Duckett Inactive Today Vs. Houston (1 Viewer)

[packersfan]

Just an FYI for Portis owners who may be wondering how things will shake out now that Portis is healthy. Looks like Duckett is a clear third on the depth chart behind Portis and Betts. This bodes very well for Portis' TD potential should this become a constant.

 

[scott72]

Just an FYI for Portis owners who may be wondering how things will shake out now that Portis is healthy. Looks like Duckett is a clear third on the depth chart behind Portis and Betts. This bodes very well for Portis' TD potential should this become a constant.

Wow, very surprising..I think Portis is going to be HUGE today...I had to choose between him and Jamal this week. I was worried Duckett would vulture TD's..This just made my decision..

 

[Nigel Tufnel]

Go Portie!

 

[middleweightcontender]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

 

[TankRizzo]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

Exactly....I'm dumbfounded by the fact that he's inactive. WTF? Good use of a 3rd round pick.

 

[Doovz]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

Exactly....I'm dumbfounded by the fact that he's inactive. WTF? Good use of a 3rd round pick.

It is quite possible that Portis's injury wasn't as bad as the Skins initially thought.

 

[redman]

Update: in listening to Gibbs' postgame comments, he said that this was done on gameday in order to keep an extra TE active because of injury concerns there. If Cooley or Fauria had been limited due to their injuries, then he said that a lot of offensive packages that they'd game planned wouldn't have been possible.

From his comments, he said he felt "terrible" doing this to Duckett, which clearly indicates to me that Duckett will normally be active and probably fits into the team's plans (however much or little that may be).

BTW, the reason that Cartwright (who started to get 2nd half carries until he fumbled) and not Duckett was active was because Rock is a special teams player while Duckett is not. IMHO Cartwright's fumble helps to ensure that Duckett will be the guy who gets late game carries to the extent that they want to rest Portis and Betts.

 

[Bankerguy]

Update: in listening to Gibbs' postgame comments, he said that this was done on gameday in order to keep an extra TE active because of injury concerns there. If Cooley or Fauria had been limited due to their injuries, then he said that a lot of offensive packages that they'd game planned wouldn't have been possible. From his comments, he said he felt "terrible" doing this to Duckett, which clearly indicates to me that Duckett will normally be active and probably fits into the team's plans (however much or little that may be). BTW, the reason that Cartwright (who started to get 2nd half carries until he fumbled) and not Duckett was active was because Rock is a special teams player while Duckett is not. IMHO Cartwright's fumble helps to ensure that Duckett will be the guy who gets late game carries to the extent that they want to rest Portis and Betts.

Good info here........

 

[The Commish]

But Duckett was suppose to get all the goalline and late game looks.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Duckett now = Duce Staley

There's a few $ I wish I had back in the Subscriber Contest *sigh*

-QG

 

[Brunell4MVP]

According to Gibbs it was either Duckett or Cooley's backup. They planned packages involving the TE and didn't want to risk not having a TE, so they inactivated Duckett.

It still smells of poor management (Vinny Cerato at it again )

 

[fatness]

But Duckett was suppose to get all the goalline and late game looks.

That's according to a fantasy football board, not according to Joe Gibbs.

 

[Warhogs]

Well, the good news for dynasty owners (if there is any) is that this probably means that Duckett will not be signing a contract to stay in Washington and he will hit the free agent market next season. I doubt that he will want to stay in Washington and be deactivated.

I wonder what this guy could do if a team ever committed to him? We may never know.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

But Duckett was suppose to get all the goalline and late game looks.

Assumptions like this were made by people who don't follow the team. Duckett will not be active unless one of the other 3 rb's gets injured. Betts returns kicks and Betts is the backup to Portis. That leaves Duckett as the odd man out.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

According to Gibbs it was either Duckett or Cooley's backup. They planned packages involving the TE and didn't want to risk not having a TE, so they inactivated Duckett.It still smells of poor management (Vinny Cerato at it again )

Cerato decides who is active and who is not? Never heard that before. Gibbs must hate that set up. He doesnt' even get to decide who plays for him on sunday.

 

[redman]

But Duckett was suppose to get all the goalline and late game looks.

That's according to a fantasy football board, not according to Joe Gibbs.

Gibbs has actually stated that he plans for Duckett to be the goalline back. I'm not sure it would have mattered as in three games you can count on one hand the number of snaps they've taken inside their opponents' five-yard line (I think it's literally five, three in week 1, zero in week 2, and two yesterday).

 

[Skinsfansince72]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

And if Portis was unable to play much, if at all, this year you'd be criticizing them for not having quality backps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I expect him to be inactive several more times this year unless he can win the backup job or until one of the other backs gets hurt.

 

[redman]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

And if Portis was unable to play much, if at all, this year you'd be criticizing them for not having quality backps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I expect him to be inactive several more times this year unless he can win the backup job or until one of the other backs gets hurt.

There is validity to this too. People forget that when Portis suffered his shoulder injury, Betts too had an injury problem (groin?). Betts is a good RB - very comparable overall to Lamont Jordan IMHO. He's also more versatile than Duckett is. Still, I would think that on a team that could rush the ball 500 times, there are enough carries to incorporate Duckett into this offense.

 

[fatness]

Gibbs has actually stated that he plans for Duckett to be the goalline back.

I think that was more of a Game 1 comment than about Duckett's longterm role with the team. Link

News: Coach Joe Gibbs explained RB T.J. Duckett's lack of action in Week 1.

Impact: "T.J. was scheduled to take all the goal-line stuff, but we didn't get into a situation where we used that package and we also had Ladell [betts] and Clinton [Portis] in there," Gibbs said. "I was hoping to get him some carries, but we never got around to it." Duckett may still have a chance to vulture touchdowns, but he likely won't see many touches overall. (Wed. Sep 13, 2006)

 

[dgreen]

Still, I would think that on a team that could rush the ball 500 times, there are enough carries to incorporate Duckett into this offense.

Exactly.Once Duckett was signed, Skins fans began to remember 1991 with Byner (Portis) and Riggs (Duckett). The forgotten guy there was Ricky Ervins (Betts).Replace the names below and adjust the numbers a little.

+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+| Name				 |  G |  RSH  YARD   AVG  TD  |  REC  YARD   AVG  TD |+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+| Earnest Byner		| 16 |  274  1048   3.8   5  |   34   308   9.1   0 || Ricky Ervins		 | 15 |  145   680   4.7   3  |   16   181  11.3   1 || Gerald Riggs		 | 16 |   78   248   3.2  11  |	1	 5   5.0   0 |+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+

Increase Byner's AVG and TDs and you could have Portis' numbers.Decrease Riggs' TDs quite a bit and increase the AVG and you could have Duckett's and Cartwright's numbers.Ervins' numbers actually look pretty good for Betts with a few more receptions.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

And if Portis was unable to play much, if at all, this year you'd be criticizing them for not having quality backps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I expect him to be inactive several more times this year unless he can win the backup job or until one of the other backs gets hurt.

There is validity to this too. People forget that when Portis suffered his shoulder injury, Betts too had an injury problem (groin?). Betts is a good RB - very comparable overall to Lamont Jordan IMHO. He's also more versatile than Duckett is. Still, I would think that on a team that could rush the ball 500 times, there are enough carries to incorporate Duckett into this offense.

Why would they want to keep 4 rb's active? I'm not seeing much for Duckett this year at all. I see him being inactive several weeks this season. He doesn't play special teams and he's not the backup. That relegates him to the inactive list more often than not as long as all backs are healthy.

 

[redman]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

And if Portis was unable to play much, if at all, this year you'd be criticizing them for not having quality backps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I expect him to be inactive several more times this year unless he can win the backup job or until one of the other backs gets hurt.

There is validity to this too. People forget that when Portis suffered his shoulder injury, Betts too had an injury problem (groin?). Betts is a good RB - very comparable overall to Lamont Jordan IMHO. He's also more versatile than Duckett is. Still, I would think that on a team that could rush the ball 500 times, there are enough carries to incorporate Duckett into this offense.

Why would they want to keep 4 rb's active? I'm not seeing much for Duckett this year at all. I see him being inactive several weeks this season. He doesn't play special teams and he's not the backup. That relegates him to the inactive list more often than not as long as all backs are healthy.

I'm starting to wonder whether they'll try to trade him before the deadline now that Portis and Betts both appear to be healthy.

 

[Two Deep]

Makes me worry about the Redskin office even more. Seems like they could have picked up someone else instead of a back they plan on keeping inactive. I've got Portis, and I'm a Redskins fan so I hope they do well, but sometimes I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on.

And if Portis was unable to play much, if at all, this year you'd be criticizing them for not having quality backps. Hindsight is always 20/20. I expect him to be inactive several more times this year unless he can win the backup job or until one of the other backs gets hurt.

There is validity to this too. People forget that when Portis suffered his shoulder injury, Betts too had an injury problem (groin?). Betts is a good RB - very comparable overall to Lamont Jordan IMHO. He's also more versatile than Duckett is. Still, I would think that on a team that could rush the ball 500 times, there are enough carries to incorporate Duckett into this offense.

Why would they want to keep 4 rb's active? I'm not seeing much for Duckett this year at all. I see him being inactive several weeks this season. He doesn't play special teams and he's not the backup. That relegates him to the inactive list more often than not as long as all backs are healthy.

I'm starting to wonder whether they'll try to trade him before the deadline now that Portis and Betts both appear to be healthy.

hello Seattle..

 

[The Commish]

But Duckett was suppose to get all the goalline and late game looks.

Assumptions like this were made by people who don't follow the team. Duckett will not be active unless one of the other 3 rb's gets injured. Betts returns kicks and Betts is the backup to Portis. That leaves Duckett as the odd man out.

You guys all missed the in my initial statement.