Another Front office Blunder

Fair enough, although i don't really remember us passing on anybody ever before this year. It's not like we even really passed on Champ either - we traded him and a 2nd rd. pick for a RB we commenced to give 50 million dollars to. So i don't think you can hold that up as a model of fiscal restraint. But I do agree that this year we have, finally, shown some discipline and forsight, and appear to have learned from our past boondoggles. Moreover, that really hasn't been the focus in the media. If you read what the pundits write, they seem to all argue, at least implicitly, that we didn't upgrade enough; but if we had "upgraded," they'd slam us for that too: "there goes old Danny Boy again." So anyway, yeah, they've been alot smarter this year and hopefully it will pay off on the field.
OK, so we gave Portis $50mil and gave Denver a top CB and a 2nd round pick. Lets say that we didnt do any of that. Would you feel comfortable with Bailey holding out a year just to go where he wants with nothing in return? Would still feel comfortable letting T. Candidate running the ball for us?

OK, so we gave Portis $50mil and gave Denver a top CB and a 2nd round pick. Lets say that we didnt do any of that. Would you feel comfortable with Bailey holding out a year just to go where he wants with nothing in return? Would still feel comfortable letting T. Candidate running the ball for us?

I didn't indicate either way what I thought about the Bailey/ Portis deal qualitatively, I was simply pointing out that it wasn't a good example of fiscal restraint. In response to your specific questions, Bailey had been franchised already so we could have gotten at least a 1 and 3 from Detroit, or perhaps more from another team. Or we could have paid him. Champ sitting out for a year and leaving us uncompensated is not a scenario that I remember. Second, T. Candidate was a vestige of the Spurrier-era who would have been cut by Gibbs regardless of whether we acquired Portis or not. Personally, I love having Portis on our team, although I continue to question giving 50 million to a RB when the market is so glutted with cheap talent. So there you have it.

I didn't indicate either way what I thought about the Bailey/ Portis deal qualitatively, I was simply pointing out that it wasn't a good example of fiscal restraint. In response to your specific questions, Bailey had been franchised already so we could have gotten at least a 1 and 3 from Detroit, or perhaps more from another team. Or we could have paid him. Champ sitting out for a year and leaving us uncompensated is not a scenario that I remember. Second, T. Candidate was a vestige of the Spurrier-era who would have been cut by Gibbs regardless of whether we acquired Portis or not. Personally, I love having Portis on our team, although I continue to question giving 50 million to a RB when the market is so glutted with cheap talent. So there you have it.
Bailey was not going to sign the franchise tenure for 1 year, yeah we tagged him alright, but he wanted out of Washington in the worst way!!! I personally dont remember Detroit publicly saying that they were willing to give up a 1 and 3 draft pick, everything I heard has been nothing but speculation. Who are the cheap RB talent on the glutted market? Alexander, James, who? But dont forget that Alexander and James are both 27 and 28, and Portis is only 23. I do understand that when Gibbs came in last year he spent money that some might say was not well spent. But as far as the FO giving money like that to Portis pretty much guarntees(SP) that Portis will be a Skin for life, and isnt that what we all want, continuity(SP).

we would have made a strong push for dillon most likely and then draftedd for the future or looked for a cheap free agent in the comign years (like travis henry this year).

A guardian angel must be watching out for Gibbs and our front office this year........