Hate to say this, but Dallas'.........

[Eagles_Legendz]

Originally posted by Art

EL,

I would not be surprised to see Brunell surpass McNabb in every statistical measure of a quarterback throwing the ball. From completion percentage to yards to touchdowns to efficiency rating. That's not to say I expect a better record than the Eagles, but, a lot of the importance McNabb is viewed as having within the Eagles offense is diminished by how well the team did without him in the lineup a couple of years ago.

Simply stated, winning football games is not really a measure that is always a direct tribute to a quarterback. Dilfer has won games too. So does Fiedler for the most part. It was assumed that McNabb was central to the Eagles and when you did ok without him -- though statistically you diminished -- it eliminated some of that aura.

Brunell has traditionally been a BETTER quarterback than McNabb though. Far more accurate and efficient even as the Jags got weaker as a team. McNabb does have intangibles. No doubt. But, you can win a lot of games with Collins -- who has been to the Super Bowl -- and Brunell as well, as efficiency does matter, and I don't particularly like Collins .

I think you are right to say Woodson is in decline and Lewis is on the way up. I also think Dawkins is better than Williams, so I won't argue the point with you as it can go either way to be honest.

I think this will prove to be a very telling year for McNabb. Two seasons ago, before his injury, he had put up some fairly impressive statistics, and last year, the final ten games he had the best QB rating in the league (of course I know it's convenient of me to drop 6 generally horrid games, but I'm doing this to prove a point so ). McNabb CAN be a good passer, he has shown glimpses of this in past. I, for one, attribute much of his hesitancy and lack of accuracy on his receiving corps. With Owens, he no longer has the excuse that his WR aren't getting open. If he doesn't produce this year, many of his critics complaints will be validated.

And, I realize that winning games is not the sole way to measure a quarterback, but Dilfer, Fiedler, and Collins? I was thinking more along the lines of Brady, another QB who doesn't put up particularly gaudy numbers, but knows how to win and rarely makes mistakes. I would take Brady over McNabb because Brady has proven he can win when it's all on the line and McNabb hasn't, but I don't think it's unfair to make the comparison.

Brunell's had Smith and McCardell throughout his career, and McNabb has had Thrash and Pinkston. Now that he has Owens, we'll see how his numbers are affected.

[dallasfan]

Originally posted by TC4

The Cowboys D-line has speed but not size

The Redskins should be able to run all day long on them with Portis

That's not true, both are our ends are 275 lbs plus, and our two NTs are over 315. Glover is undersized, but that's it. Last year we had the #3 run deffense in the league, so I don't understand how replacing the 265 lb Ekuban with the 275 Wiley will allow teams to run all over us.

And ART I think more GMs would take Wiley over Daniels. Daniels is 31, has 0 double digit sack seasons, and also hasn't done much the past two seasons. Wiley is 29 (won't be 30 untill november 30), has put up double digit sacks twice in his career, and is more physically gifted. There's no ignoring Wiley is a risk, but ignoring price, I don't think any GM would take Daniels over Wiley.

[Art]

DF,

Wiley has been a professional player for seven years, yet he's only been a starter for the majority of the time for four years. Daniels has been a professional player for eight years and he's been a primary starter for seven of them. You say Daniels hasn't done much the last two years? Daniels has eight sacks the last two years. Wiley has nine. Daniels has a few more tackles in one fewer game, but tackles for defensive line isn't really a critical measure as scheme matters there.

Here's something else for you. Our linebackers coach was the San Diego Chargers defensive coordinator a year ago. Our defensive line coach was the Chicago Bears defensive coordinator a year ago. Daniels was cut. We immediately went after him hard on the recommendation of Blanche. Wiley was cut, and we didn't even give him a whiff. Hell, we even brought in Kenny Holmes -- who Gregg Williams once coached -- but didn't even consider Wiley.

That's a telling sign. Recently there was an assessment of Dallas and Washington by the Sporting News and the War Room crew. I think the War Room is filled with a bunch of morons, but, they are headed by a former NFL scout and would be something of an unbiased source and they tipped wildly to Daniels over Wiley.

More, we're not even said to be relying on Daniels to start for us. You are counting on Wiley to start for you. There isn't much of a way to prove one way or the other which guy most people would take. But, we know which guy one independent source would take. And we know how highly thought of Daniels was by his defensive coach versus how shunned Wiley was by his.

The evidence piles up to point in only one direction and that can't be ignored simply because Wiley is 18 months younger or because Wiley had a couple of good years a couple of years ago.

In just 11 fewer total games compared to Daniels, Wiley has 68 fewer solo tackles (a category he couldn't catch up in) and three fewer sacks (a category he could). Daniels is taller and bigger compared to Wiley and can play both tackle and end where Wiley can't.

By most measures, it's hard to conclude Wiley is better. It's not so hard to conclude Daniels is, whether he is or not. So, instead of trying to do the hard thing, do the easy .

[McNabbOwnsFedEx]

Originally posted by Art

That's not to say I expect a better record than the Eagles, but, a lot of the importance McNabb is viewed as having within the Eagles offense is diminished by how well the team did without him in the lineup a couple of years ago.

Our defense flat out dominated in those 6 games without McNabb. Koy and AJ were asked to just not lose games, we ran significantly more and our total offensive production was significantly less without McNabb. We played 1 good team over that stretch, and lost by 3 points and we only scored 7. We only allowed 10pts a game over those last 6 games and the defense scored 3 TD's over that span as well.

[Art]

Originally posted by McNabbOwnsFedEx

Our defense flat out dominated in those 6 games without McNabb. Koy and AJ were asked to just not lose games, we ran significantly more and our total offensive production was significantly less without McNabb. We played 1 good team over that stretch, and lost by 3 points and we only scored 7. We only allowed 10pts a game over those last 6 games and the defense scored 3 TD's over that span as well.

Right.

So, as I said, the individual importance of McNabb was greatly diminished in the stretch of games he missed and your team did well. You're right as to why it did well. And that's why McNabb's individual importance is no longer quite the same as it was before he missed games.

[Dirk Diggler]

Ken

You said:

Most GMs in the league know how hard it is to find a true shutdown corner. Good running backs are much more plentiful.

Good running backs? So Bailey is a "shutdown" corner but Portis is merely "good" ??? I'll tell you how good he is - only 3 backs in the history of the league have rushed for more yardage in their first 2 seasons. I'd guess that the NFL has seen over 10,000 backs or so tote the rock in it's 95 year history and this guy's #4 so far. Not too shabby. Also of note is the fact that he only started 25 out of a possible 32 games. I'd call Portis an exceptional back, a top 3 ballcarrier.

Now you can come back with "it was the system, stupid."

You also said:

The money is not all that different either. Bailey received 3 milliion more guaranteed. The rest of the money is irrelavent. We all know how the Bonus money works, right?

Technically yes, he's only guaranteed 3 more mill. However, if you consider that neither of these players will be cut in their first 2 seasons regardless of injury because the cap hit would be catastrophic - it's really more realistic to think of their first 3 seasons as being the true guaranteed part.

This is where you see that the Redskins are paying Portis about 25% less than Bailey over the first 3 seasons of the contacts. That 3 mill difference you menitoned as being a "Drop in the bucket" is actually more like 7 mill.

The True Damage? Bailey will take home a staggering 27 mill in the first 3 years of his contract!!! If the Skins had paid Bailey like this I would have burned my #24 jersey. Hey, more power to him. He wanted to be paid like Ray Lewis and he found a team that would do it. It sure as hell doesn't mean he's worth it though.

The Bottom Line

Why did the Redskins have to throw in an extra pick for a player with approximately the same ability?

Well, as we can see, Portis is considerably cheaper. He's younger. He's shown true game-breaking ability and production that is practically unmatched in the history of the league. He even has a higher per carry average than any player who has ever carried the ball as much - 5.5 ypc!!! Shall I go on?

So it came as no suprise that the Skins had to add some kind of sweetener to the deal. Was a 2nd a little much? Honestly, I think it was. But the Skins had no #3 as a result of the Brunell deal and a #4 was not going to blow anyone's skirt up. I'd have prefered a player as the throw in but I was hardly crying in my cheerios when I found out it was a #2. And when Portis is playing in Pro Bowl after Pro Bowl for years to come, I wont even remember that extra pick that was the deal closer.

[Art]

Ken does repeat the standard refrain of, "It's harder to find an elite corner than it is to find an elite runner." Now, Ken phrases it as an insult that makes Bailey better than he's been and Portis worse than he's been, but, essentially, it is a repeat of what he's heard so many others say.

And yet, no one seems to capture the proper question for cases like this. We all probably agree that it's harder to find an elite corner than it is to find an elite runner. But, would you TRADE an elite runner for an elite corner? Cowboy fans know you'd never trade Smith for Sanders. Ken is confused and has tried to create an imaginary situation where the Cowboys could have won more with Sanders than with Smith, but, seeing through that ruse, we know Cowboy fans would NEVER allow that.

While an elite corner almost always comes from earlier picks in the draft and an elite runner can be had throughout the draft, that doesn't mean you'd surrender a top runner for a top corner when you know what you have.

[dallasfan]

Originally posted by Art

DF,

Wiley has been a professional player for seven years, yet he's only been a starter for the majority of the time for four years. Daniels has been a professional player for eight years and he's been a primary starter for seven of them. You say Daniels hasn't done much the last two years? Daniels has eight sacks the last two years. Wiley has nine. Daniels has a few more tackles in one fewer game, but tackles for defensive line isn't really a critical measure as scheme matters there.

Here's something else for you. Our linebackers coach was the San Diego Chargers defensive coordinator a year ago. Our defensive line coach was the Chicago Bears defensive coordinator a year ago. Daniels was cut. We immediately went after him hard on the recommendation of Blanche. Wiley was cut, and we didn't even give him a whiff. Hell, we even brought in Kenny Holmes -- who Gregg Williams once coached -- but didn't even consider Wiley.

That's a telling sign. Recently there was an assessment of Dallas and Washington by the Sporting News and the War Room crew. I think the War Room is filled with a bunch of morons, but, they are headed by a former NFL scout and would be something of an unbiased source and they tipped wildly to Daniels over Wiley.

More, we're not even said to be relying on Daniels to start for us. You are counting on Wiley to start for you. There isn't much of a way to prove one way or the other which guy most people would take. But, we know which guy one independent source would take. And we know how highly thought of Daniels was by his defensive coach versus how shunned Wiley was by his.

The evidence piles up to point in only one direction and that can't be ignored simply because Wiley is 18 months younger or because Wiley had a couple of good years a couple of years ago.

In just 11 fewer total games compared to Daniels, Wiley has 68 fewer solo tackles (a category he couldn't catch up in) and three fewer sacks (a category he could). Daniels is taller and bigger compared to Wiley and can play both tackle and end where Wiley can't.

By most measures, it's hard to conclude Wiley is better. It's not so hard to conclude Daniels is, whether he is or not. So, instead of trying to do the hard thing, do the easy .

A couple points, just becuse a player has been a starter for 7 out of 8 years as opposed to 4 of the last 7, doesn't mean much. Why did you guys persue Daniels and not Wiley, who knows, but you should definately consider the contract both players got. Phillip Daniels signed a pretty small contract, and Wiley signed a much larger one. Does that mean you guys got a steal in Daniels, While we over payed for Wiley? Possibly, but I don't think anyone has suggested either. And I don't think it's far fetched to assume your d-coordinator has more say than your linebackers coach.

Your also quick to pint out stats (meaningless ones like tackles), after you pointed out that Wiley has only been a starter the past 4 years, and Daniels has been one for 7. And the one meaningful stat, sacks, wiley has an edge.

BTW, I realize that Daniels has only 1 less sack than Wiley the past 2 years, and that's why my original post stated, Daniels hasn't done much the past 2 years also, since many skins fans where claiming Wiley was washed up due to his past 2 years.

[RW31]

Originally posted by Art

Ken does repeat the standard refrain of, "It's harder to find an elite corner than it is to find an elite runner." Now, Ken phrases it as an insult that makes Bailey better than he's been and Portis worse than he's been, but, essentially, it is a repeat of what he's heard so many others say.

And yet, no one seems to capture the proper question for cases like this. We all probably agree that it's harder to find an elite corner than it is to find an elite runner. But, would you TRADE an elite runner for an elite corner? Cowboy fans know you'd never trade Smith for Sanders. Ken is confused and has tried to create an imaginary situation where the Cowboys could have won more with Sanders than with Smith, but, seeing through that ruse, we know Cowboy fans would NEVER allow that.

While an elite corner almost always comes from earlier picks in the draft and an elite runner can be had throughout the draft, that doesn't mean you'd surrender a top runner for a top corner when you know what you have.

Gotta disagree here. You do trade an elite runner for an elite corner because it is fairly easy finding a rb that can get you near the same production in later rounds than it is a cb. Example: Saints with ricky williams and duece mcallister(granted duece was in the first, but he gave more production anyways),Colts(for one season), and even denver!

[Art]

Originally posted by RW31

Gotta disagree here. You do trade an elite runner for an elite corner because it is fairly easy finding a rb that can get you near the same production in later rounds than it is a cb. Example: Saints with ricky williams and duece mcallister(granted duece was in the first, but he gave more production anyways),Colts(for one season), and even denver!

And, again, by saying this what you're saying is you'd trade Emmitt Smith for Deion Sanders. Simply put, I don't believe any Cowboy fan would say such a thing, so I doubt you mean what you say.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Art

And, again, by saying this what you're saying is you'd trade Emmitt Smith for Deion Sanders. Simply put, I don't believe any Cowboy fan would say such a thing, so I doubt you mean what you say.

I would take Emmitt over Deion. We are talking about the all time leading rusher and rushing TD champion. I think Deion was the best CB ever and maybe the best PR ever, but Emmitt was also the heart of a dynasty.

I think I would take Portis over Champ. It is a tough call because RB careers are so short so there is a bigger risk. However, if you told me both players would perform over the next five years like they did the past two, I would take Portis for sure. On the other hand I think Champ has a better chance of making a smooth transition to his new team than Portis does. You can argue that Denver's O added a lot to Portis' performance, but you can't really argue that the Skins D helped Champ.

Right now Dallas has huge holes at CB (with Edwards unsigned) and RB. If you said I could chose between Portis and Champ to go to Dallas, I would take Portis. But then again I would take Champ and a high 2nd round pick over Portis. But I don't think either team did too bad.

Champ didn't want to be a Skin anymore so they had to deal him. Denver watched Manning rip them apart and send them home in the playoffs. They also seem to get good production out of the RB spot when anyone plays there. I wouldn't be surprised to see Denver draft a 1k yard RB with the Skins 2nd round pick and improve their pass D with Champ.

Both teams can win in this trade.

[Art]

Nerm,

Champ played for defensive coordinators named Ray Rhodes, Kurt Schottenheimer and Marvin Lewis here. He was on defenses that ranked fourth in the league, tenth in the league and fifth in the league. It would certainly seem a flawed point of view to say he wasn't helped at all by the defense here.

He's a corner who drew a large percentage of man coverage in his role. He doesn't have much to pick up during these sorts of transitions. As for Portis, we'll see soon enough how much he was helped by the Denver offense. Denver fans who've come to this board SWEAR the system had nothing to do with it because Portis isn't a Denver system back so the entire system had to change to suit his skills.

That is an answer we'll know for certain soon enough. I think you express the sort of reason that is expected of any Cowboy fan when assessing this trade. You know the value of Emmitt and you know the value of Deion. I would go so far as to say in 1991 if you had the option for Emmitt Smith or Deion and the 12th pick of the second round, you'd STILL have taken Smith applying the hindsight you know to have taken place in his career.

Here's what Portis may become in D.C. He may also blow a knee out and never be the same. Of course, so too may Champ.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Art

Nerm,

Champ played for defensive coordinators named Ray Rhodes, Kurt Schottenheimer and Marvin Lewis here. He was on defenses that ranked fourth in the league, tenth in the league and fifth in the league. It would certainly seem a flawed point of view to say he wasn't helped at all by the defense here.

He's a corner who drew a large percentage of man coverage in his role. He doesn't have much to pick up during these sorts of transitions. As for Portis, we'll see soon enough how much he was helped by the Denver offense. Denver fans who've come to this board SWEAR the system had nothing to do with it because Portis isn't a Denver system back so the entire system had to change to suit his skills.

That is an answer we'll know for certain soon enough. I think you express the sort of reason that is expected of any Cowboy fan when assessing this trade. You know the value of Emmitt and you know the value of Deion. I would go so far as to say in 1991 if you had the option for Emmitt Smith or Deion and the 12th pick of the second round, you'd STILL have taken Smith applying the hindsight you know to have taken place in his career.

Here's what Portis may become in D.C. He may also blow a knee out and never be the same. Of course, so too may Champ.

I agree, time will tell on this one. Knowing what Emmitt did and knowing what Deion did I would take Emmitt over Deion. However, we don't know what Champ and Portis will do. We do know that Portis isn't Emmitt and Champ isn't Deion. I don't know why you keep bringing up these names, but I'm sure it makes sense to you. In Portis and Champ we are not talking about the best players to ever play the position... at least not yet. As far as we know, we are talking about Deion vs. Christian Okoye.

I view this debate as being very similar to the debates Dallas and Redskin fans have had in the past. In the past you have explained how smart it was for the Skins to sign guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Jaquez Green. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I think it is a good trade for both teams.

[Yomar]

Let me break it down for you with some hard hitting analysis:

Quincy Carter sucks, Keyshawn Johnson sucks, running game sucks

Defense is good not great

Conclusion: Dallas sucks

[RW31]

Originally posted by Art

And, again, by saying this what you're saying is you'd trade Emmitt Smith for Deion Sanders. Simply put, I don't believe any Cowboy fan would say such a thing, so I doubt you mean what you say.

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. Had you asked me this question before emitt became the great standard for runningbacks i would have said yes. Fact is you could of used your second pick and get any runningback you wanted, and still get almost as much production.

[RW31]

Originally posted by Yomar

Let me break it down for you with some hard hitting analysis:

Quincy Carter sucks, Keyshawn Johnson sucks, running game sucks

Defense is good not great

Conclusion: Dallas sucks

I guess we really sucked when we shut you out huh?

[Art]

Originally posted by Nerm

I agree, time will tell on this one. Knowing what Emmitt did and knowing what Deion did I would take Emmitt over Deion. However, we don't know what Champ and Portis will do. We do know that Portis isn't Emmitt and Champ isn't Deion. I don't know why you keep bringing up these names, but I'm sure it makes sense to you. In Portis and Champ we are not talking about the best players to ever play the position... at least not yet. As far as we know, we are talking about Deion vs. Christian Okoye.

I view this debate as being very similar to the debates Dallas and Redskin fans have had in the past. In the past you have explained how smart it was for the Skins to sign guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Jaquez Green. It will be interesting to see how this turns out. I think it is a good trade for both teams.

Nerm,

The names keep getting brought up because they clarify the conversation. Would anyone trade a great runner for a great corner? No. You know this. You also know Portis has been BETTER than Emmitt at the same stage of their careers. You also know Bailey has been worse than Sanders at the same stage of theirs.

When you make trades, you don't apply hindsight to them because no one knows what might happen. When you make trades, you don't apply the caveat that, well, if we make the trade and our guy gets hurt it'll suck. You make trades based on where you value a player at his position.

Like Emmit, Portis can legitimately be argued to be an elite running back, at the very top of the game. Both from a yards standpoint and a touchdown standpoint. Portis has performed at all-time historically GREAT levels his first two years. That's what we know about him. And we knew about Champ that he was among the game's best cover corners.

So, we get back to Smith for Sanders. As you said, you'd never have made the trade, but, of course you have hindsight. It's THAT hindsight that means you would never have traded Portis for Bailey because YOU, better than anyone, know what a dominating runner means for a team, and you, more than anyone, knows what a dominating corner does as well.

In the balance, you're going to take the runner, as all Cowboy fans would. The reason Smith for Sanders is brought up is because if the trade involves a runner who is considered one of the best ever and a corner who is generally considered the best ever, you'd take the runner.

So, we have Portis, who has had the third best start to his career in the history of the NFL at his position. And we have Bailey, a very fine player, but a level below the greatest to play. Again, we know exactly what you'd do in this situation if it came up in 1991 and you had the benefit of remembering who Emmitt Smith and Deion Sanders were.

Bringing up Jacquez Green is just a laughable attempt to cloud the conversation. Green was a good move for Spurrier because he was one of five guys who knew the offense and could help teach it. And, there was some hope that he'd marry well with it. He didn't because he wasn't a good player and the offense proved less flexible than one might have imagined.

Trotter was a genius signing, stealing a top middle backer from a division rival for a fairly inexpensive deal. The dumb part was making that signing and then asking Trotter to be a different player than he'd been.

[Art]

Originally posted by RW31

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend. Had you asked me this question before emitt became the great standard for runningbacks i would have said yes. Fact is you could of used your second pick and get any runningback you wanted, and still get almost as much production.

Trades aren't judged in hindsight, RW. Your own knowledge of the history of the game does matter, however. And, as you admit here, you'd never have traded Emmitt for Sanders because you now know they are both the best at their positions (to many) and you know the value of that runner. That knowledge matters.

We don't have to wait 10 years to see if Portis is an all-time great to know you are wildly for the deal. You remember Smith. You know what having a dominating runner who wound up an all-time great was worth. And you know if you could right now, you'd do anything to find a guy who is that again. We just so happened to have found a guy who has had the third best start to his career in the history of the NFL. Not yet an all-time great. But a guy on the path toward that.

Better even than Emmitt after two years. And we know how valuable Emmitt was to you, don't we?

[rdsknbill]

Originally posted by RW31

I guess we really sucked when we shut you out huh?

That's easy. Kim Helton and Steve "Chuck and Duck" Spurrier had no answer for the blitz. The Skins QB's were facing a stampede on every snap.

You will see a vastly different offensive scheme. Enjoy that last one. You won't see it again.

Gotta love these trolls :troll:

[Yomar]

Originally posted by RW31

I guess we really sucked when we shut you out huh?

Actually yes, you did. We sucked, you shut out a 5-11 team, thats a real feather in your cap.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by rdsknbill

That's easy. Kim Helton and Steve "Chuck and Duck" Spurrier had no answer for the blitz. The Skins QB's were facing a stampede on every snap.

You will see a vastly different offensive scheme. Enjoy that last one. You won't see it again.

Gotta love these trolls :troll:

Actually in the shutout game Dallas didn't blitz much. The Skins expected the blitz and didn't know what to do when it didn't come. I agree that coaching was the problem for the Skins that day and Gibbs would have had the team much better prepared.

I hope you don't consider me a troll. I was just giving my 2 cents on the the trade and I said that I think both teams did ok. If you take offense to my sig line I can remove it. I just ran across those quotes and they made me smile. Let me know if you would like me to get rid of them.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Art

Trades aren't judged in hindsight, RW.

Actually I think trades are judged in hindsight. You see it happen all the time. For example a lot of people, including me, thought it was a bad idea for Tampa to trade high picks for Chucky. In hindsight it was a good trade.

I thought it was a bad idea to trade two 1st round picks for Galloway. I thought it was a bad trade and it was. However, you are trying to say it would have been a bad trade even if Galloway had a 1,500 yard season and Dallas won the SB. Personally, I think hindsight is the best way to judge a trade.

[Art]

Nerm, if Champ Bailey gets into a car wreck tomorrow and can never play a down in football, that doesn't suddenly make the trade the greatest trade in the history of football for the Redskins. All hindsight does is give you a lense to reflect on whether a trade is appropriate as you make it.

You weigh the value of what is potentially a great runner for an offense versus what is known to be a very, very good corner and you make decisions knowing what history has told you about the value of these spots. What history has told us about the value of an elite runner is you would NEVER surrender one for an elite corner and we know this when you use the best ever at their positions, no one can argue you'd trade the runner convincingly.

What happens in the future is unknown. The deal for Portis doesn't become better if he runs for 1,500 yards the next three years and worse if he runs for 1,200 yards. It's the rationale behind making a deal when it is made that reveals how good it is.

The rationale behind the Portis trade for Washington was, "Would you ever trade an elite runner for an elite corner," and like all Dallas fans, the answer is no. So when this opportunity presented itself, the deal was made and we hope we got that elite runner.

[rdsknbill]

Originally posted by Nerm

Actually in the shutout game Dallas didn't blitz much. The Skins expected the blitz and didn't know what to do when it didn't come. I agree that coaching was the problem for the Skins that day and Gibbs would have had the team much better prepared.

I hope you don't consider me a troll. I was just giving my 2 cents on the the trade and I said that I think both teams did ok. If you take offense to my sig line I can remove it. I just ran across those quotes and they made me smile. Let me know if you would like me to get rid of them. [/quote

You're right. I stand corrected. Spurrier screwed that one up too. I had forgotten (on purpose or accidentally ) that he waited until the end of the sesaon to make a real effort at running the ball. I was there. COLD WET AND MISERABLE. :mad:

No Nerm, I don't consider you a troll, just the "drive by" posters that grace us with unintelligent quipps during their allotted internet time.

[Flowtrain]

Emmitt for Deion?

You wouldn't make that trade -- but not because you don't trade an elite RB for an elite CB. It's because apart from being an elite RB, Emmitt had that one quality that's so rare for RBs, elite or not. Durability.

It's that durability that one can't predict from Portis and that one might even question based on last season. The toll of injuries and wear and tear at the RB position is greater than any other position. Certainly greater than CB. So when one defends the Portis for Champ trade, it's this aspect of it that is most vulnerable to criticism.

Edgerrin James amassed 4442 total yards and 35 TDs in his first 2 seasons compared to Portis' 3777 and 31. He hasn't been the same since. Terrell Davis lasted 4 years. Jamal Anderson, done. Fred Taylor takes off every other year. Jamal Lewis missed an entire season. The list goes on -- it's the nature of the position.

That said, I like the Portis trade for the Skins because Portis is a bigger difference-maker and can control an entire game, whereas Bailey just makes things a bit more difficult for opposing offenses. Maybe it's easier to locate a solid RB, but that rule is discarded when the RB reaches elite status. Assuming both Portis and Bailey perform at the top of their game, the Redskins have a significantly better team than they did last year. But based on history, such an assumption is safer when applied to a CB than a RB.