The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

HEROHAMO wrote:Betts for Vilma straight up. If this is true we should do this and maybe if we can get a second rounder as well. No 1st round trades though.

Why on Earth would the Jets give us a Stud LB for a back up running back with a history of injuries and fumbles. Even if you think that he will never fumble asgain and stay as healthy as any running back this woul be a BAD trade for them and GREAT for us. Almost as good as Mike Olephant for Ernest Byner.

I love Betts but Vilma is a great LB and good LB are hard to find, while running backs can be found just about anywhere. Back up RBs are a dime a dozen.

nyjetsfan69 wrote:the first time i heard about this trade was on jetsinsider.com but they were talking about portis and #6 for vilma and #25 but mayb keeping both the hb's will take the load off portis so he wont have to take such a beating

Maybe Portis for Vilma and the #25and we keep #6

nyjetsfan69 wrote:this trade wont happen but vilma is a superior talent than portis and betts. Players like vilma dont come along that often

Crazy post, cover your eyes!

nyjetsfan69 wrote:right now i would rather have a whole season of leon washington than 3 games of clinton portis

What?

nyjetsfan69 wrote:

Houligan26 wrote:

nyjetsfan69 wrote:

Fios wrote:1) Comparing offensive players to defensive players is difficult
2) Putting aside last year, Portis career rushing numbers compare favorably with the BEST EVER ... go look 'em up. Vilma is outstanding, I'd love to see him in DC, but "superior talent" simply is not accurate

portis's careers numbers are only good because he was on a team called the broncos who could run an old lady for 1,000 yards look at droughns did there and then what he did in cleveland. Its like hawaii qb's. Its not the player its the system

You are being a little ignorant. Please look at portis's numbers as a redskin then please look at the bronco rbs since portis. They still don't have a premier back right now unless you combine both bells into one person. Not to mention, something you don't see in the stats, Portis is one the best blockers in the game

but portis is injury prone as always and portis's numbers were pretty good but hes not an allpro back and he never will unless he can avoid an injury. Vilma would be a top3 lb if the jets were in a 4-3 and you guys know that

Hey I like Vilma a lot but he isn't even a top 3 LB in the AFC East, Maybe not even top 5. Maybe you were talking top three between the Jets and Bills, that I could agree with. Portis is no more injury prone than any other starting RB. Sure he gets nicked up, but before this year he had not missed more than two games in a season. For a RB that is about average on the injury front, but he has been elite on the production front.

Why do we have to throw one of our running backs in the mix? If adrian peterson falls, i bet we see this deal gain some legs. Our #6 this year and a second rounder next year for vilma and maybe a fourth or third from the jets. They need a running back bad.

Why this works for us. 1. We get a proven talent... not a rookie that might be a bust. 2. Vilma is still in his rookie contract and I forget what number he was drafted but I know he is signed til about 08 or 09 at that reasonable rate.

Why this works for the jets. They nip the vilma situation in the bud. Before he starts complaining and seeking permission to seek a trade. By then he'll be like Coles was to us. Little value. When the league finds out he isn't happy... his value will plummet. The jets receive the 6 pick and take peterson... a quality back.

This only works if peterson drops and the Jets are willing to take the worse end of the deal.

fleetus wrote:Can you point out the reasons Portis won't be traded? I've read the whole thread and unless I just totally missed it, cannot find any mention of a reason why Portis would not be a trade target, bonus money, salary cap or otherwise. He counts considerably against the cap, is coming off an injury, is at a position where the Skins could afford to lose him and would garner much trade attention amongst the league. It needs to be considered.

All of the reasons Portis will NOT be traded have been addressed on this board several different times, go dig back through some old threads. I get tired of even discussing this.

Who makes up these rumors? Some bored NY fan?

Gibbs traded a 3rd rounder to rent TJ Duckett for the year...he will NOT let either of our RBs go. He loves Clinton and Al loves Betts. Vilma is a small MLB and we can get Fletcher from the Bills without trading anything away. Fletcher knows our defense and while he's short, he's very stout, tough and a super tackler.

Portis is a top 10 back and Betts is the perfect backup RB. Get use to them on the SKins! The final 4 teams from this past year had 2 backs each. It's important with 4 ex games, 16 reg season games and the playoffs, to have more than one guy -- one guy can't take the punishment. Plus, there's the salary cap impact that's been mentioned before.

Could someone make up another rumor? This is a non-starter.

Why would the Skins even want Vilma? He's an undersized LB who struggles shedding blockers, and is only really good in a cover-2, or similar scheme. Skins run a smashmouth D that revolves around power.

Also, Vilma will miss the occasional tackler, not exactly something the redskins want. There's better possbilities, that you wouldn't even have to give something up for.

CcHhDd wrote:Why do we have to throw one of our running backs in the mix? If adrian peterson falls, i bet we see this deal gain some legs. Our #6 this year and a second rounder next year for vilma and maybe a fourth or third from the jets. They need a running back bad.

See this is what exposes this as nothing more than a rumor, The jets would want to move up to get Peterson but why make a move that involved bringing in a back when Washington is already there to spell Adrian and give the Jets a 1-2 punch in the backfield. At the same time we would be moving out of the top 15 to fill a need that really isn't a priority. At #25 we wouldn't be able to get that big DL to keep blockers off of Vilma

CcHhDd wrote:Why this works for us. 1. We get a proven talent... not a rookie that might be a bust. 2. Vilma is still in his rookie contract and I forget what number he was drafted but I know he is signed til about 08 or 09 at that reasonable rate.

Vilma would be very cap friendly if we don't automaticly re-work his deal (like we always do) in 2007 he's due $750,000.00 and in 2008 he's got $1,097,500.00 coming and the Jets would eat any Bonus moneies still due. We have a year to see if he is worth extending.

CcHhDd wrote:Why this works for the jets. They nip the vilma situation in the bud. Before he starts complaining and seeking permission to seek a trade. By then he'll be like Coles was to us. Little value. When the league finds out he isn't happy... his value will plummet. The jets receive the 6 pick and take peterson... a quality back.

The word is slowly getting out about Vilma and the 3-4 so the need to strike while the iron is hot.

CcHhDd wrote:This only works if peterson drops and the Jets are willing to take the worse end of the deal.

Then we are looking at Vilma, swapping picks plus another day 1 pick
But we we'll keep both our backs regardless.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:Betts for Vilma straight up. If this is true we should do this and maybe if we can get a second rounder as well. No 1st round trades though.

Why on Earth would the Jets give us a Stud LB for a back up running back with a history of injuries and fumbles. Even if you think that he will never fumble asgain and stay as healthy as any running back this woul be a BAD trade for them and GREAT for us. Almost as good as Mike Olephant for Ernest Byner.

I love Betts but Vilma is a great LB and good LB are hard to find, while running backs can be found just about anywhere. Back up RBs are a dime a dozen.

What matters is what the Jets think of Betts. If they really want him bad then we have leverage. Jets badly need a running back. I personally think Betts is Ok. He is not clutch. I have seen many third and shorts especially against the Cowboys where Betts came up short.

Now common sense says giving up Vilma for Betts and a second rounder is insane. But deals like this have happened before it dosent hurt to make the proposition.

When u just rule out possibilities by saying"Why would the Jets give up a second rounder and Vilma for Betts" Well that type of comment lacks ambition. U at least throw the proposition out there never rule out any possibilities. If we can swindle a team into giving us more than we give that is the idea Duhhhhh! Use your brain!!

HEROHAMO wrote:What matters is what the Jets think of Betts. If they really want him bad then we have leverage. Jets badly need a running back. I personally think Betts is Ok. He is not clutch. ...
Now common sense says giving up Vilma for Betts and a second rounder is insane. But deals like this have happened before it dosent hurt to make the proposition.

When u just rule out possibilities by saying"Why would the Jets give up a second rounder and Vilma for Betts" Well that type of comment lacks ambition. U at least throw the proposition out there never rule out any possibilities. If we can swindle a team into giving us more than we give that is the idea Duhhhhh! Use your brain!!

I must be missing something here - you say that "What matters is what the Jets think of Betts." Where, in this "proposition", are you considering the financial ramifications to the Redskins, if they trade Betts? I think that "matters" and I could not care less what the Jets' want or think.

Everything is possible but some things just do not make any sense at all - I just think that these 2 backs are a part of what we are looking forward to this year - a lot of these rumors are based on 1 of 2 lines of thinking - fans who do not consider all the factors involved or in most cases, fans who do not have a clue and like to play fantasy football.

I agree, this talk is really foolish. The organization has shown nothing but excitement having about having 2 high quality backs. How long are we going to drag out talk about taking a quality LB and losing our draft pick. Its just rediculous, just like the Jets aren't going to just swap players. Jets have 3 rbs, they don't have 3 mlbs so it all just doesn't make sense.

Fios wrote:

fleetus wrote:Can you point out the reasons Portis won't be traded? I've read the whole thread and unless I just totally missed it, cannot find any mention of a reason why Portis would not be a trade target, bonus money, salary cap or otherwise. He counts considerably against the cap, is coming off an injury, is at a position where the Skins could afford to lose him and would garner much trade attention amongst the league. It needs to be considered.

All of the reasons Portis will NOT be traded have been addressed on this board several different times, go dig back through some old threads. I get tired of even discussing this.

Like the fact that he signed an 8 year contract with a 17 million dollar signing bonus. He's been a Redskin for 3 years, so he still has about 11 million of the signing bonus left pro-rata.

What's this mean, fleetus? The remaining 11 million of that bonus would be instantly applied to our cap if we traded him.

There are at least 11 million reasons why we wouldn't trade him.

CcHhDd wrote:Why do we have to throw one of our running backs in the mix? If adrian peterson falls, i bet we see this deal gain some legs. Our #6 this year and a second rounder next year for vilma and maybe a fourth or third from the jets. They need a running back bad.

Why this works for us. 1. We get a proven talent... not a rookie that might be a bust. 2. Vilma is still in his rookie contract and I forget what number he was drafted but I know he is signed til about 08 or 09 at that reasonable rate.

Why this works for the jets. They nip the vilma situation in the bud. Before he starts complaining and seeking permission to seek a trade. By then he'll be like Coles was to us. Little value. When the league finds out he isn't happy... his value will plummet. The jets receive the 6 pick and take peterson... a quality back.

This only works if peterson drops and the Jets are willing to take the worse end of the deal.

The deal doesn't work at all. It leaves us without the outstanding DE we
need and no stud DT. Neither are available as FA's, whereas we can pick up an outstanding mLB as an FA and use the draft for an impact DE. Also, it's a lot of fashionable nonsense that an outstanding RB can be picked up easily. The Skins have had only six or seven in their entire history. The chances are excellent that we can't even come close to replacing either Portis or Betts.

I'd take it especially since TJ Duckett is still on the roster. Vilma is a younger and better MLB than Marshall.

The Hogster wrote:I'd take it especially since TJ Duckett is still on the roster. Vilma is a younger and better MLB than Marshall.

TJ will be on the market in a week or so

SkinsJock wrote:

HEROHAMO wrote:What matters is what the Jets think of Betts. If they really want him bad then we have leverage. Jets badly need a running back. I personally think Betts is Ok. He is not clutch. ...
Now common sense says giving up Vilma for Betts and a second rounder is insane. But deals like this have happened before it dosent hurt to make the proposition.

When u just rule out possibilities by saying"Why would the Jets give up a second rounder and Vilma for Betts" Well that type of comment lacks ambition. U at least throw the proposition out there never rule out any possibilities. If we can swindle a team into giving us more than we give that is the idea Duhhhhh! Use your brain!!

I must be missing something here - you say that "What matters is what the Jets think of Betts." Where, in this "proposition", are you considering the financial ramifications to the Redskins, if they trade Betts? I think that "matters" and I could not care less what the Jets' want or think.

Everything is possible but some things just do not make any sense at all - I just think that these 2 backs are a part of what we are looking forward to this year - a lot of these rumors are based on 1 of 2 lines of thinking - fans who do not consider all the factors involved or in most cases, fans who do not have a clue and like to play fantasy football.

Well this news came from the Jets Camp. The Jets are ones who are considering this and pondered this possibilitie. The the financial Ramifications of a deal with the Jets would be able to be worked out. You have Gms that handle the contracts and can make the numbers work.

What I meant when saying what matters is what the Jets think. Is this if the Jets see Betts as a bonified starter and are willing to give up more than he is worth. Then by all means we should make a deal happen.
If we cant benefit from the deal then heck no deal.

But a deal like giving up Betts for Vilma and aquiring a second round pick is definatley not Impossible. Worse trades have happened before.

The Jets would never trade Vilma and the Redskins, after signing Betts to that great deal at the end of last season, would be stupid to trade him now.

I don't think this trade makes any sense.

gibbs4president wrote:the Redskins, after signing Betts to that great deal at the end of last season, would be stupid to trade him now.

I don't think this trade makes any sense.

I agree - not even worth considering really - as someone so eloquently said "Duhhhh"

PulpExposure wrote:

Fios wrote:

fleetus wrote:Can you point out the reasons Portis won't be traded? I've read the whole thread and unless I just totally missed it, cannot find any mention of a reason why Portis would not be a trade target, bonus money, salary cap or otherwise. He counts considerably against the cap, is coming off an injury, is at a position where the Skins could afford to lose him and would garner much trade attention amongst the league. It needs to be considered.

All of the reasons Portis will NOT be traded have been addressed on this board several different times, go dig back through some old threads. I get tired of even discussing this.

Like the fact that he signed an 8 year contract with a 17 million dollar signing bonus. He's been a Redskin for 3 years, so he still has about 11 million of the signing bonus left pro-rata.

What's this mean, fleetus? The remaining 11 million of that bonus would be instantly applied to our cap if we traded him.

There are at least 11 million reasons why we wouldn't trade him.

Okay, guess I stand corrected. I actually went through each page and searched for every instance of the name Portis and never read anyone addressing Portis cap number.

Just to set the record straight, Portis' cap hit would be 8 mil not 11. If they wanted to trade Portis he could agree to restructure some of that bonus to ensure longer term security.

Just to straighten the line a little more! - We have been given every indication that Gibbs wants both Portis and Betts playing on this team this year.
There is absolutely no reason to speculate why he would want to trade either of these guys - THE END

fleetus wrote:Okay, guess I stand corrected. I actually went through each page and searched for every instance of the name Portis and never read anyone addressing Portis cap number.

Just to set the record straight, Portis' cap hit would be 8 mil not 11. If they wanted to trade Portis he could agree to restructure some of that bonus to ensure longer term security.

$8.192M if traded or cut before June 1st. He won't be cut so his hit would be the outstanding proration. There is no way to restructure the money that is due for cap purposes so even it CP wanted to he couldn't lighten the hit if he's traded. He can restucture his contract and save the team cap space but it'll only work if he'll be on the team for at least the next 3 years. The cap hit on Betts would be around $5M so he'll be here too.