Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Beemnseven;276429]OK, we need two linebackers, a strong safety, another cornerback, a defensive tackle, and it'd also be nice to have someone opposite Andre Carter at defensive end so Philip Daniels can stay where he belongs -- on the sideline (since he's such a great "leader") and serve only in rotations.

Then, we could use some depth along the O-line.

All of this while we have Portis, Betts, a very capable third back in Rock Cartwright -- on a team with an offensive coordinator who loves throwing the ball.

So tell me why the idea of trading Ladell Betts for some picks is such a crazy idea?[/quote]

So you want to trade quality RB depth away for picks with this front office that by your own opinion does not have a good track record at drafting... tell me how this makes any sense?

And please don't tell me you think Cartwright could handle a full time load if he was pressed into action. At least now we know Betts [I]can[/I] handle it.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;276410]I haven't run the numbers but how can they do all of that? Archuleta would be a 9 million dollar hit by himself.[/quote]

Try a search for some of Schneed's cap analysis, he's outlined this very scenario many times.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;276429]
So tell me why the idea of trading Ladell Betts for some picks is such a crazy idea?[/QUOTE]

how quickly we forget how well he played this year, how he took a much smaller deal than he could have got to stay with the redskins. lets just trade our core guys after they just signed a contract extension, tell that to the redskins players see how they'd feel about that. its lunacy.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Big C;276445]how quickly we forget how well he played this year, how he took a much smaller deal than he could have got to stay with the redskins. lets just trade our core guys after they just signed a contract extension, tell that to the redskins players see how they'd feel about that. its lunacy.[/quote]

How he played isn't really important. What matters is the player's value on the open market and your team's strengths and weaknesses. They have a lot of holes but RB is not one of them.

The team has two great runningbacks. With Portis' contract you cannot trade him. Betts' contract on the other hand is pretty reasonable and his value has never been higher. So naturally, he is the only one that would be worth trading.

Not to mention, I think that Gibbs would (and will) pick Portis over Betts.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Mattyk72;276439]Try a search for some of Schneed's cap analysis, he's outlined this very scenario many times.[/quote]

Thanks for the suggestion, I can now quote the Charles Schwab article and saw some insight on Barbaro.... j/k

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[QUOTE=Grim21Reaper;276447]How he played isn't really important. What matters is the player's value on the open market and your team's strengths and weaknesses. They have a lot of holes but RB is not one of them.

The team has two great runningbacks. With Portis' contract you cannot trade him. Betts' contract on the other hand is pretty reasonable and his value has never been higher. So naturally, he is the only one that would be worth trading.

Not to mention, I think that Gibbs would (and will) pick Portis over Betts.[/QUOTE]

uh...how he played isnt important? ...
u trade a guy who sacrificed millions to stay with the team, that the players love, especially after he JUST signed a new contract, what message does that send? we are using 2 running backs this year, get used to that idea because its going to be a near unstoppable running game. 2 running backs are very important, as shown by both super bowl teams, and no that isnt a coincidence that both super bowl teams used 2 running backs

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;276438]So you want to trade quality RB depth away for picks with this front office that by your own opinion does not have a good track record at drafting... tell me how this makes any sense?

And please don't tell me you think Cartwright could handle a full time load if he was pressed into action. At least now we know Betts [I]can[/I] handle it.[/QUOTE]

I agree, as sad as it may be, if we trade away a back let it be Portis he would net more [hopefully] than Betts, cap wise I really don't know. But the fact is as you stated Matty it may not really matter when it comes to how many picks we get regardless of who we trade we are at a loss on how to really utilize them regardless.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;276422]Good grief. The TJ Duckett trade looks uglier everytime I hear about it. Lose a third round draft choice for a guy who had 30-something carries and was inactive half the year? And his departure via free agency is a virtual certainty?

Tell me again why we can't shop Ladell Betts for picks?

Tell me again why this front office shouldn't dress up like clowns at Redskin Park?[/QUOTE]

Unless you keep TJ Duckett as Portis's backup, there is no way you'd trade Ladell Betts. We have exactly what we need at the RB position, you certainly don't breakdown the depth at one position to fill another.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;276429]

So tell me why the idea of trading Ladell Betts for some picks is such a crazy idea?[/QUOTE]

As what someone else has pointed out, you want to trade a core Redskins player? And here it is that we have been bitchin' about the Redskins getting rid of core players in the past, and you're suggesting we do just that.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;276447] [B]How he played isn't really important.[/B] What matters is the player's value on the open market and your team's strengths and weaknesses. [B]They have a lot of holes but RB is not one of them.[/B]

The team has two great runningbacks. With Portis' contract you cannot trade him. Betts' contract on the other hand is pretty reasonable and his value has never been higher. So naturally, he is the only one that would be worth trading.

Not to mention, I think that Gibbs would (and will) pick Portis over Betts.[/quote]




Are you serious !? Listen to yourself, read what you wrote and ask yourself if it makes any common sense. First of all, his play isnt important?! Im not quite sure I would agree with you, at all. Secondly, yeah we have alot of holes and rb isnt one of them, so lets trade betts and add to the holes? whaaaaa?

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Beemnseven;276429

So tell me why the idea of trading Ladell Betts for some picks is such a crazy idea?[/quote]


see above post.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=skinsfan69;276433]Daniels is a good locker room guy but his production does not merit him staying around. Does he ever put any pressure on the QB?[/quote]I would cut Wynn this year, sign Justin Smith, and keep Daniels for one more year. He's still a good pass rusher, although his skills against the run were lacking last season.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=SkinEmAll;276454]Are you serious !? Listen to yourself, read what you wrote and ask yourself if it makes any common sense. First of all, his play isnt important?! Im not quite sure I would agree with you, at all. Secondly, yeah we have alot of holes and rb isnt one of them, so lets trade betts and add to the holes? whaaaaa?[/quote]

I did not make my point as clearly as I should have. I apologize. What is your backup runningback's play last year going to do to fill your defensive holes for next year?

Here is a newsflash, chief, Clinton Portis is the feature back next year. If you told a coach that they would have Clinton Portis and Anna Nicole Smith as a backup, they would feel pretty good about their runningback situation. If Portis stays healthy, Betts may get to touch the ball six times a game. Is that the best use of a guy who can carry the load? Is a second or third round pick more valuable to you when you have 7 guys getting surgery and you have holes at every level on defense? I would say so.

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;276459]Here is a newsflash, chief, Clinton Portis is the feature back next year. If you told a coach that they would have Clinton Portis and Anna Nicole Smith as a backup, they would feel pretty good about their runningback situation.[/quote]Too soon?

Re: Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans
 

[quote=Grim21Reaper;276459]If Portis stays healthy, Betts may get to touch the ball six times a game. Is that the best use of a guy who can carry the load? Is a second or third round pick more valuable to you when you have 7 guys getting surgery and you have holes at every level on defense? I would say so.[/quote]I think Cartwright is perfectly capable of taking over Betts' role in an offense where the featured guy, Portis, is healthy. The problem comes when Portis gets hurt. Do we run the ball less to account for that?

As long as we have 3 quality backs, we don't have to adjust our gameplan much if Portis gets hurt. We can still run 30-35 times a game.

Guys tend to breakdown if they get more than 350 carries in a season. Portis carried more than that in 2005, and wasn't able to make it though 2006. This is not surprising to me. No back should be allowed to carry more than 20 times a game [I]consistently[/I] thoughout the season. If you are going to be a run first team, you do need two QUALITY guys to carry the football. Portis should be getting about 20 carries a game and even more receptions, but Betts is going to have to carry 10-12 times a game in a run first offense. Even Cartwright should be getting involved later in games to keep Portis from taking unessesscary beatings in running out the clock situations.