• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Offseason Offensive Line Thread

Bulldog's Twin said:
The OL to me is now with the defensive additions the most needy area of the team.

We have bodies there but no one that gives you real confidence at OG or RT.

Moses' Lisfranc injury to me makes it critical the team invests in the line as he was perhaps the team's best prospect.

Now he is a question mark and will miss most of the offseason work.
Click to expand...

Definitely. With our FA period likely now over, the team can move forward and focus on OL in the draft.

We still need a FS and likely WR also (both Garcon and Jackson are approaching 30 and will be $10 million a year each) but O-line has to be right near the top.
 
Frankly, if you look at the Patriots, Packers and Seahawks they get middle to late round picks to come in and contribute fairly early on the OL. There is no reason with a good front office decision-maker we should not be able to select guys in Rounds 2, 3 and 4 that can and should come in and compete with the average players we have now starting.

It appears from the hindsight 20/20 view, Spencer Long was a #3 pick but he was selected earlier than many expected. Kiper had him as a #5 pick.

The fact he was recovering from the knee injury in college only complicated his status last year.

So, perhaps not as much should be expected of Long as when he was drafted.

In my mind, we should be making picks in Rounds 2 and 3 for players that are healthy and can come in and contribute.

If we want to take a rider on a guy that showed potential but got injured then that's okay in Rounds 5-7.

But not in one of the first three rounds.

It's hard enough to project guys without having a serious injury further clouding the picture.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, our draft approach for years has reminded me of someone thinking they are the smartest guy in the room and trying to prove it. Sometimes, it's OK to take the most obvious pick instead of out-thinking the experts.
 
Unfortunately, in the past we have not looked for value. If we fell in love with a player we overpaid to move up in the draft or via trade.

That needs to stop.

How can Griffin coming out be worth more in trade than John Elway?

That #2 pick included in the Portis trade was completely unnecessary.

The trade to move up for Campbell was too rich.
 
Even when we've extracted good value, we haven't turned the potential of those picks into anything close to acceptable results (see: Sleepy, the Comb and Devin)
 
how was the Portis trade a bad thing again?

Bailey was leaving anyways and since being gone has taken every opportunity to trash the organization.
Portis gained:
1300
1500
1250
1500

that is 4 out of 5 years

We made the playoffs thanks to him 2 of those 5 years
he changed his entire body frame, running style, and became one of the best blocking backs to ever play this game.

he was NOT an unnecessary trade since Bailey was leaving anyways and he came in and immediately contributed. That 60+ yard first carry from scrimmage for a TD showed just that.
 
MikeSr619 said:
how was the Portis trade a bad thing again?

Bailey was leaving anyways and since being gone has taken every opportunity to trash the organization.
Portis gained:
1300
1500
1250
1500

that is 4 out of 5 years

We made the playoffs thanks to him 2 of those 5 years
he changed his entire body frame, running style, and became one of the best blocking backs to ever play this game.

he was NOT an unnecessary trade since Bailey was leaving anyways and he came in and immediately contributed. That 60+ yard first carry from scrimmage for a TD showed just that.
Click to expand...

Portis for Bailey was fine, Mike. Portis for Bailey and a 2nd was too much by a draft pick. If anything it should have been Portis and a 2nd for Bailey.

I was upset about that second round pick from the beginning and I loved having Clinton here. Another guy I still miss.
 
100% agree Bob.
 
Neophyte said:
Portis for Bailey was fine, Mike. Portis for Bailey and a 2nd was too much by a draft pick. If anything it should have been Portis and a 2nd for Bailey.

I was upset about that second round pick from the beginning and I loved having Clinton here. Another guy I still miss.
Click to expand...

Well, we had Trung ****ing Candidate as a running back before him. We were going to have to use a draft pick on a running back anyways so it might as well be the one who was lighting it up in Denver with 2 years of 1500+ yards. And, yes, I looked it up. His middle name really is ****ing.
 
MikeSr619 said:
Well, we had Trung ****ing Candidate as a running back before him. We were going to have to use a draft pick on a running back anyways so it might as well be the one who was lighting it up in Denver with 2 years of 1500+ yards. And, yes, I looked it up. His middle name really is ****ing.
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm not arguing that Portis wasn't a huge upgrade over Candidate. He was. But the simple truth is that very good RB's can be had easy. Shut down corners, like Champ was at the time, cannot. He was the last great corner this team has had on the roster while we dropped Portis and mostly replaced him with Morris in the 6th round.

Now before you go off on me I know Morris is not the home run threat Portis was. He also isn't the blocker Portis (but really, how many backs are?). He is, however, consistently healthy which is something Portis was not.

On top of that, RBs take more abuse than CBs do so their shelf life is a lot less. Champ had been here 4 or 5 years when we traded him while Portis was coming off his 2nd year and Champ was still playing when Clinton retired.

I'm not saying that Champ for Portis straight up would have been a bad deal but it would have been the least I would have done from the Skins point of view I think. Fair would have been Bailey for Portis plus a 4th.
 
Bob, Champ was leaving. He was not going to stay after his contract ended and everyone in the entire NFL knew it. He was unfaithful to his girl, she wanted him out, he didn't like the organization, and has spent his time complaining and trashing us ever since. So it doesn't matter if he was Darrell Green and Deion combined....he was leaving no matter what.

What we GOT for him was a RB who gained us thousands of yards, carried us to the playoffs, and brought character/fun times to a locker room that was otherwise pretty dull.

We were going to spend at least a 2nd on a RB in the draft or else we were going to end up with someone with a second round pick AT LEAST to get anywhere near what we got with Portis. here is a list of the RBs who came out in 2004 and the rounds they came out in.

2004 NFL Draft Results by Position - Running Backs - ESPN

can you tell me any RB in the 4th or 5th round that has had anywhere near the career that Portis has? I know I see longevity in rounds 1 and 2 but nowhere else.

Champ was "playing" in Denver still...but he was on a team that was at the bottom most of the time and he lived off of his name after 2006. He had 8INTs in 05 and 10 in 06, and then never got more than 3 a year max. That isn't playing anything near what Portis did here for 4 out of 5 years.

But none of that matters. Champ was leaving. He was as good as gone and everyone knew it. We got a stud RB for him and didn't have to try to make "Meladwe Moore" work. And the 1st rounder we got (Sean Taylor) came 75% because Portis used to whisper to coach Gibbs every day "Sean" before the 2004 draft.....just one more reason it was worth it.

and our defense was a bright spot on our teams even after he left....
 
The point is though the effective career for a productive back is usually shorter than a productive corner.

Corners are also harder to find looking across the league.

So for those reasons we should not have paid any premium for Portis, in fact we should have been the ones receiving additional compensation.

The best GMs are the ones that consistently get those extra picks or player considerations.

In the 2000's we have given up high picks like they are lollipops.

That was the circle of stupidity that needed to stop.
 
The 'we were going to spend a 2nd rounder anyway' argument doesn't really make sense to me. The bottom line is, we didn't have to trade him to Denver at all costs. We could also have used that pick on another position of need - if we didn't throw it into the mix. I'm guessing, if McLovin were running the show back then, we wouldn't have panicked and taken that deal. Your statement about Champ was correct, but he was still under contract, so he couldn't exactly just leave - he did need the team to make it happen for him, which to their credit, they did. The only issue is, as Bob said, we got the crap end of that deal having to throw in a high round pick. If nothing else, a straight up trade would've been fair. We could have found another trade partner with a less costly offer.

The sad truth is that we threw picks around back then like they were copies of Sports Illustrated we'd already read.

I agree with your overall point - Portis was a great addition for us, and although Bailey had a great career in Denver, I think it's hard to argue his contributions were any more impressive than Portis' were in DC.
 
The only way to get better is to admit mistakes.

If we leave blinders on and just imagine that everything has been peachy we could end up like the Cardinals who haven't won a title since 1947.
 
Boone said:
The 'we were going to spend a 2nd rounder anyway' argument doesn't really make sense to me. The bottom line is, we didn't have to trade him to Denver at all costs. We could also have used that pick on another position of need - if we didn't throw it into the mix. I'm guessing, if McLovin were running the show back then, we wouldn't have panicked and taken that deal. Your statement about Champ was correct, but he was still under contract, so he couldn't exactly just leave - he did need the team to make it happen for him, which to their credit, they did. The only issue is, as Bob said, we got the crap end of that deal having to throw in a high round pick. If nothing else, a straight up trade would've been fair. We could have found another trade partner with a less costly offer.

The sad truth is that we threw picks around back then like they were copies of Sports Illustrated we'd already read.

I agree with your overall point - Portis was a great addition for us, and although Bailey had a great career in Denver, I think it's hard to argue his contributions were any more impressive than Portis' were in DC.
Click to expand...

I guess what you consider "all costs" I consider "a good trade" considering 1, the player was leaving anyways and 2, we got a better pick with that 2nd round than we would have if we used it in the draft. I said he was going to leave after his contract was up so I am glad we got something for it instead of left holding the Trung purse. I put up a link for all the 2004 running backs that were coming out and there were NONE that made an impact in the league for any significant time outside of the second round. We used our 2004 1st round on Sean and I see no running back in the second round worth taking over Portis.

2004 NFL Draft Results and Analysis: Round 2 - National Football League - ESPN [/quote]

Bulldog's Twin said:
The only way to get better is to admit mistakes.

If we leave blinders on and just imagine that everything has been peachy we could end up like the Cardinals who haven't won a title since 1947.
Click to expand...

as far as "the only way to get better is to admit to mistakes" sure, we can say that about a lot of things. But this wasn't one of them. Portis came in and performed as good, if not better than a player who was disgruntled, distracted, and leaving anyways. Bailey had 2 great years in Denver and then a bunch of OK ones. I have NO idea why you bring up the Cardinals of 1947....but didnt they just go to the super bowl in 2009 and have been a 10 win team as of recent?
 
Mike, Portis wasn't happy in Denver either. He was seriously underpaid for his contribution and wanted a new contract. He and Shanahan were crossways on that so it isn't like Washington was the only team dealing with a tough player situation. Denver was there too and we were doing them as much a favor as they were us, we just failed to play hard ball.
 
so we both won then.....YAY!

that doesn't mean we overpaid for a RB that was not destined to come here without that trade.
 
It's about competitive worth. Shutdown corner trumps top flight RB significantly. Denver wanted Champ. We had leverage regardless of either players situation. Just another example of our front office's ineptitude. We all love Portis, but the trade was skewed the wrong direction.
 
Champ Bailey, IMO, was NEVER a shut down corner. He was good. But not great. He should have "Toomer's Bitch" tattooed on his ass. Terrible at tracking the ball in flight.

Portis was a better RB, than Bailey was a CB. He just played longer.

Hindsight being 50/50, (Thank you Spurrier) I'd make the trade again, under the same circumstances.
 
I hated giving up that second, but it's not like Vinny would have done anything positive with it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top