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

i wonder if duckett would be decent trade bait to get a good mid round draft pick or trade him for a cornerback.its clear that even though springs is good ,he often is injured.i feel in the draft we need to target some cbs.any thoughts.great two weeks.go skins.

We definitely need a CB, just read the signature. But how are we going to get one? I don't think we are trading Duckett any time soon. I don't know of Betts contract status, but I see him to leave soon and Duckett will bring in the 1, 2 punch. So....if my prediction on Betts is correct, we have to find another way to get a CB.

In the last 4 seasons (2 with the Skins) he's played 15, 12, 15, and 15 games. He hasn't been the healthiest player but I think he's been pretty durable for us.

There is a good chance that Duckett will be a priceless backup this year. Whenever he does get worked in, he's going to be fresh and will really pound some people in tough situations. Considering the lack of a spark that our O had last year at the end of the season when our team was worn down, getting TJ seemed like a great move to me.

I still believe Duckett will play a role for us later in the year, just be patient....

hatsOFF2gibbs wrote:We definitely need a CB, just read the signature.

I disagree. Once Springs is back on the field, the tandem of him and Rogers is just fine.

See I think you guys are forgetting that fact that the guys who had the entire off season to learn Saunders offense are just now firing on all cylinders. Ducket was picked up after the preseason games had already begun. He needs a learning curve, unless he's nessecary for injury reasons, they are going to keep him in reserve while he learns.

NikiH wrote:See I think you guys are forgetting that fact that the guys who had the entire off season to learn Saunders offense are just now firing on all cylinders. Ducket was picked up after the preseason games had already begun. He needs a learning curve, unless he's nessecary for injury reasons, they are going to keep him in reserve while he learns.

How much does he have to learn to "take the ball from the QB, run straight ahead, pound anyone in your way." We need him for things like 4th and 1 on the opponents 20 with under 2 minutes left to ice the game (assuming Hall makes a short FG).

Now granted as he learns more he could be involved in other plays, but I thought that was the main scenario he was acquired and yet he is deactivated two weeks in a row.

I'm starting to think that we got him becuase the coaches thought Portis might not come back as quickly and as healthy as he did and they are not really that interested in him now or he's not practicing well.

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't believe I am until he's actually dressed on game day and carrying on 3rd or 4th and short.

See I think you guys are forgetting that fact that the guys who had the entire off season to learn Saunders offense are just now firing on all cylinders. Ducket was picked up after the preseason games had already begun. He needs a learning curve, unless he's nessecary for injury reasons, they are going to keep him in reserve while he learns.

I'm sure that Duckett doesn't have a grasp of the entire offense yet, however, like the previous poster said, he doesn't need to know the entire offense to be effective in goaline and short yardage situations.

This topic brings me to a issue I have with the current NFL game day roster structure that I though would have been eliminated in the last CBA. Why does each team need to place certain players on the inactive roster for each game? My feeling is if they are not on the Practice squad and they are not injured, then they should be suited up for every game. In that scenario, Duckett would be vailable for an occasional one yard attempt while he learns the office.

Who gains from the current structure?

The players don't like being deactivate when healthy.
The coaches don't like not having the entire team active.
The inactive player gets the same pay so there is no monetary gain from the owner's perspective.

I'm having visions of Duckett running over people like Gerald Riggs when we get to December and January.

I find it hard to believe that he was acquired without any serious intention of using him. Don't know what the delay is, but I predict that we'll see plenty of him when the winter comes, and we need a runner to shove the ball down the opponents' throats.

bcg301 wrote:This topic brings me to a issue I have with the current NFL game day roster structure that I though would have been eliminated in the last CBA. Why does each team need to place certain players on the inactive roster for each game? My feeling is if they are not on the Practice squad and they are not injured, then they should be suited up for every game. In that scenario, Duckett would be vailable for an occasional one yard attempt while he learns the office.

Who gains from the current structure?

The players don't like being deactivate when healthy.
The coaches don't like not having the entire team active.
The inactive player gets the same pay so there is no monetary gain from the owner's perspective.

This is an explanation of how it came about, not an argument that it should be that way.

Many teams, the Skins being one of the major offenders, were stashing players away on injured reserve. They could practice and do everything with the team. It was sort of like "redshirting" them.

The league decided to crack down and severely limit IR and what players on IR could do. In return, they expanded the roster and had some players deactivated. So being deactivated now is like being on IR in the old days, except you can play the next week.

UK Skins Fan wrote:I'm having visions of Duckett running over people like Gerald Riggs when we get to December and January.

I find it hard to believe that he was acquired without any serious intention of using him. Don't know what the delay is, but I predict that we'll see plenty of him when the winter comes, and we need a runner to shove the ball down the opponents' throats.

I'm not clear why we want Duckett running over people in December and January, but we don't want Duckett running over them now. We sure could have used it on Sunday to avoid the scare at the end and OT. No?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:I'm having visions of Duckett running over people like Gerald Riggs when we get to December and January.

I find it hard to believe that he was acquired without any serious intention of using him. Don't know what the delay is, but I predict that we'll see plenty of him when the winter comes, and we need a runner to shove the ball down the opponents' throats.

I'm not clear why we want Duckett running over people in December and January, but we don't want Duckett running over them now. We sure could have used it on Sunday to avoid the scare at the end and OT. No?

Not trying to postulate some master plan here - just telling you what my visions are. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got an appointemnt wiith another vision, involving Winona Ryder, two hatstands and a packet of jelly babies. I have no idea what this one means, but it's quite good fun.

Some thoughts: potatoes, ants, sporks

Fios wrote:Some thoughts: potatoes, ants, sporks

What kind of sporks?

On Redskins.com yesterday they had a video clip of 'practice cam'. The offensive practice session showed Ducket practicing with Portis, so I wonder if Ducket might suit up for the Giants game.

JPFair wrote:On Redskins.com yesterday they had a video clip of 'practice cam'. The offensive practice session showed Ducket practicing with Portis, so I wonder if Ducket might suit up for the Giants game.

Suit up, yes...play.....no