We traded for T.J. Duckett?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Here's how the deal would work, WE'RE NOT GIVING UP A 1ST!

OK, that makes more sense.

[gibbsisgod]

if we do swap first round picks we are talking about picks in the latefirst round. probably 25th or worse so its not that big of a deal if we have to swap them.

[Skins_4_Lyfe]

Yesssssssss...I love it, I was always saying that Portis was being overused and didn't think he had any business running up the middle as much as he does. Now maybe he'll be able to make it through the whole season without those knagging injurues.

[gibbsisgod]

probablr destanations for betts: Indy, Jets, SF.
anyone else?

[amorentz]

As a budding lawyer Im always looking for ways to mess with the interpretation of contract language...so Im hoping that they forgot to put this part into the trade agreement. All stories specify "record" as the thing on which the trade turns. However, consider this scenario: We finish 10-6 or 11-5 and the Broncos finish a game or two better than us. However, we make it through the wild card rounds to the Superbowl, at which point we are automatically given the #31 or 32 pick regardless of record. If the record portion of the trade agreement has already been triggered, could we possibly end up with a better draft pick?

Now Im sure they thought of this during negotiations, but hey, always gotta look for the loopholes!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I'm just glad we have a NEW TJ to talk about. One that might actually do something.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

probablr destanations for betts: Indy, Jets, SF.
anyone else?

My guess would be the Jets are the main possible destination.

Indy seems to be fine with their RB situation, and Gore seems to be pretty safe as SF's starter.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by amorentz

As a budding lawyer Im always looking for ways to mess with the interpretation of contract language...so Im hoping that they forgot to put this part into the trade agreement. All stories specify "record" as the thing on which the trade turns. However, consider this scenario: We finish 10-6 or 11-5 and the Broncos finish a game or two better than us. However, we make it through the wild card rounds to the Superbowl, at which point we are automatically given the #31 or 32 pick regardless of record. If the record portion of the trade agreement has already been triggered, could we possibly end up with a better draft pick?

Now Im sure they thought of this during negotiations, but hey, always gotta look for the loopholes!

Since the playoffs do factor in to determining draft order, I would think 'record' would include the playoffs.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by MightyJoeGibbs

So with Betts/Duckett both in the last year of their contract unless they are going to move forward with extending TJ now it seems that the one who stays will have to show they want it more.

That's the one thing about this trade that concerns me. Considering the compensation being considered for Duckett the only way this makes any sense is we're reasonably certain we can sign Duckett to an extension now before the FA period begins. No way would this make sense if it's only for him to be here for one season and goes on the market possibly commanding much more than we're going to be willing to pay. This is going to be interesting, and I'm curious to see how it pan's out.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

That's the crux of this deal. Betts has to go. It simply doesn't make a whole ton of sense otherwise. There is no need for us to have 3 starting level RBs when we have great needs at OL and CB. Betts gets moved for either a pick or depth.

I have been thinking on this one all morning and that is the only logical conclusion. As I mentioned in another post yesterday, when I reviewed the game tame, Betts looked very slow to the hole, and indecisive in his cuts. I think Betts has not proven out to be what Saunder's wanted and he is in a unrestricted FA contract year.

Duckett, on the other hand , could be more in line with what Saunders is looking for in a #2 back and is a restricted FA next year, making it easier for us to keep him if we want to. That said, he will undoubtedly want to be paid this coming offseason, especially if this works out well this year.

I say the next team who's #1 or #2 RB goes down with an injury this preseason will be able to get Betts from us for a 3rd or 4th rounder or a young O-line prospect.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by gibbsisgod

probablr destanations for betts: Indy, Jets, SF.
anyone else?

Nah, i don't think SF is a likely destination, they just named Frank Gore their starter for a reason, it would be unlikely to name the guy your starter than trade for another back. I'm thinking the Jets might, even though they just picked up Barlow, although it's not likely they will. I don't understand why Saunders gave Betts all this praise, and now it looks like we're trying to trade him, unless Saunders was just trying to make Betts look good so we could get a better offer.

[Monkeydad]

I read somewhere this morning that we gave up a 2nd AND a 3rd round pick for Duckett. I think we could've used those picks better than getting a goal-line back WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE in Sellars.

[MTK]

I think Saunders really does like Betts.

But the main concern about Betts has always been his injury problems, and surprise, surprise he's nursing a sore hammy right now.

With Portis banged up, I think the staff really had to take a long, hard look at the RB situation. I'm sure they played a bit of what if. What if Portis can't hold up? What if he wears down again at the end of the season like last year? What if Portis goes down and Betts is also hurt? Then what? Rock Cartwright? Please.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buster

I read somewhere this morning that we gave up a 2nd AND a 3rd round pick for Duckett. I think we could've used those picks better than getting a goal-line back WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE in Sellars.

Where did you read that? I haven't seen anything about a 2nd rounder. A 2nd and a 3rd rounder would make no sense based on trade value charts.

The trade will be officially announced today, until then this seems to be the most logical details about the trade.

Based on the teams' finish this season, the Broncos, at best, could end up with the Redskins' first- and third-round picks in the 2007 draft if the Redskins finish with a worse record than the Broncos.

In that scenario, the Broncos and Redskins would flip-flop first-round picks, with Denver moving up in the opening round and the Redskins moving down. The Broncos would then get the Redskins' third-round pick as well.

If the Redskins finish with a better record than the Broncos, Denver gets he Redskins' third- and fourth-round picks in April.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

I don't think we gave up anything more than a 3rd round pick. I have yet to see anywhere or hear anything other than a 3rd round pick. Would Gibbs and the guys really give a 1st round pick for TJ? I don't think they would put that kind of value on a guy who only gained 380 yards last year. Redskins.com, ESPN, and NFL netword all have it as a 3rd round pick. Thats it... wouldn't they say a third round pick and a conditional pick to be named later if it were anything other than a 3rd rounder?