CLinton Portis to the Broncos Hypothetical (1 Viewer)

[Balco]

While watching Betts run the past half season, it is evident that he is capable of being a # 1 running back in the NFL. Where does this put Portis? He has a high cap figure, so the Skins, although Gibbs has been denying it, could look to shop him.

I need a refresher, however. I am pretty sure Portis left on bad terms, but I am not positive. He excels in the zone blocking scheme that the Broncos employ, and would really fill a huge void that has been missing since he joined the Skins. What is the cap hit on the Skins if they trade him? He had a pretty high signing bonus I recall.

Portis for a 1st rounder makes alot of sense for both teams.

 

[thayman]

While watching Betts run the past half season, it is evident that he is capable of being a # 1 running back in the NFL. Where does this put Portis? He has a high cap figure, so the Skins, although Gibbs has been denying it, could look to shop him.I need a refresher, however. I am pretty sure Portis left on bad terms, but I am not positive. He excels in the zone blocking scheme that the Broncos employ, and would really fill a huge void that has been missing since he joined the Skins. What is the cap hit on the Skins if they trade him? He had a pretty high signing bonus I recall.Portis for a 1st rounder makes alot of sense for both teams.

It makes no sense for either team, Portis will be in WSH next year. Betts is a great second and I love him, but he does have a fumbling issue. Also as a Skins homer, in case you haven't noticed we don't trade FOR draft picks, we trade them away.

 

[Balco]

While watching Betts run the past half season, it is evident that he is capable of being a # 1 running back in the NFL. Where does this put Portis? He has a high cap figure, so the Skins, although Gibbs has been denying it, could look to shop him.I need a refresher, however. I am pretty sure Portis left on bad terms, but I am not positive. He excels in the zone blocking scheme that the Broncos employ, and would really fill a huge void that has been missing since he joined the Skins. What is the cap hit on the Skins if they trade him? He had a pretty high signing bonus I recall.Portis for a 1st rounder makes alot of sense for both teams.

It makes no sense for either team, Portis will be in WSH next year. Betts is a great second and I love him, but he does have a fumbling issue. Also as a Skins homer, in case you haven't noticed we don't trade FOR draft picks, we trade them away.

Can you elaborate a little more as to why it makes no sense for either team? Portis wouldn't be a good fit in Denver? Fumbling issue aside, Betts is a # 1 running back in the NFL.

 

[thayman]

While watching Betts run the past half season, it is evident that he is capable of being a # 1 running back in the NFL. Where does this put Portis? He has a high cap figure, so the Skins, although Gibbs has been denying it, could look to shop him.I need a refresher, however. I am pretty sure Portis left on bad terms, but I am not positive. He excels in the zone blocking scheme that the Broncos employ, and would really fill a huge void that has been missing since he joined the Skins. What is the cap hit on the Skins if they trade him? He had a pretty high signing bonus I recall.Portis for a 1st rounder makes alot of sense for both teams.

It makes no sense for either team, Portis will be in WSH next year. Betts is a great second and I love him, but he does have a fumbling issue. Also as a Skins homer, in case you haven't noticed we don't trade FOR draft picks, we trade them away.

Can you elaborate a little more as to why it makes no sense for either team? Portis wouldn't be a good fit in Denver? Fumbling issue aside, Betts is a # 1 running back in the NFL.

No he is Clinton Portis's backup. At best you will see a RBBC in Washington. I don't know the exact numbers, but Washington's players aren't set up to be traded. All their money is backloaded into contracts, then they move it up front into a bonus when they get into Cap trouble. Also the public fall out of trading Portis BACK to Denver would be huge. Washington sent Bailey and a 2nd rounder to Denver for Portis (a trade I'm not unhappy with at all) so to send Portis back for a mid to late 1st rounder would be assanine and stupid for Washington.

 

[lord_helmet]

Portis is good but the threats about a hold out didn't sit well the last time, I highly doubt he would take the paycut required to play in Denver. Also there's no way Denver is willing to spend a 1st rounder on him. A Safety or a DT in the draft is a much better route, but who knows with Shanny in charge ?!?

 

[SuperJohn96]

I believe the trade was made necessary due to Clinton Portis' contract demands...

 

[weisguy0831]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

 

[thayman]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

Why? I wouldn't mind seeing a nice split in carries next year. Keep both fresh, plus Betts is an outstanding insurance policy.

 

[wannabee]

I think fantasy owners discount how much NFL teams need and desire two (or more) strong RBs to last through an entire season

 

[Diamond One]

Can't see Portis leaving WAS period, least of all back to Denver. Agree that a Portis / Betts RBBC next season would indeed be interesting -- another nightmare for fantasy owners though!

 

[PatsWillWin]

The NFL is not a fantasy league.

 

[Zaxxon]

This thread makes a lot of sense because the Broncos have a long, storied past of trading draft picks for running backs and Clinton Portis has played 25% of his $50 million contract with a $17 million signing bonus so there would only be an immediate accelerated cap hit in the $12-$13 million dollar range for trading him.

Awesome thread idea and excellent logic here.

 

[weisguy0831]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

Why? I wouldn't mind seeing a nice split in carries next year. Keep both fresh, plus Betts is an outstanding insurance policy.

There are other ways to replace whoever leaves. If you're in the camp of some of the other posters who think Betts is a risk, deal him and either draft a backup or sign a FA. Would Chris Brown be that much of a dropoff? Probably not. And you get a value for Betts. Or you go with Betts and Chris Brown. Trading Portis enables you to shore up a weakness. I'm just saying, it has to be examined.

 

[x260bm]

This thread makes a lot of sense because the Broncos have a long, storied past of trading draft picks for running backs and Clinton Portis has played 25% of his $50 million contract with a $17 million signing bonus so there would only be an immediate accelerated cap hit in the $12-$13 million dollar range for trading him.Awesome thread idea and excellent logic here.

I agree, Portis’s contract is a huge obstacle to trading him. Betts would be far easier to trade. I seriously doubt they move either of them for at least a few years.

 

[Enoch]

How about to the Texans? Not sure Portis and Gary Kubiak together again. highly doubt Redskins trade him to anyone.

 

[thayman]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

Why? I wouldn't mind seeing a nice split in carries next year. Keep both fresh, plus Betts is an outstanding insurance policy.

There are other ways to replace whoever leaves. If you're in the camp of some of the other posters who think Betts is a risk, deal him and either draft a backup or sign a FA. Would Chris Brown be that much of a dropoff? Probably not. And you get a value for Betts. Or you go with Betts and Chris Brown. Trading Portis enables you to shore up a weakness. I'm just saying, it has to be examined.

Dealing Portis won't work, it's not fantasy football. Almost no teams have the cap space to even pick up Portis's contract. I do agree that trading Betts would make a bit of sense, I don't see that happening because of the deal he signed. If they were just securing him up to deal him, I think it would have been for a bit less bonus money. Plus the coaches love Betts, Saunders continues to equate Portis/Betts to a Holmes/Johnson combo he had in KC a few years ago, ie Portis the starter now, Betts has the ability and opportunity to take over the starter job in a few years.And yes I think Chris Brown would be a incredible downgrade on Betts. Your talking about a RB that has been in Washington for his entire career, has a year in the new system of Saunders. It makes no sense to deal him, unless someone tosses up an outrageous offer.

 

[Riffraff]

Portis for a 1st rounder makes alot of sense for both teams.

RBs don't command a 1st round pick in trade in the NFL. Especially injured ones with big contracts.Easy position to fill.

 

[weisguy0831]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

Why? I wouldn't mind seeing a nice split in carries next year. Keep both fresh, plus Betts is an outstanding insurance policy.

There are other ways to replace whoever leaves. If you're in the camp of some of the other posters who think Betts is a risk, deal him and either draft a backup or sign a FA. Would Chris Brown be that much of a dropoff? Probably not. And you get a value for Betts. Or you go with Betts and Chris Brown. Trading Portis enables you to shore up a weakness. I'm just saying, it has to be examined.

Dealing Portis won't work, it's not fantasy football. Almost no teams have the cap space to even pick up Portis's contract. I do agree that trading Betts would make a bit of sense, I don't see that happening because of the deal he signed. If they were just securing him up to deal him, I think it would have been for a bit less bonus money. Plus the coaches love Betts, Saunders continues to equate Portis/Betts to a Holmes/Johnson combo he had in KC a few years ago, ie Portis the starter now, Betts has the ability and opportunity to take over the starter job in a few years.And yes I think Chris Brown would be a incredible downgrade on Betts. Your talking about a RB that has been in Washington for his entire career, has a year in the new system of Saunders. It makes no sense to deal him, unless someone tosses up an outrageous offer.

So they're grooming a guy who has been in the league the same length of time and is two years younger than Portis to replace him? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[SproutDaddy]

I think fantasy owners discount how much NFL teams need and desire two (or more) strong RBs to last through an entire season

This is what make me laugh when people speak of Mike Turner leaving the Chargers. Why do you think the Chargers want sooooo much for this guy? RBs are the most likely to be injured, so if you have someone who can step right in when the #1 goes down you have less to worry about when coming up with the proper gameplan from week to week.

 

[Futeki]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

Why? I wouldn't mind seeing a nice split in carries next year. Keep both fresh, plus Betts is an outstanding insurance policy.

There are other ways to replace whoever leaves. If you're in the camp of some of the other posters who think Betts is a risk, deal him and either draft a backup or sign a FA. Would Chris Brown be that much of a dropoff? Probably not. And you get a value for Betts. Or you go with Betts and Chris Brown. Trading Portis enables you to shore up a weakness. I'm just saying, it has to be examined.

Dealing Portis won't work, it's not fantasy football. Almost no teams have the cap space to even pick up Portis's contract. I do agree that trading Betts would make a bit of sense, I don't see that happening because of the deal he signed. If they were just securing him up to deal him, I think it would have been for a bit less bonus money. Plus the coaches love Betts, Saunders continues to equate Portis/Betts to a Holmes/Johnson combo he had in KC a few years ago, ie Portis the starter now, Betts has the ability and opportunity to take over the starter job in a few years.And yes I think Chris Brown would be a incredible downgrade on Betts. Your talking about a RB that has been in Washington for his entire career, has a year in the new system of Saunders. It makes no sense to deal him, unless someone tosses up an outrageous offer.

So they're grooming a guy who has been in the league the same length of time and is two years OLDER than Portis to replace him? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Corrected for what the previous poster actually meant.Betts is a backup, a very good one. Portis is the dynamic starter, doesn't have Betts fumbling issues, and has proven better at the all important GL.

I would love to have Betts as the backup RB for my NFL team.

 

[Balco]

This thread makes a lot of sense because the Broncos have a long, storied past of trading draft picks for running backs and Clinton Portis has played 25% of his $50 million contract with a $17 million signing bonus so there would only be an immediate accelerated cap hit in the $12-$13 million dollar range for trading him.Awesome thread idea and excellent logic here.

I am sorry, did I not ask what his cap hit would be? ANd I don't care what the Broncos history has been, Tatum Bell, Mike Bell, Damien Nash, Cedric Cobbs . . . etc. have not been the answer.With the cap info, obviously that is the killer of any possible deal.But seriously, I appreciate your input. Your sarcasm was awesome!!! For a second I thought you were serious!!! Boy, you really got me good!!!!!

 

[redman]

'Skins fan here. This trade won't happen for a few reasons.

First and foremost, the cap hit would be pretty large, even after three seasons.

Second, the 'Skins are very happy with both guys and envision Betts as the means of keeping Portis (who is clearly the better RB between the two on every level except receiving) healthy through an entire season. Not just this year but in each of his three seasons Portis has entered the last quarter of the season banged up and less effective. For only being 25 years old, Portis has a lot of mileage on him.

Finally, Betts is a good RB but not good enough to stake your franchise's running game on him. True, he would probably command as much in trade now as he ever will, but his skill level in reality is on par with guys like Rhodes, Droughns, Jordan, Dillon (2006 version), Henry, Foster, etc., which is to say a second-tier level of starter in the NFL. There are many such guys around the league. He will only be successful if the offense around him is solid - he can't carry the offense on his shoulders.

Ignoring salary cap which is too dependent upon both trading partners' situations, the Redskins could only contemplate a trade of either Betts or Portis in exchange for an elite defensive player, and if Portis was involved probably a first day draft pick on top of that. A sane NFL GM simply wouldn't give that up for one of those guys IMHO.

 

[thayman]

Portis to the Broncos may not happen and may not be realistic, but ... the Redskins would be stupid to not at least entertain offers for Portis or Betts.

Why? I wouldn't mind seeing a nice split in carries next year. Keep both fresh, plus Betts is an outstanding insurance policy.

There are other ways to replace whoever leaves. If you're in the camp of some of the other posters who think Betts is a risk, deal him and either draft a backup or sign a FA. Would Chris Brown be that much of a dropoff? Probably not. And you get a value for Betts. Or you go with Betts and Chris Brown. Trading Portis enables you to shore up a weakness. I'm just saying, it has to be examined.

Dealing Portis won't work, it's not fantasy football. Almost no teams have the cap space to even pick up Portis's contract. I do agree that trading Betts would make a bit of sense, I don't see that happening because of the deal he signed. If they were just securing him up to deal him, I think it would have been for a bit less bonus money. Plus the coaches love Betts, Saunders continues to equate Portis/Betts to a Holmes/Johnson combo he had in KC a few years ago, ie Portis the starter now, Betts has the ability and opportunity to take over the starter job in a few years.And yes I think Chris Brown would be a incredible downgrade on Betts. Your talking about a RB that has been in Washington for his entire career, has a year in the new system of Saunders. It makes no sense to deal him, unless someone tosses up an outrageous offer.

So they're grooming a guy who has been in the league the same length of time and is two years OLDER than Portis to replace him? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Corrected for what the previous poster actually meant.Betts is a backup, a very good one. Portis is the dynamic starter, doesn't have Betts fumbling issues, and has proven better at the all important GL.

I would love to have Betts as the backup RB for my NFL team.

 

[Mario Kart]

This is a clever disguise of an "IDP Would you trade Portis for a 1st rounder if you own Betts" thread.

 

[bentley]

This is a clever disguise of an "IDP Would you trade Portis for a 1st rounder if you own Betts" thread.

Good call. I'm sure the OP is really the Washington GM in disguise.

 

[thayman]

This is a clever disguise of an "IDP Would you trade Portis for a 1st rounder if you own Betts" thread.

Good call. I'm sure the OP is really the Washington GM in disguise.

nahh...can't be...we don't have a GM here in Washington

 

[Marc Levin]

I am pretty sure Portis left on bad terms, but I am not positive.

He didn't leave on bad terms - he left because he wanted more money and threatened a hold out if he didn't get it.I think Shanahan and Bowlen are firmly committed to the cheap RB route. Given his current contract, I don't think Portis could be back with the Broncos anytime soon. Maybe late in his career. The Broncos ar emore likely to sign a talented FA RB on the cheap - Chris Brown and DeShaun Foster come to mind.Thoughts?

 

[Sinrman]

I think fantasy owners discount how much NFL teams need and desire two (or more) strong RBs to last through an entire season

Unless some team makes a very nice offer for either, the Redskins will keep both...