![]() |
Jets tried to trade for Betts
The Jets have tried to acquire Redskins running back Ladell Betts in a trade but a potential deal fell through, according to someone with knowledge of the discussions between the teams. The person requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of trade talks.
[url=http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1172813903163300.xml&coll=1]NJ.com: Everything Jersey[/url] |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
If it's the Vilma deal that JLC tried to put to rest, I'm glad it fell through.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Of course I think the Skins have to at least listen to offers for Betts, but if I were them I'd be very reluctant to trade him away unless it's an incredible offer. He proved to be very valuable last year and you just have to look at the teams in the Super Bowl this year to see how important it's become to have two capable RBs.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=Mattyk72;282442]Of course I think the Skins have to at least listen to offers for Betts, but if I were them I'd be very reluctant to trade him away unless it's an incredible offer. He proved to be very valuable last year and you just have to look at the teams in the Super Bowl this year to see how important it's become to have two capable RBs.[/quote]
Yupp |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=Mattyk72;282442]Of course I think the Skins have to at least listen to offers for Betts, but if I were them I'd be very reluctant to trade him away unless it's an incredible offer. He proved to be very valuable last year and you just have to look at the teams in the Super Bowl this year to see how important it's become to have two capable RBs.[/quote]Not only on a seasonal level, but [U]run first[/U] teams have to use multiple backs if they want to sustain success over a long period of time. If a guy gets too many carries in a season (remember Jamal Lewis, Jamaal Anderson, or Shaun Alexander), theres a high probability that he's either going to break down or that his production will be slashed.
I'm actually going to take this a step further. I have noticed a uncannity ability for Clinton Portis to fall foward and absorb the hit of the ground on his shoulders. He also has mentioned having very sore shoulders after games. I'm pretty sure he's developed this tendency to lighten the beating his knees take and prolong his career. Seems like a great idea in theory. But is it really surprising that after the long offseason layoff, that the first time he ended up being forced to use his arms to make a forceful tackle, he suffered a shoulder seperation and torn labrum? Isn't it possible that this was the result of many years of getting his shoulder area beat to a pulp every Sunday, particularly in 2005? Maybe that injury wasn't as much a function of luck as we all thought it was. Perhaps it could have been avoided by lightening his load of carries in that 2005 season. So the key for 2007 is to use our great RB depth to keep Portis from consistently breaking the 20 carry mark while still allowing this team to run 30-35 times a game. I guess the bottom line is to let somebody else gobble up Larry Johnson in fantasy drafts next season. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Don't you mean "NJ.com: Jets tried to trade for Betts"...haha
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Portis has a history of shoulder issues, now he's had both shoulders cut on. Despite not being a big guy he plays big, so he's bound to get banged up.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
I am much happier with a 17-20 carry Portis and a 12-15 carry Betts than a 25-30 carry Portis and a 5-7 carry Rock/whoever. Someone is gonna need to drop some serious bling for me to advocate trading Betts. I'd almost take only a high 2nd and a 4th if not a 1st. Sounds like a lot but he seems that invaluable to us right now.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=FRPLG;282462]I am much happier with a 17-20 carry Portis and a 12-15 carry Betts than a 25-30 carry Portis and a 5-7 carry Rock/whoever. Someone is gonna need to drop some serious bling for me to advocate trading Betts. I'd almost take only a high 2nd and a 4th if not a 1st. Sounds like a lot but he seems that invaluable to us right now.[/quote]
Yeah since our D is still in rebound mode we are gonna need to be able to put up a ton of points. And since JC is still developing I think the brunt of the work should fall upon the backs. If CP takes all the load its gonna be like last year for him. It should be like a 3:2 split in carrying the load. maybe 3.5:2. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
I'd be happy with the 2nd round pick they're holding that originally belonged to us.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=GTripp0012;282455]Not only on a seasonal level, but [U]run first[/U] teams have to use multiple backs if they want to sustain success over a long period of time. If a guy gets too many carries in a season (remember Jamal Lewis, Jamaal Anderson, or Shaun Alexander), theres a high probability that he's either going to break down or that his production will be slashed.
I'm actually going to take this a step further. I have noticed a uncannity ability for Clinton Portis to fall foward and absorb the hit of the ground on his shoulders. He also has mentioned having very sore shoulders after games. I'm pretty sure he's developed this tendency to lighten the beating his knees take and prolong his career. Seems like a great idea in theory. But is it really surprising that after the long offseason layoff, that the first time he ended up being forced to use his arms to make a forceful tackle, he suffered a shoulder seperation and torn labrum? Isn't it possible that this was the result of many years of getting his shoulder area beat to a pulp every Sunday, particularly in 2005? Maybe that injury wasn't as much a function of luck as we all thought it was. Perhaps it could have been avoided by lightening his load of carries in that 2005 season. So the key for 2007 is to use our great RB depth to keep Portis from consistently breaking the 20 carry mark while still allowing this team to run 30-35 times a game. I guess the bottom line is to let somebody else gobble up Larry Johnson in fantasy drafts next season.[/quote] Very good point, Gtripp, I hadn't really thought about it but in retrospect he does hit the ground hard on his shoulders, neck or back at the first point of impact. I guess this is a good plan in the long run b/c if u had to pick one joint to have for longevity, the knees are the most critical for the running back. I think he should consult a sports equipment manufacturer about finding him some specialized pads that will cushion his shoulders a little better without adding too much weight. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
makes you wonder what the plans are if they are listening to trade offers for betts. with portis, and Joes paranoya of having a #1 backup. Do you think they are inclined to offer Ducket some kind of deal to stay at a #2. Knowing he will get 10 to 13 carries a game and definately a lot of touches around the goal line?
that is if they were to trade Betts. I doubt they would go into the season with Rock as the only backup to portis. Sellers isn't going to be used like that, I dont think. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Gibbs <3 Betts
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=Mattyk72;282442]Of course I think the Skins have to at least listen to offers for Betts, but if I were them I'd be very reluctant to trade him away unless it's an incredible offer. He proved to be very valuable last year and you just have to look at the teams in the Super Bowl this year to see how important it's become to have two capable RBs.[/quote]
I totally agree. Not to mention both Portis and Betts have a bad habit of getting nicked up during a season, it's essential to have them both. I'd like to see Vilma, but not at the expense of such a potentially important player. I know everyone loves first round picks, but if we traded it for Vilma, I wouldn't mind. ~Bang |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=BangCartoon;282535]I totally agree. Not to mention both Portis and Betts have a bad habit of getting nicked up during a season, it's essential to have them both. I'd like to see Vilma, but not at the expense of such a potentially important player. I know everyone loves first round picks, but if we traded it for Vilma, I wouldn't mind.
~Bang[/QUOTE] Yeah a Vilma for the 1st would be solid. We need line help but the risk of a bust DLineman is far outweighed by the sure thing of a very good LB. I doubt the Jets would make that trade though. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
I'd try to deal Betts HARD right now. I'd think about an early 2nd, and take a 1st in no time. His value will never be so high. He's a mediocre blocker, and has fumbling issues. Use Portis as our bellcow and use Rock, Duckett, Sellers, whomever to take 10-15 carries a game. I'd love to see more from Rock.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=FRPLG;282538]Yeah a Vilma for the 1st would be solid. We need line help but the risk of a bust DLineman is far outweighed by the sure thing of a very good LB. I doubt the Jets would make that trade though.[/quote]
Yeah, I doubt they would either. No more Terry Bradway up there to kick around! As you said, any draft pick is a potential bust.. in my mind using the pick on a young proven guy like Vilma where you know what you're getting is not a bad move. He's only 25 yrs old. (well, 26 next month.) That is one thing that I have not minded about our heavy handed approach to free agency lately, going after younger players. ~Bang |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
The rumors I have heard was Portis was on the block and that Betts was going to be the number 1.... he is more of a Gibbs style running... more North and South than Portis.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=Redskin Rich;282579]The rumors I have heard was Portis was on the block and that Betts was going to be the number 1.... he is more of a Gibbs style running... more North and South than Portis.[/QUOTE]
This is like the second time you've said this this week isn't it? |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=Daseal;282546]I'd try to deal Betts HARD right now. I'd think about an early 2nd, and take a 1st in no time. His value will never be so high. He's a mediocre blocker, and has fumbling issues. Use Portis as our bellcow and use Rock, Duckett, Sellers, whomever to take 10-15 carries a game. I'd love to see more from Rock.[/quote]I'm with you (sans Betts blocking and fumbling issues). Let's rob another team for picks and players. It's done to us all the time. Let's turn the tables for once! McCareins and our original 2nd rounder, 37th overall for Betts.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
if the trade was betts for vilma with some other picks involved, i am pissed.at no time does ladell betts hold higher trade value. and i take vilma over fletcher, every day of the week, and twice on sunday
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=Mattyk72;282438]The Jets have tried to acquire Redskins running back Ladell Betts in a trade but a potential deal fell through, according to someone with knowledge of the discussions between the teams. The person requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of trade talks.
[url=http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1172813903163300.xml&coll=1]NJ.com: Everything Jersey[/url][/QUOTE] I hate to say I told u all so, but I DID!! Maybe if I didnt post the story so early it may have went thru. That doesnt mean that something won't happen prior to or on draft day. [SIZE="6"][B][I] WE STILL NEED MORE FIRST DAY PICKS!![/I][/B][/SIZE] Once again, I wasn't lying onthat trade "rumor." Someone please gimme some props for breaking the story. Holla |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
It i could i would trade one of them> I love to have both but we need to pick up some extra picks. Or get some good players.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
listen i say trade betts...i love him too but portis is hands down the better back. we are talking about running backs here man. portis when healthy is top 5 in the league....hold on to him but betts can be replaced with a 3-4 round draft pick now. its just to ignorant to hold on to someone because we like him alot. betts must go so we can get more picks and if we can get vilma too.....wow is all i have to say.
ps london fletcher is another trip down that bust lane. wont get it done i garuntee it...ill root for his ass though but he wont get it done fellas. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=holcknowsbest;282969]listen i say trade betts...i love him too but portis is hands down the better back. we are talking about running backs here man. portis when healthy is top 5 in the league....hold on to him but betts can be replaced with a 3-4 round draft pick now. its just to ignorant to hold on to someone because we like him alot. betts must go so we can get more picks and if we can get vilma too.....wow is all i have to say.
ps london fletcher is another trip down that bust lane. wont get it done i garuntee it...ill root for his ass though but he wont get it done fellas.[/quote] Fletcher won't be a bust. His stats have been solid every year he has been in the league. His age is the concern here. He would be a quick fix until we draft the position. 2 Good backs will win games for the skins and allow them to be the ball control offense gibbs is known for. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
oh and somebody clue redskins rich in on this joe gibbs type of runner. his statements about north and south are so retarded that i end up looking like a dick when i have to say he is fing retarded. portis is north south you freaking clueless ones...ask joe gibbs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! download the films when clinton is talking about running guts! and powers! if you want to win this football game, reffereing to the giants game 2 yrs ago at fed ex!!!! watch portis's style please!!! someone please dont let redskins clueless rich post that crap.....it really hits a button with me.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
for the money we are gonna give fletcher he will be a bust.....his stats arent the problem....his play isnt the fix.....and stop gap until we draft someone huh? well let me tell you this name the last rookie linebacker to start after he was drafted. not ol rocky who we traded up to get...g will likes vets but this vet wont get it done...there isnt enough talent around him to run free to the ball and at 5-9 240 he is basically smaller than marshall 6-2 235 and will get eaten up just like marshall did. just another bust its my lock of the year.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Ladell Betts proved he was stud last year. The two headed monster at running back seems to be the new hot formation for NFL offenses in the last couple of years ... Colts, Bears, Jags, Saints, Broncos, Pats, Cowboys.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Daseal:
Where did you come up with the phrase "use Portis as our bellcow"? That was the description that Frank Broyles used to use all the time when he and Keith Jackson used to do the college football games on ABC before there was such a thing as ESPN. You are way too young to remember those days... |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=holcknowsbest;282984]oh and somebody clue redskins rich in on this joe gibbs type of runner. his statements about north and south are so retarded that i end up looking like a dick when i have to say he is fing retarded. portis is north south you freaking clueless ones.[/QUOTE]
Keep flaming and the only one needing a clue will be you when you can't log on anymore. The mods do a good job of patrolling around here and I am pretty sure that calling people retarded and/or fing retarded is a no-no. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
I think we should keep Betts unless someone offers a Hershel Walker to Minnesota type scenario. Unless its an offer we literally can't refuse, I would rather have Betts [I]and[/I] Portis. I think if we can keep Springs and keep him healthy we will be in much better shape than anyone would have guessed. No need for trades or doomsday contracts.
Smoot + (healthy)Springs + Adams + Fletcher + (healthy) Washington + (more confident) Carter = Better Defense + (more experienced) Campbell + (healthy) Portis + Betts + Raleigh Mckenzie = Better Team Right Away. It's just that simple. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=70Chip;283269]I think we should keep Betts unless someone offers a Hershel Walker to Minnesota type scenario. Unless its an offer we literally can't refuse, I would rather have Betts [I]and[/I] Portis. I think if we can keep Springs and keep him healthy we will be in much better shape than anyone would have guessed. No need for trades or doomsday contracts.
Smoot + (healthy)Springs + Adams + Fletcher + (healthy) Washington + (more confident) Carter = Better Defense + (more experienced) Campbell + (healthy) Portis + Betts + Raleigh Mckenzie = Better Team Right Away. It's just that simple.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting two important elements in that equation: defensive tackles. Griffin and Salave'a just don't have it anymore. Their knack for injuries makes them an official liability. Gaines Adams won't help stuff the run up the middle. When you can't stop the run, the defense and the team collapses. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
Trade Betts for DLineman or Draft pick. Think that Rock can carry the ball as Portis's backup
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=Beemnseven;283370]You're forgetting two important elements in that equation: defensive tackles.
Griffin and Salave'a just don't have it anymore. Their knack for injuries makes them an official liability. Gaines Adams won't help stuff the run up the middle. When you can't stop the run, the defense and the team collapses.[/QUOTE] While I agree about Salave'a, I think Griff is just fine in that role, and I think we drafted a guy in Golston that when developed will be pretty damn good. And Griff has never missed more than 3 games in a season, so yeah he might have some injury problems, but nothing that will make/break the season imo. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=Gmanc711;283380]While I agree about Salave'a, I think Griff is just fine in that role, and I think we drafted a guy in Golston that when developed will be pretty damn good. And Griff has never missed more than 3 games in a season, so yeah he might have some injury problems, but nothing that will make/break the season imo.[/QUOTE]
Well, Griffin is certainly the more solid of the two, but that doesn't say much anymore. My opinion of Griffin is more of a projection - I just don't see him being consistently healthy and penetrating the line of scrimmage the way he did in '04 and '05. I also don't get the fascination with Kedric Golston. I know we as fans were thrilled at the notion that one of our 6th round picks was able to get playing time in his rookie year, giving the false impression that he was good enough to start. He wasn't. His playing time had more to do with the aforementioned injuries of the two starters than anything else. Golston had his moments, but you need look no further than our ranking against the run to admit that he's got some cleatmarks in his chest too. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
I thought for a rookie 6th rounder Golston played extremely well and flashed some very promising moments. All considered I thought he exceeded expectations and gave us a reason to look forward to his further development.
|
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
I pretty much share Matty's sentiments about Golston...and don't forget Montgomery, he has showed promise too. I think GW will keep fresh bodies rotating in the middle and we'll go for a big, fast DE instead of someone in the middle.
Griff was getting man handled last year. I'll chalk it up to his hip issues, but those things do tend to linger. Let's hope he can bounce back. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=Mattyk72;283404]I thought for a rookie 6th rounder Golston played extremely well and flashed some very promising moments. All considered I thought he exceeded expectations and gave us a reason to look forward to his further development.[/QUOTE]
But did he exceed expectations to the point that we are fine and dandy at defensive tackle? I don't think you can look at the performance of any player at that position last year and draw that conclusion. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[quote=Beemnseven;283461]But did he exceed expectations to the point that we are fine and dandy at defensive tackle?
I don't think you can look at the performance of any player at that position last year and draw that conclusion.[/quote] I just think that between Golston, Griffin, Montgomery and Salavea we ought to be able to put together a full season of decent enough play. I can't say that about the DEs without Adams or someone else new. I remember when we brought in Stubblefield and Wilkinson people were making similiar arguments. They were going to draw double teams and free up the LBers, collapse the pocket. I thought they played okay but they didn't make Rod Stephens any better. I think we could get better play at Tackle but I don't buy the argument that they were the weak link or that their shoddy play is preventing other people from getting it done. Tackle will have to wait. And, I do think you are too bearish on Golston. He made a lot of plays last year. People always say, "Let's develop our own talent". I say that Kedrick represents on opportunity to do exactly that. |
Re: Jets tried to trade for Betts
[QUOTE=70Chip;283486]I just think that between Golston, Griffin, Montgomery and Salavea we ought to be able to put together a full season of decent enough play. I can't say that about the DEs without Adams or someone else new. I remember when we brought in Stubblefield and Wilkinson people were making similiar arguments. They were going to draw double teams and free up the LBers, collapse the pocket. I thought they played okay but they didn't make Rod Stephens any better.
I think we could get better play at Tackle but I don't buy the argument that they were the weak link or that their shoddy play is preventing other people from getting it done. Tackle will have to wait. And, I do think you are too bearish on Golston. He made a lot of plays last year. People always say, "Let's develop our own talent". I say that Kedrick represents on opportunity to do exactly that.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying Golston should be kicked off the team or anything. I think he's fine as a #3 rotation guy. But we already saw what he, Griffin, Salave'a and Montgomery were able to accomplish last year -- a #27 ranking against the run. Plus, they're all another year older and Salave'a has proved again and again that he's been vulnerable to injuries on a frequent basis. He was never meant to be a full time starter anyway. Griffin's getting to be the same way. That brings up another point. Remember the flack we got when signing Griffin? The word on him was that he was a one-season wonder. He did great for his rookie year in NY, then gradually started to fizzle. There's a very similar pattern here. And this time, he's eight years older. The Stubblefield/Wilkinson comparisons are irrelevant. Those guys just didn't work. Now, that's not to say if we were to draft Alan Branch or any other D-tackle that instantly shores up all defeciences in rush defense -- sure, he very well turn out to be a bust. That goes for every player out there. We may disagree as to the percentage of blame the defensive tackles get for failing to stop the run in '06. Personally, I'd put it at around 60-70% -- the rest being the linebackers and ends. But the DTs are the guys in the trenches who are primarily responsible for clogging things up. They failed miserably. If we leave things as they are at that position, without even adding one player for insurance in case they get injured, expect more of the same in '07. Bottom line, we already saw what these four guys were able to give us last year. What would give you the impression that there's some sort of magical turn-around in store? |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.