing like he has? Maybe just MAYBE having Duckett sitting there made Betts step up his game to a level that would keep TJ off the field. Up until this season Betts had the injury bug now all of a sudden he is playing career ball. Thing to make you go hmmmmmm.Regardless of that particular angle you can't argue with the fact that we have a 1st round talent on our roster and we gave up a 3rd for it. We are speaking in the present tense here. Who knows what will happen in the future? If Duckett leaves and signs somewhere else for 2007, then it can be declared that we wasted a 3rd rounder. If he stays, what will you say? I told you that I'd agree if he is on the roster next year then yes it was a worthy trade. Here you are making an assumption on why Betts seems to have just turned it on because of Duckett being behind him. Yet, you chastise us for making an assumption on the whole Duckett deal. Do you see the irony here? Do we as you put it, get to "laugh at you?" Things that make you go "hmmmmmmm." :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 I \Coaches either weren't sure that Cartwright could be our #1 (he's proven he can in a single game - see STL last year - but who knows over the course of the year), or were concerned that were he elevated to starter we'd have to take him off of teams, particularly returning kicks. Perhaps coaches were concerned that were the above situation to occur, then Broughton would be our backup - he has struggled at times and they may not have had confidence in him for this role yet (especially if something happened to cartwright and Broughton was forced into the #1 slot). Then just sign Najeh Davenport off the street and hope that out of Portis, Betts, Cartwright, and Davenport, someone can play. That's basically what we did anyway, except with Duckett instead of Davenport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.