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

I'm sure I'm not the first one to ask this question, but what the hell is going on with this guy?

We trade a 3rd round draft pick for him only to have him watch from the sidelines in street clothes as TWO other RBs gain over 100 total yards each and find the end zone?

I'm really upset about this situation. As far as I can tell (being a Redskins outsider) it looks to me like we traded a 3rd round draft choice for a guy whose barely going to be used this season and may not even be back next year. What is going on here?

Someone please give me reason to think that the Redskins didn't just make one of the worst trades in team history, essentially giving away a first day draft pick.

I'll save my criticisms about picking this guy up until after the season. I mean maybe he is still learning this offense, and Im sure he is going to be used. I personally would of loved to have Ducket last yr in goaline situations. I think once he gets healthy and figures out the system he will start producing td's

Him and Betts are both gonna be FA, so we will need to keep one for next year.

Him and Betts are both gonna be FA, so we will need to keep one for next year.

Assuming they want to stay. I would guess that both would want to try to be starters somewhere.

what nfl team would make Ladell Betts a #1?

Everyone has said that about him every year I haven't seen it.

what nfl team would make Ladell Betts a #1?

Everyone has said that about him every year I haven't seen it.

Jets? Browns? Texans?

TJ didn't play yesterday because ey and Fauria are mildly injured. How do they effect TJ? CP was back in action, Betts was good to go, that being said we didn't need TJ. Gibbs wanted to run certain packages that NEEDED TE's, just incase ey or Fauria got worse in their injuries he activated another TE as a safety net, TJ had to be deacvtivated to allow the TE to play.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:TJ didn't play yesterday because ey and Fauria are mildly injured. How do they effect TJ? CP was back in action, Betts was good to go, that being said we didn't need TJ. Gibbs wanted to run certain packages that NEEDED TE's, just incase ey or Fauria got worse in their injuries he activated another TE as a safety net, TJ had to be deacvtivated to allow the TE to play.

Great info. Thanks

Who was the additional TE that was activated?

Irn-Bru wrote:Who was the additional TE that was activated?

I dunno, Gibbs mentioned all of that during the post-game interview. The part about activating the TE is my educated guess, everything I heard him say. Gibbs said he deactivated TJ cus he wanted to make sure they could run their packages that needed TE's. I assume he activated a TE in TJ's place.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:TJ didn't play yesterday because ey and Fauria are mildly injured. How do they effect TJ? CP was back in action, Betts was good to go, that being said we didn't need TJ. Gibbs wanted to run certain packages that NEEDED TE's, just incase ey or Fauria got worse in their injuries he activated another TE as a safety net, TJ had to be deacvtivated to allow the TE to play.

Wasn't Clinton Portis mildly injured as well? If TJs not activated on a day when Portis is still a bit of a question mark, that doesn't bode well for his playing time this season...

Not to mention that they guy is probably still learning the offense. As he gets more comfortable with knowing which way to run, I'm sure we'll see more of him.

FanFromAnnapolis Wrote:

"Who was the additional TE that was activated? "




I beleive it was Todd Yoder, the newly signed TE.
[/quote]

I'm really upset about this situation. As far as I can tell (being a Redskins outsider) it looks to me like we traded a 3rd round draft choice for a guy whose barely going to be used this season and may not even be back next year. What is going on here?

Think back to WHY this trade was made in the first place. Portis was injured, with no real indication of the severity. Had Clinton not been able to return, this move may have looked like a stroke of genius. Had Clinton been unable to play, and had we NOT made the trade, we may well have been in even deeper kah kah.

At the time it was done, it was a sound and sensible move. It may yet prove to be.

Gibbs4Life wrote:what nfl team would make Ladell Betts a #1?

Everyone has said that about him every year I haven't seen it.

After two poor starts, Betts kicked ass in mop up against the worst defense in the NFL. I gotta agree with you, who would make him a #1? But the Skins would like to keep him for his mop up value.

Given that the Skins picked up Duckett late pre-season, not using him in game 1 then 5 carries in game 2 made sense. But trading a 3 and a 4 for a veteran in the last year of his contract and deactivating him in game 3 for TE depth? Come on. Seems like 2 options:

- He has not been impressive in practice
- The Skins think Betts is more likely to stay and are trying not to sour the relationship.

But if the second is true, why trade for him in the first place? I'm guessing he's not impressing the coaches, at least not so far.

we wasted $$'s on 2 players, imo, Duckett and probably Loyd. Too many chiefs.

Just seems like too many studs too have, not enough balls to go around. I'd just go with Moss, ARE, and Patten, good enough. Portis, and the other 2.

Even though I admit Betts sure seems to light it up against terds and when we really need him, ie. Dallas/Minnesota, he ain't nowhere to be heard of.

I think we should have got another DE and OL studs instead of Duckett/Lloyd, no offense to either ones quality, their decent.

... so just out of curiosity... what happens if Portis or Moss gets hurt? or A.R.E gets hurt on special teams duty?

... or are we playing a 3 game season?

Easy to judge now when every one of them is healthy.

And what happens when Betts bolts for number one money at the end of the year?

Personally I'm glad that e have people running the organization with a bigger window to look at than 3 games.

Come on, Boss. It has to bother you that we traded a 3rd round draft choice for a player who had as much effect on Sunday's game as you and I.

Not to speak for BH but how can we possibly make that determination? It's the THIRD game of the season, you're taking issue with a player not playing a game that the Redskins won. We have no way of knowing what the team has planned for TJ but we can say that the team forecast ahead to next year's draft and determined they were getting better value from Duckett (a proven commodity) than from X player taken at Y spot. If nothing else, your sample window is way to conclude the team made a mistake.


Edited because I can't spell

JPM36 wrote:Come on, Boss. It has to bother you that we traded a 3rd round draft choice for a player who had as much effect on Sunday's game as you and I.

Come on what?

Come on over to your side of thinking?

Why, I couldn't possibly disagree more.

Oh sure I see a lot of people judging Duckett on what he's contributing now, and same with Lloyd, but that doesn't lend any creedence to whether or not they are 'needed' in my personal opinion.

The NFL season is 16 games long.. hopefully 19 or 20 games. If at any point any WR or RB gets hurt, we'll be eternally thankful for the added depth. Last year proved that, when Patten went out and we were lost to find an alternative offensive weapon.

I think the Redskins had every intention of using Duckett like they used Cartwright on Sunday... but when Rock ran back a kickoff for a touchdown the week before, that gave Rock his spot back (more for teams than his RB abilities).

With Duckett still learning the offense and the injuries to both tight ends, he was asked to sit. And from all accounts that I have heard was extremely professional about it.


I never look at things from a game to game basis and as such, I'm afraid I just don't agree with the assessment of 'bust'. If we go 16 games without an injury at RB and re-sign Ladell Betts past this 2006 season, THEN I'll agree that Duckett was a waste. Until then, he's insurance and it's FAR too early to judge. Even then... if Duckett's presence creates enough downward pressure on the Betts' talks that it gets Ladell signed to a reasonable contract... then even THAT'S got some value. His value is in INSURANCE and TJ's providing it right now whether he's on the field or not. He was an insurance policy for if CP could not return quickly or to full health this season, and he's insurance for if the Redskins can not re-sign betts next season.

I will live with losing draft picks like Cliff Russell, though obviously you'd rather not give up draft picks. But seeing the focal point of your offense go down in the preseason has a way of making you want to address it, and at that late stage of the preseason, there was little choice for the Redskins but to use a draft pick. To me, it's much more important to see REAL depth at positions that often get hurt the most often. If Portis' shoulder had been more hurt than it was, then Duckett would have been a much bigger part of the Redskins first 3 games. luckily for Redskin fans, Cp wasn't more hurt, but the Redkins couldn't know that when they had to find a solution at running back with CP sidelined and Lafdell Betts not even back from a hamstring injury. To ignore all of that now seems irresponsible to me.

It's something the media would do.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because we are way off on this one. At least for now.

You see Duckett as insurance policy in case Portis or Betts gets hurt? Should we really be giving up a 3rd round draft choice (when we already traded away our 2nd round draft choice to the Jets) to get a guy to be a 3rd running back/insurance policy? I maintain that it is not a good move. Especially when we have a guy on our team in Rock Cartwright whose a decent 3rd RB, decent enough to put a 100 yard game last season. I mean really, how many RBs does a team need? You cite WR as a position where we did not have depth last season and the injury to Patten hurt us. I see what you are saying but the Redskins have much more depth at RB this year than we did at WR last season so I'm not sure it is a good comparison. And frankly, if we lost Portis AND Betts we'd probably be screwed anyway.

I agree with your point about us potentially losing Betts in the offseason. But why not just cross that bridge when we come to it? Maybe use our 3rd pick on a younger RB? Or sign a different RB at the end of the year. I just cant justify trading away a first day draft choice (1 of only 2 we had left) to bring in a guy and have him watch from the sidelines as he learns the system. I can't understand the logic of it.

I don't think it's fair to mention Cliff Russell as an example of how a 3rd round pick is not as valuable as it sounds. Russell tore his ACL early in his career and could have been a good player some day. And I realize we have had other 3rd round busts but we have also added some solid players in that round in recent years, Derrick Dockery and Chris ey come to mind. I just wish we could hang on to more draft picks. I hate the way we give them away. It's September and we have already traded our 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks for a draft that's 7 months away!

I'm gonna hope that it works out because I really do have a great deal of faith in Joe Gibbs but I don't like what I see so far. The funny thing is that I was a vocal proponent of the deal when it was first made, but now that I see Duckett not playing in short yardage situations against Minnesota (when we had to kick FGs despite getting inside the 10 on 3 different occassions) and not PLAYING AT ALL against Houston, I am starting to think the move was a misake.

I don't see how even the biggest Duckett supporter could possibly not be bothered by seeing him in street clothes in our 3rd game of the season.

BossHog wrote:...and Lafdell Betts

Paging Dr. Freud!!

JPM36 wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree because we are way off on this one. At least for now.

You see Duckett as insurance policy in case Portis or Betts gets hurt?

I don't 'see' it that way, that's what he was. it's all well and good to see it as useless now that Clinton is back but what if he wasn't?

I maintain that it is not a good move. Especially when we have a guy on our team in Rock Cartwright whose a decent 3rd RB, decent enough to put a 100 yard game last season. I mean really, how many RBs does a team need?

Cartwright isn't the answer.... not as far as the brass is concerened, and like the brass, i just don't see Cartwright ever filling a bigger role than he does now. If portis was hurt substantially... then he'd have had to.

You cite WR as a position where we did not have depth last season and the injury to Patten hurt us. I see what you are saying but the Redskins have much more depth at RB this year than we did at WR last season so I'm not sure it is a good comparison. And frankly, if we lost Portis AND Betts we'd probably be screwed anyway.

Who was comparing the two? Somebody said Brandon Lloyd AND TJ Duckett were busts... the WR comments address having Brandon Lloyd.

I agree with your point about us potentially losing Betts in the offseason. But why not just cross that bridge when we come to it? Maybe use our 3rd pick on a younger RB? Or sign a different RB at the end of the year.

How do you get insurance for CP not coming back by waiting until the end of the 2006 season? As i said... insurance against CLINTON'S injury, insurance againsty Betts' free agency. it's real easy to look back now that CP is playing and say that it was unneccessary... doesn't mean it was so when they pulled the trigger on the deal.

I just cant justify trading away a first day draft choice (1 of only 2 we had left) to bring in a guy and have him watch from the sidelines as he learns the system. I can't understand the logic of it.

Maybe because you're passing judgement three games into a season AND ignoring the fact that Duckett HAS ALREADY SERVED A PURPOSE BY PROTECTING HE REDSKINS IF CP COULDN'T RETURN.

I don't think it's fair to mention Cliff Russell as an example of how a 3rd round pick is not as valuable as it sounds. Russell tore his ACL early in his career and could have been a good player some day.

Why? The guy still plays in Miami. He's had 5 years to make a mark... and if your only point is that injuries can stop a player dead in his tracks, then thanks for proving the value of having depth even more. The fact is that while SOME 3rd round payers can make a mark... lots don't. I suppose if you want to make generalized statements like the value of a certain draft pick, and ignore the fact that this team is built to win now, then the argument has some merit. But since this time's talent mandates that this is a run for the SB this year and next, then what we get for a draft pick in the 3rd round next year shouldn't and wouldn't be too relevant to the equation.

I'm gonna hope that it works out because I really do have a great deal of faith in Joe Gibbs but I don't like what I see so far. The funny thing is that I was a vocal proponent of the deal when it was first made, but now that I see Duckett not playing in short yardage situations against Minnesota (when we had to kick FGs despite getting inside the 10 on 3 different occassions) and not PLAYING AT ALL against Houston, I am starting to think the move was a misake.

That's your prerogative... three games into a season... I couldn't possibly ever agree with any assessment of bust... especially in a situation where the player in discussion (Duckett) served a greater good without ever even getting on to the football field already.


I mean take it another step further.... had the Redskins NOT traded for Duckett, jesse Lumsden might have ahd a shot at making the team. Surely i'd have wanted that? But even I couldn't look at the Duckett deal as a bad thing... it just made too much sense at the time not to do it... and looking back in retrospect... it still does to me... regardless of contribution so far.

That's the thing about any type of insurance... there isn't always something tangible that you can reach out and touch... doesn't mean it isn't there and doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.

BossHog wrote:As i said...insurance againsty Betts' free agency.

Why would he be insurance against Bett's free agency? He's also a free agent after this year, meaning there is absolutely no leverage except the vague threat "Well, we'll sign TJ instead!" That's assuming TJ has any intentions of staying in DC as a #2 back, because he sure as hell didn't want to stay in Atlanta as a #2, and he's not going to be replacing Portis as the main back here...

Whether you see the leverage or not is inconsequential IMO... I think Betts' agent will. I'm fully aware that Duckett is also a free agent, and I think the Redskins will continue contract extension talks with both of them throughout THIS season... they already started with Betts and quickly shut them down... I don't think it's a coinceidence that it's when those talks broke off, the trade for Duckett was made.

I think one of them will get an extension before the year is out, well, i think the Redskins will do their best to make that happen... or could trade Duckett... there's still certainly a distinct possibility that neither of them will be in Washington in 2007... just like it was possible that CP would not return from the shoulder injury quickly and need to be 'spelled' for more than a game or two.