fish Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 played and played well yesterday, and considering we now have the benefits of a season of hindsight, what would you have done differently with last off-season moves? If we didn't pull the trigger on either of those off-season moves, Brunell and Portis/Baily, the impacts now might look something like this........... 1. We would have a full season of PR behind center, therefore a better, more seasoned QB and arguably, might have made the play-offs. 2. I think our running game would have been more proficient because I think Betts is more suited for this line and the Gibbs/Bugel running scheme. 3. We wouldn't have lost Champ or if we did want to give him up due to attitude or salary cap, we might have been able to trade for another position...........name it. I'll admit I don't remember which players were disgruntled and trying to leave their teams but you get the point. I also acknowledge that pulling a trade of that magnitude is NOT an everyday kind of occurance. However, my point is, if we were confident enough in Betts we wouldn't have traded Champ for Portis. We could have traded him somewhere else or used the money he was looking for to sign him, not Portis. 4. With the money not spent on Brunell's and Portis' contract we might have been able to afford Kearse. Imagine this defense with Griffin and Kearse on the D-Line, Champ and Taylor in the backfield. Yes, Champ is over-rated and yes Springs did just fine this year. But even today, if I had to pick between Champ and Springs, I think I'd take Champ. 3. We wuld have saved the draft picks given up for both Brunell and Portis. Thoughts? Of course this is all conjecture and admitedly, we have the 20/20 vision of hindsight, but unfortunately, we are now offiially in the off-season and other than offering draft scenarios, we stuck with these type of conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 we'd be 2-14 and drafting in a better position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neophyte Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 While Betts turned in a decent day yesterday, he is not Clinton Portis. I am pretty sure with some of those holes Clinton would have hung 150 on the Vikes yesterday, maybe more. He is a threat everytime he touches the ball where Betts is not. Not to take anything away from Ladell you understand. I am still happy with the trade for Portis and I think that as of right now you have to say we got the better end of it. Champ had an ok year but not really one worthy of a Pro Bowl, IMHO. While Portis had one of the best years in Redskins history in a system that did not really suit him, a poor run blocking offensive line and with no passing threat. Give him some or all of those things next year and he will be unreal. The only bad part of that trade was the 2nd thrown in. Don't get me started on the Brunell thing. The only good thing I can say about it is that it was the only bad move made all off season by Gibbs and Co. which makes last offseason better than most of the others since Snyder took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 While Brunell stunk it up, Ramsey still wasn't ready to play.(early in the year) Portis gets a lot of hard yards that Betts may not have been able to get. (it doesn't have to be one or the other - we're allowed to have 2 good RB's) I thought the $14 mil we offered Champ last year was too much and am happier with Springs. So hindsight, this was a learning year for Gibbs to know what to do next year and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Not Kearse, but Bertrand Berry. Here's my scenario: We either trade our 2nd for Corey Dillon or we sign Deuce Staley (and he and Betts alternate). We trade Bailey for a #1, or the best offer we can get. Instead of signing Brunell, we offer the same contract to Bertrand Berry, who ended up leading the AFC in sacks (and came a lot cheaper than Kearse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 No Portis/Bailey trade...no Springs... No Springs = 3-4 less Ints, and 6 less sacks No Portis = 300-500 less rushing yards, more passing so 2-4 more ints, and 3-5 less TDs (including one less passing) Brunell - No Brunell = in the playoff hunt (I don't think we'd made it though), 500+ more yards, more cap space, at least 2 more wins.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet daddy Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 lets keep both Portis and Betts and use both. They are a great one two punch. You could even have both of them in the back field occasionally. They can both catch the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Brunell was a flop, plain and simple. Portis is a different story. We didn't use him properly for most of the season, meaning that we shackled him to running schemes that didn't allow him to use his excellent vision and explosion. Instead, we made him run plays designed for guys like Betts. Is it that shocking that Betts looks better in that scheme than Portis does? I think we should use Portis and Betts the way that Atlanta uses Dunn and Duckett. Portis is our starter and 3rd down back who should get between 15-20 carries per game, and 2-3 catches. Betts, who is also a capable receiver out of the backfield should spell Portis on 1st downs and also on 3rd downs and get 10-15 carries per game and 2-3 catches out of the backfield. Late in the games with leads, Betts should be the guy to grind otu the clock, as much to get tough inside yards as to protect Portis. Betts has also shown that he's not as much of a fumbler as Portis is. We should also consider whether to use Betts as our goalline back. As a tandem, these guys could be devastating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 i guess i'm the only one that thought betts didn't look that great. portis would have been gone on a few of those runs betts got 5-6yds, and especially that "big" one. no knock on betts but he looks slow compared to portis. i would be excited if he was running over people. anyone can run 3yds untouched and end up with a 4yd carry. the biggest problem is the online. this guys can't run block for anything. they are worlds better pass blocking then last year but the run blocking deficit is shocking. i think we need to ease off the pulling plays. it was funny to see the cowboys pull a gaurd on almost every run play last night---and it was working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
318 SKIN Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Ignatius J. we'd be 2-14 and drafting in a better position. That's is a very stupid statement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by fish 2. I think our running game would have been more proficient because I think Betts is more suited for this line and the Gibbs/Bugel running scheme. :doh: If I hear one more person say this, I swear... Has anybody heard the coaches say this about Betts and Portis? Is there any evidence in the numbers that each guy puts up? Just because he *looks* more like Riggo doesn't mean he is better suited to the Gibbs/Bugel scheme. Portis gained 1300 yards while we had no passing game to speak of. Without Portis, we probably would have lost the Tampa game, the Bears game, and the Lions game. We would be 3-13 and probably drafting a RB with our high draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Leonard Washington i guess i'm the only one that thought betts didn't look that great. portis would have been gone on a few of those runs betts got 5-6yds, and especially that "big" one. no knock on betts but he looks slow compared to portis. i would be excited if he was running over people. anyone can run 3yds untouched and end up with a 4yd carry. You are one of the few that thought Betts didn’t look that great. I thought he played well given the circumstances – that the Vikings did not respect the pass, and was rushing a LB on a lot of plays to stop the run. I will agree that on some plays, Portis would have picked up more yardage because of his quickness and cut back ability. In the same respect, there were yards that Betts picked up that Portis would have never gotten because Betts is a bigger back and can push for those extra 1-3 yards with tacklers on him. In the end, we both agree that we need OL help. I think we are fine at the RB position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.