3DaysLatr Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Alright, this won't be popular but here goes anyway. When did Gibbs ever have one of the Lagues "ELITE" backs before? Before anyone gets crazy about Riggins let me explain that he and Darrell are my most beloved Skins ever and I mean no disrespect to him by saying he wasn't an "ELITE" back. What I mean is that when Gibbs inherited him and the team in '81 he was more or less on the scrap heap and then exploded for Gibbs. This is the case with all his backs, they were pounders that others were giving up on and then Joe got them geared up and away they went. Ex.s Riggins, Riggs, Rogers, Byner. So why then are we going to trade away the 42nd pick in the draft and arguably the best DB in the NFL for a 205 pound speedster. Gibbs has worked magic before with re-tread backs and I would have really preferred to have seen the team use Bailey to land High draft picks or a stud Defensive end and a 2 or 3. I know this is all precipated by the market for Bailey but still, we're giving away alot in the current scenario. For anyone who thinks I'm taking a shot at Portis, I'm not. He's been a great back over tha past two years and I hear the argument for him. I just think that Gibbs is capable of getting what we need out of someone that won't cost so much. P.S. Sorry for long-winded post, thanks to anyone reading through the whole thing. :dallasuck :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 If Gibbs didn't want this trade it would not be happening. Roland Bailey doesn't want to play here anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I agree with you 3dayslatr. I think we may need a better back, but Betts could do OK if he stayed healthy. Portis is a great back and I don't think we need a great back. I'd rather get a good dline and a good CB for Bailey. As I've said before, we need a lot of good players, not a few great ones. BUT, if we can get a great back like Portis, and still get some good players on the d-line, well then that's just tits! (that one was for Bufford) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
More Complete Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I think Gibbs want's to win NOW. Perhaps he sees somthing in the leauge that has changed. Like the numbers backs are putting up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Maybe he's noticed he doesn't have 3 good recievers that can make a rb's job easier. So he decided to get a monster RB that will make the play action more dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsblitz Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I think Clinton Portis is an excellent RB, but for Bailey AND A 2ND ROUNDER? Bad idea. That would leave us with just 2 picks this year. Champ was drafted in the 1st round, Portis went in the 2nd. I know Champ wants out, but don't give up a 2ND ROUND PICK to let him leave. I just don't get it. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 canidate.....need i say more:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirkNC Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Where a player went in the draft has no real bearing on what the worth is after a couple years in the league. What does matter is the play demonstrated and the upside still perceived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by 3DaysLatr Alright, this won't be popular but here goes anyway. When did Gibbs ever have one of the Lagues "ELITE" backs before? Before anyone gets crazy about Riggins let me explain that he and Darrell are my most beloved Skins ever and I mean no disrespect to him by saying he wasn't an "ELITE" back. What I mean is that when Gibbs inherited him and the team in '81 he was more or less on the scrap heap and then exploded for Gibbs. This is the case with all his backs, they were pounders that others were giving up on and then Joe got them geared up and away they went. Ex.s Riggins, Riggs, Rogers, Byner. Do you recall the compensation that the Skins paid for Riggins, Riggs, Rogers and Byner? Take a good long look at the draft database to see how Gibb's teams were built. It wasn't by the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankbones Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Hmmm... I guess being in the HOF doesn't make you an elite back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I think Clinton Portis is an excellent RB, but for Bailey AND A 2ND ROUNDER? Bad idea. That would leave us with just 2 picks this year. Champ was drafted in the 1st round, Portis went in the 2nd. I know Champ wants out, but don't give up a 2ND ROUND PICK to let him leave. I just don't get it WE HAVE NO LEVERAGE!!! Remember all the teams coming out of the woodwork to offer us a first, a second and a player? Or a first and a second? Or an early first? Never happened. Champ's an excellent CB, perhaps the best, but he didn't draw a bidding war and everyone knows that he's leaving DC come rain or come shine, so Portis for Champ and a 2nd is a pretty freaking good deal, especially since Portis is absolutely brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Ernie5 WE HAVE NO LEVERAGE!!! Remember all the teams coming out of the woodwork to offer us a first, a second and a player? Or a first and a second? Or an early first? Never happened. Champ's an excellent CB, perhaps the best, but he didn't draw a bidding war and everyone knows that he's leaving DC come rain or come shine, so Portis for Champ and a 2nd is a pretty freaking good deal, especially since Portis is absolutely brilliant. Correct. Considering that the Lions are rumored to be reluctant to part with a 1st round pick... and everybody has scoffed at the Jets offer.... what's the market value of Champ Bailey right now with a flood of talent CBs on the market? It's decreased significantly. Obviously, some people have an inflated value of Bailey. Everyone wants to renegotiate Portis' contract to make sure he's happy here before we even trade for him.... Of course, no one acknowledges that Bailey has been making plenty of comments about his unlikely return to Washington AND having refused a solid contract offer. So let's just "franchise" him and keep him rather than giving him away. Of course, then you have an unhappy camper... the same reason why you want the Skins to renegotiate Portis' offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I've been making the same point about Portis for days now. We don't need his amount of talent to be successful. We aren't absent leverage with Bailey, because we have franchised him and we can afford to pay him the franchised amount. Who knows, he may even warm to the idea of playing in Williams' defense under Gibbs and sign an extension. We hold the cards boys, not Champ. So don't panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Redman - While the Redskins certainly hold the cards.... You really haven't ingested everything that Cerrato and Gibbs have been saying from the very start. The want lunchbox players who WANT to play football and be Redskins. That's how you develop a football program. Paying top dollar for players who'd really rather not be here is what got us into this mess to begin with. If you need to sacrafice a 2nd round pick to institute a football program.. you do it. And you can replace that draft pick with a free agent pickup. That simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 How do we want to know that Portis "wants to play football?" After two short years and at 22 years of age, he's complaining about money in Denver on a team that's winning. All we know about him is that he doesn't want to play in Denver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by redman How do we want to know that Portis "wants to play football?" After two short years and at 22 years of age, he's complaining about money in Denver on a team that's winning. All we know about him is that he doesn't want to play in Denver. He was on the radio saying that due to the fact the redskins want to trade Roland Bailey for him tells him allot about the Redskins. He sounded like he welcomed playing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 It is pointless, I dont mind doing an even trade, but then that leaves us one corner less still. There are some decent running backs as free agents who can be good, as we said, Gibbs always created star runners. Giving up the pick leaves one less for the defensive line, cornerbacks, and tight ends. And honestly, would they be able to make good LONG-TERM cap friendly contracts with many free agents? Also look at the record of the redskins free agents, most end up performing not as well, though last year the ones from the Jets did fairly well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Griff He was on the radio saying that due to the fact the redskins want to trade Roland Bailey for him tells him allot about the Redskins. He sounded like he welcomed playing here. Tell me how that can't be interpreted just as much as putting pressure on Denver - and the Redskins - to pay him what he wants versus just being a true statement about his desires. Quoting a player "saying all the right things" is not the way to convince me on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by redman All we know about him is that he doesn't want to play in Denver. That's completely inaccurate. All we know is he wants to renegotiate his contract because he feels he's underpaid. We also know he's threatened to possibly holdout.. and we've read stories that he's backed off from those comments. And we also know he's under contract for 2 more years and basically has to honor that contract. I don't blame Shanahan for wanting to get rid of a player who won't honor his contract and makes life unnecessarily difficult for the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3DaysLatr Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Do you recall the compensation that the Skins paid for Riggins, Riggs, Rogers and Byner? Riggins was acquired so far back that it's a BMFT, but upon research he was a FA acquisition (Football Encyclopedia 1994 Edition Pg 604). I remember vividly that we got Byner for Mike Oliphant (this was one of the worst trades in NFL history but Byner fumbled his way into the Brown's doghouse. Compensation for Rogers is not listed and since the Same source listed above (page 807) calls it a trade and I don't recall the parameters I'd assume it was a mid-range draft pick (I'd think I'd remember a first rounder going, though I could be wrong). The trade for Riggs is called "heralded" but after taking a look at his numbers for the prior season (John Settle's back-up, rushed for 488 yards, 1TD and 22 receps) I'd think 1st round compensation would be ludicrous though I remember we seemed to never draft in the 1st round in those days. Anyway, these moves did not decimate the team. Not and I don't think we got ripped off by any of them either. BTW: Do you know the exact compensations? 4 Riggs and Rogers I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by WallyG3 I think we may need a better back, but Betts could do OK if he stayed healthy. Two things wrong with this. First, we have no idea how good he really is, and so far it isn't that promising... and he can't block, he wouldn't even be able to block 90 year old Bruce Smith. Second, maybe he could do OK if he stayed healthy?. That's a lot to ask. Why would you gamble away your entire season on a gimpy runningback who really hasn't done anything yet, especially when your whole offense depends on the running game? Gibbs himself said that he would be seeking a RB in the draft since he views Betts as a 3rd down back, according to the Sunday Post. The rest of the RBs are 3rd down backs as well, with Rock being a little different. Maybe he can carry some of the load also with Portis here. Whoever says our starting RB is on our roster is wrong. This happens to be Gibbs' view as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Hobo It is pointless, I dont mind doing an even trade, but then that leaves us one corner less still. There are some decent running backs as free agents who can be good, as we said, Gibbs always created star runners. Gibbs didn't create star runners. He traded for them. And there's better FA corners on the market right now than runningbacks. Only a fool would argue otherwise. You do understand that.. even if the Skins were to NOT franchise Bailey.. as long as they sign a FA CB of equal talent and salary... there's no real loss right? It's exactly the same value. Would you rather have Bailey and a 2nd round pick OR Portis and a Plummer/Springs/Winfield. I'll take the latter and be overjoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by redman Tell me how that can't be interpreted just as much as putting pressure on Denver - and the Redskins - to pay him what he wants versus just being a true statement about his desires. Quoting a player "saying all the right things" is not the way to convince me on this one. There are plenty of players who don't say all the right things. I am not saying that this is not the case, but it goes both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by 3DaysLatr BTW: Do you know the exact compensations? 4 Riggs and Rogers I mean. It's going to be in the roster db soon George Rogers - In a trade with New Orleans, April 26, 1985, Washington sent their 1st round choise in '85 in exchane for Rgoers, and the Saints fifth, tenth and 11th picks in the '85. John Riggins - Signed as a free agent in June 10, 1976. However, consider he was coming off his first 1000-yard season in his first 4 years in the NFL - along with 8 TDs - so he was hardly an NFL castoff pickup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Flames Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Die Hard Gibbs didn't create star runners. He traded for them. And there's better FA corners on the market right now than runningbacks. Only a fool would argue otherwise. You do understand that.. even if the Skins were to NOT franchise Bailey.. as long as they sign a FA CB of equal talent and salary... there's no real loss right? It's exactly the same value. Would you rather have Bailey and a 2nd round pick OR Portis and a Plummer/Springs/Winfield. I'll take the latter and be overjoyed. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.