PDA

View Full Version : So who got the better end of the Bailey/Portis trade?


T-post Tom
02-15-2007, 11:34 PM
Most folks that I've talked to agree that Denver got the better end of the deal. Do you agree? Is so, would you consider trading L.J. to the Falcons (straight up) for Deangelo Hall? Ty Law is due a big roster bonus in the next month or so. Some think that the Chiefs will balk on that bonus and allow Law to become a free agent. Not much depth behind Surtain/Law, so it could become an area of concern rather quickly. Hall is a young phenom and could really help the secondary.

I mention this because Atlanta could be in the market for a RB in the very near future.

|Zach|
02-15-2007, 11:41 PM
Is there any question?

Demonpenz
02-15-2007, 11:43 PM
portis has been a beast

HolmeZz
02-15-2007, 11:45 PM
DeAngelo Hall's become one of the most overrated players in the league. He gets toasted on a regular basis.

And yeah, Denver got the best of that trade.

HMc
02-15-2007, 11:47 PM
i feel like i've seen D. Hall (hello, i mean deangelo, tho the point rings true for Dante aswell) get smoked A LOT in the few games i've seen atlanta play.

ChiefFripp
02-16-2007, 12:04 AM
Bailey is great(unfortunately), while Portis isn't even top tier.

Cochise
02-16-2007, 12:19 AM
washington got raped in that trade.

SNR
02-16-2007, 12:27 AM
Not Deangelo. I'd ask for another defensive player, but it occured to me that I can't name a single asshole on that team's defense.

HMc
02-16-2007, 12:45 AM
atlanta don't need another RB

Guru
02-16-2007, 12:49 AM
I would say Bailey has had a much bigger impact on the team than Portis has.

Count Zarth
02-16-2007, 12:51 AM
There honestly isn't another corner in the league in Champ's class.

scott free
02-16-2007, 07:08 AM
washington got raped in that trade.

jspchief
02-16-2007, 07:32 AM
Bailey has clearly been the better player although I think Portis' injury problems come into play.

However, Denver's achilles' heel in the play-offs has been a running game that has not been consistent/dependable. They've been able to have the appearance of a running game in the regular season, but when it matters most the lack of a true player at that position has hampered their success.

So while I'd say Denver got the better player, I would also say it may not have been the best move for them. They still need a real RB they can lean on when needed.

boogblaster
02-16-2007, 07:36 AM
Id rather B than P ....

vailpass
02-16-2007, 07:39 AM
portis has been hurt every year, has not played a full season, and has acted like a complete ghetto brotha' which is why Shanny traded him in the first place. The collective Redskin anus is still gaping from the severe rodgering they took in that trade.

FYP Pez LMAO

scott free
02-16-2007, 08:17 AM
FYP Pez LMAO

HEH!!!

Thats a word you dont hear very often, a "rodgering".

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 08:43 AM
Bailey has clearly been the better player although I think Portis' injury problems come into play.

However, Denver's achilles' heel in the play-offs has been a running game that has not been consistent/dependable. They've been able to have the appearance of a running game in the regular season, but when it matters most the lack of a true player at that position has hampered their success.

So while I'd say Denver got the better player, I would also say it may not have been the best move for them. They still need a real RB they can lean on when needed.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Denver got the better player, by far. But I wouldn't say the deal has really WORKED for them.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 08:57 AM
I definitely think that Denver ended up the winner in the trade... they wound up with Bailey and Tatum Bell.

Bailey was off in his first year, but he's been a huge presence the last 2 years. Droughns came out of nowhere in 2004 to rock out at RB for Denver, then he was traded. Denver has managed to get by pretty well with Tatum and the rotation of RBs the past 2 years, but the ground game has failed them at times without a premier badass at RB when they've really needed one.

There were comments about Portis being injured alot... Portis was in 15 and 16 games respectively during the first 2 years and yeah, he missed 8 in 2006. I wouldn't say he's been a failure in WAS at all, in 2004 they simply didn't use him correctly.

| 2004 (http://www.profootballreference.com/years/2004.htm) was (http://www.profootballreference.com/teams/was2004.htm) | 15 (http://www.profootballreference.com/games/PortCl00.htm#2004) | 343 1315 3.8 5 | 40 235 5.9 2 |
| 2005 (http://www.profootballreference.com/years/2005.htm) was (http://www.profootballreference.com/teams/was2005.htm) | 16 (http://www.profootballreference.com/games/PortCl00.htm#2005) | 352 1516 4.3 11 | 30 216 7.2 0 |
| 2006 (http://www.profootballreference.com/years/2006.htm) was (http://www.profootballreference.com/teams/was2006.htm) | 8 (http://www.profootballreference.com/games/PortCl00.htm#2006) | 127 523 4.1 7 | 17 170 10.0 0 |

Overall - yes, Denver wound up much better off in the deal.

The Broncos were 19-15 in Portis' two years there while making the playoffs 1 time (blown out by Indy).

The Broncos were 33-16 in the 3 years after Portis while making the playoffs 2 times with a 1-2 record, losing in the 2005 AFC Championship game.

2006 was a weird year with all the issues around QB and the defense falling flat, but they still won 9 games and are pretty well positioned it appears with nice youth on offense.

The Redskins have still only ended the season with a record over .500 1 time in the last 7 years, while winning 6, 10 and 5 games after the Portis trade.

StcChief
02-16-2007, 09:02 AM
Dungver with Bailey...

Washington as usual with their meddling owner got screwed.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 09:04 AM
Let's not forget that WAS also was screwed last year in the trade that sent Duckett to WAS, Lelie to ATL and two draft picks to Denver. Duckett will be with another team in 2007.

Gotta love Snyder and I wonder why he even takes Shanahan's calls anymore.

Cochise
02-16-2007, 09:30 AM
I agree with what you're saying JSP, but I don't think Portis was really that guy either. I don't think he's all that much different than Tatum Bell. Probably a little better in most ways but they are the same sort of player.

In my mind they downgraded running backs a little bit, and in exchange they got the best corner in football. I don't think the running back downgrade hurt them that much because Portis wasn't a guy who was going to carry your team that you can pile up carries on and who can be the offense. He is a weapon, but I don't think history is going to treat Portis as a workhorse back who is the centerpiece of a team's offense.

manchambo
02-16-2007, 10:40 AM
Most folks that I've talked to agree that Denver got the better end of the deal. Do you agree? Is so, would you consider trading L.J. to the Falcons (straight up) for Deangelo Hall? Ty Law is due a big roster bonus in the next month or so. Some think that the Chiefs will balk on that bonus and allow Law to become a free agent. Not much depth behind Surtain/Law, so it could become an area of concern rather quickly. Hall is a young phenom and could really help the secondary.

I mention this because Atlanta could be in the market for a RB in the very near future.

The problem with this question is that (i) LJ is better than Portis, and (ii) Bailey is much better than Hall, so the answer is that, even though Denver got a good deal (remember that we also got T Bell in that deal), the deal would not be that good for the Chiefs.

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 11:54 AM
kinda funny......


so many people couldn't believe the donks traded portis for a cornerback when it happened.

"a shutdown corner does not exist"


now opinions have completely reversed LMAO



i'd have to think about the Hall trade ... maybe


how about larry johnson for D'Angelo Hall and swap 1st rounders?

:hmmm:

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 12:49 PM
That is true Laz... if I recall accuately, the majority of this place thought the trade was incredibly idiotic on Denver's behalf. Three seasons later... Bailey is by far and a way the best CB in the league by the notes on this thread.

Interesting. Oh and I don't think there is a chance in hell that Carl trades LJ.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 12:55 PM
That is true Laz... if I recall accuately, the majority of this place thought the trade was incredibly idiotic on Denver's behalf. Three seasons later... Bailey is by far and a way the best CB in the league by the notes on this thread.

Interesting. Oh and I don't think there is a chance in hell that Carl trades LJ.

In the end, they've got the best CB in the league and nothing to show for it. That's the bottom line.

vailpass
02-16-2007, 12:58 PM
In the end, they've got the best CB in the league and nothing to show for it. That's the bottom line.

The bitterman role doesn't suit you htis; you should leave that to the experts aka Frazod. :)

jspchief
02-16-2007, 01:02 PM
In the end, they've got the best CB in the league and nothing to show for it. That's the bottom line.

2006 Pass defense: 21st in the league
2005 Pass defense: 29th in the league

Shutdown.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:07 PM
In the end, they've got the best CB in the league and nothing to show for it. That's the bottom line.

Well, if the title is the only thing that qualifies, then yeah you're right. However, the team was better overall after the trade. Winning is the goal and the 3 years after Portis have been much more fruitful than the 2 years with Portis.

They were 1 game away in 2005 from the SB... so, improving the team should account for something to show for it. And, the team has become younger at several spots thanks to the last two draft classes. I see really nice potential and getting younger is key.

And, this last comment has nothing to do with the trade... but, Denver is still the best team in the AFCW since Elway retired.

Team Wins (reg season) since 1998 (8 seasons):
DEN 76
KC 69
SD 61
OAK 56

Again, just something I thought would be nice to post... damn, it's been a long time since John retired.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:08 PM
2006 Pass defense: 21st in the league
2005 Pass defense: 29th in the league

Shutdown.

So, Bailey is responsible for the "team" defensive ranking. I did not know that, thanks for sharing.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 01:14 PM
Well, if the title is the only thing that qualifies, then yeah you're right. However, the team was better overall after the trade. Winning is the goal and the 3 years after Portis have been much more fruitful than the 2 years with Portis.

They were 1 game away in 2005 from the SB... so, improving the team should account for something to show for it. And, the team has become younger at several spots thanks to the last two draft classes. I see really nice potential and getting younger is key.

And, this last comment has nothing to do with the trade... but, Denver is still the best team in the AFCW since Elway retired.

Team Wins (reg season) since 1998 (8 seasons):
DEN 76
KC 69
SD 61
OAK 56

Again, just something I thought would be nice to post... damn, it's been a long time since John retired.

They were one game away from the Super Bowl in 2005 and one could argue that, had they had a better running game, Jake Plummer wouldn't have been forced to fumble the game away...

jspchief
02-16-2007, 01:14 PM
So, Bailey is responsible for the "team" defensive ranking. I did not know that, thanks for sharing.Yea thats exactly what I said.

Actually my point was more along the lines of "for all the shutting down that Bailey is doing, at the end of the day it hasn't done much for your pass defense".

Hype the trade all you want, but at the end of the day it hasn't had an over-whelming affect on your defense.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:16 PM
They were one game away from the Super Bowl in 2005 and one could argue that, had they had a better running game, Jake Plummer wouldn't have been forced to fumble the game away...

Very true, but I'm also not going to let the defense get away without blame in that game. The defense failed to get any pressure on Ben and he rocked them hard. (here is where JSP points to Bailey and says he wasn't worth the trade)

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:19 PM
Yea thats exactly what I said.

Actually my point was more along the lines of "for all the shutting down that Bailey is doing, at the end of the day it hasn't done much for your pass defense".

Hype the trade all you want, but at the end of the day it hasn't had an over-whelming affect on your defense.

Well, that also has something to do with the "let's grab all the former Browns we can" experiment not working out well and as much as I like DW (RIP) ... he did give up his share of opportunities. And, the safety position aside from Lynch has had issues.

The defense as a whole has had and still has a number of things that need to be corrected. Coyer did well at hiding the issues at times, like the start of 2006, but in the end... the defense played just as poorly as Plummer did in big games.

And, for 2007... both Plummer and Coyer have been replaced, so we'll see what happens.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 01:19 PM
Very true, but I'm also not going to let the defense get away without blame in that game. The defense failed to get any pressure on Ben and he rocked them hard. (here is where JSP points to Bailey and says he wasn't worth the trade)

And that's the rub.

It doesn't matter HOW good Bailey is...he can be nullified by something he has no control over - a poor pass rush.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:21 PM
And that's the rub.

It doesn't matter HOW good Bailey is...he can be nullified by something he has no control over - a poor pass rush.

True, but aside from 2004... Bailey has been damn good the last 2 seasons at limiting what happens by the offense on that side of the field. The other guys haven't been as dominating with their parts of the field.

All in all, I still say it was a hell of a trade and the team has been better because of it happening.

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 01:21 PM
Interesting. Oh and I don't think there is a chance in hell that Carl trades LJ.
you're right ...... he won't trade LJ

he doesn't have the brains or the nutsack to make it happen.


besides after all the crap he took about the selection of LJ and about how poorly he drafts ... his Ego wouldn't let him trade Johnson.


we need to get the team's talent level balanced. It does no good to have 1 great player surrounded by crap. You have to be prepared to make some bold moves to get it moving in the right direction.


we should be trading older players with value instead of giving them new contracts ... we should be looking for away to speed up the building process.

looking for quick fixes and bandaids will only keep us "average"

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:24 PM
I'm definitely not suggesting that KC trades LJ, but I sure as hell would field offers from interested teams. RBs are a lot easier to find now (draft, FA) than most other skill positions. And, it's going to cost you some coin either way.

LJ did nothing in the playoff game b/c of a number of things - coaching and the age/skill level of the talent around him. You can go find another top 10 RB and upgrade a few need areas by considering a trade.

It's worth consideration.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 01:25 PM
you're right ...... he won't trade LJ

he doesn't have the brains or the nutsack to make it happen.


besides after all the crap he took about the selection of LJ and about how poorly he drafts ... his Ego wouldn't let him trade Johnson.


we need to get the team's talent level balanced. It does no good to have 1 great player surrounded by crap. You have to be prepared to make some bold moves to get it moving in the right direction.


we should be trading older players with value instead of giving them new contracts ... we should be looking for away to speed up the building process.

looking for quick fixes and bandaids will only keep us "average"

So you've made the determination that anyone that thinks we should keep LJ lacks brains and balls?

Interesting.

Trading older players isn't a bad strategy. Too bad LJ isn't an older player.

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 01:39 PM
So you've made the determination that anyone that thinks we should keep LJ lacks brains and balls?
i didn't say that ...


but you keep interpreting things the way you want.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 01:40 PM
you're right ...... he won't trade LJ

he doesn't have the brains or the nutsack to make it happen.

That's what you said right there.

What other conclusion could be drawn from that other than:

LJ should be traded but won't because Carl is both stupid and cowardly.

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 01:53 PM
That's what you said right there.

What other conclusion could be drawn from that other than:

LJ should be traded but won't because Carl is both stupid and cowardly.
*sigh*

there are lots of reason other people might wanna keep LJ.

he might be their favorite player ... they might wannas see if the chiefs can own the all time rushing record etc.


but a general manager's job is pretty specific IMO


1. evaluate the talent on the team
2. determine what mode the team is in (building,declining etc)
3. develop an action play designed to get the team to a position where they can challenge for the super bowl.


carl doesn't do 3 because he either:

1. isn't smart enough to do 1 and 2 properly so 3 is lost

2. doesn't do 3 because he's so scared of taking a step back that he never takes 2 steps forward.

3. is so worried about profits that his primary goal isn't a super bowl.


so imo EVEN IF carl was to determine that the best plan of action for the team was to use LJ to replenish the talent level on the team he wouldn't do it.

Mile High Mania
02-16-2007, 01:56 PM
Where's Titus? Can you two please quit clogging up the Broncos' oriented thread, please? There are numerous Peterson Bashing threads out there.

Thank you.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 02:13 PM
*sigh*

there are lots of reason other people might wanna keep LJ.

he might be their favorite player ... they might wannas see if the chiefs can own the all time rushing record etc.


but a general manager's job is pretty specific IMO


1. evaluate the talent on the team
2. determine what mode the team is in (building,declining etc)
3. develop an action play designed to get the team to a position where they can challenge for the super bowl.


carl doesn't do 3 because he either:

1. isn't smart enough to do 1 and 2 properly so 3 is lost

2. doesn't do 3 because he's so scared of taking a step back that he never takes 2 steps forward.

3. is so worried about profits that his primary goal isn't a super bowl.


so imo EVEN IF carl was to determine that the best plan of action for the team was to use LJ to replenish the talent level on the team he wouldn't do it.

OK, that clear it up.

Your first post made it sound like you had already determined that trading LJ was "best for the team".

You're saying that it may or may not be best for the team, but if it was it wouldn't matter because Carl wouldn't do it.

TinyEvel
02-16-2007, 02:13 PM
WTF is all the LJ talk?

Isn't this jumping the gun while the cinders are still smouldering in the QB cuntroversy?

HemiEd
02-16-2007, 02:26 PM
Where's Titus? Can you two please quit clogging up the Broncos' oriented thread, please? There are numerous Peterson Bashing threads out there.

Thank you.
ROFL OK, Denver got the best end of the trade.

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 02:51 PM
You're saying that it may or may not be best for the team, but if it was it wouldn't matter because Carl wouldn't do it.
yea, that's what i was meaning to say ... this was a thread about the Portis trade and the speculation of trading LJ.


apparently i didn't do a very good job of explaining myself.

htismaqe
02-16-2007, 02:52 PM
apparently i didn't do a very good job of explaining myself.

That's not unusual.

:D

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 02:58 PM
That's not unusual.

:D
you're not wrong


apparently you bastiges aren't reading my mind like you should be :cuss:










:p

thurman merman
02-16-2007, 05:04 PM
if the chiefs were to trade LJ, which is a terrible idea anyway, wouldn't it be a good idea to trade him for someone who plays a position they actually need help at?

HMc
02-16-2007, 05:09 PM
mate that wouldbe EVERY position

HMc
02-16-2007, 05:10 PM
except maybe DE

Mr. Laz
02-16-2007, 07:12 PM
if the chiefs were to trade LJ, which is a terrible idea anyway, wouldn't it be a good idea to trade him for someone who plays a position they actually need help at?
some people figure that the chiefs won't pick up the big option for Ty law this year.

rumor has it that it's 7 million dollars