Clayton on the Redskins' offseason plans

[Beemnseven]

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?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

You are spot on, Beem. That Ducket move may be worse than the Archuleta signing.

Trading Betts for picks is way too saavy for our front office...

The best part about it is that the pay these jokers so much money that they are un-tradeable once they bust.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

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.

[Big C]

you guys seriously want to trade betts? lol wow.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Big C

you guys seriously want to trade betts? lol wow.

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?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

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 can handle it.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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 can handle it.

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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 can handle it.

As far as my faith in this front office's ability to draft effectively, just remember the blind squirrel ... One of my New Year's resolutions was to think positively about the Redskins front office in 2007. I figure sooner or later they're due for a good draft.

Speaking of which, Rock Cartwright represents one of the very few gems this organization has been able to unearth late in the draft. So yes, I've got confidence in him for a limited back-up role. Not only that, serviceable running backs aren't that difficult to find. Kenny Watson was another good example of a decent pickup through undrafted free agency.

Bottom line for me is, the weaknesses on defense outweigh the advantages of running back depth. Of course, all of that goes out the window if there isn't a fair deal for Betts.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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

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.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Big C

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.

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.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

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.

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

[SkinEmAll]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

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.

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?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Big C

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.

I haven't forgotten how well he played. That's exactly the reason I think he'd be worth it if they price was right.

If the players don't see through the "core Redskin" crap by now, then they're blind.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I haven't forgotten how well he played. That's exactly the reason I think he'd be worth it if they price was right.

If the players don't see through the "core Redskin" crap by now, then they're blind.

I actually think that while the players wouldn't want to see him go, they would appreciate a move that actually "made sense". If you are a player it has to frustrate you when the front office sets you up for failure year after year.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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

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.