Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:35 PM ET, 11/24/2010

Poll: Revisiting the Clinton Portis-Champ Bailey trade

By Cindy Boren

Although the results are incomplete, which team got the better end of the deal between the Denver Broncos and Washington Redskins involving Champ Bailey and Clinton Portis?


Redskins Insider: Portis' season is done

Mike Wise: Portis and Arenas on similar paths

(Tip o' da cap to Louie Carr.)

By Cindy Boren  | November 24, 2010; 1:35 PM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Brett Favre says he may have the flu, wants to get Vikings back on track
Next: Stan Van Gundy: Phil Jackson's comments 'inappropriate,' 'ignorant'


Is Champ still playing?
And at a high level?
And how many games has he missed due to injury? What? Not as many as Portis has? Then there's your answer. I miss Champ, it's almost hard to imagine him in a Redskins uniform.

Posted by: luvdc808 | November 24, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The deal was not Portis for Champ 1 for 1. The deal was Champ plus a 2nd round for Portis. Denver won BIGGGGGGGGGG TIME!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: oknow1 | November 24, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I'll call it a draw. since the trade Denver has made the playoffs Twice, and Redskins have also made the playoffs twice. same result.

Posted by: adecool79 | November 24, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Really?!?! what a silly poll.
Denver should have been arrested for stealing from little Dan.

Posted by: jyshim | November 24, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

People forget that Champ was in the last year of his contract, was unhappy and wasn't coming back (and the Post, of course, never reminds readers of this...) Every other team knew this. We were lucky to get anything for him at all. Of course the trade was lopsided when you consider we threw in 2nd round pick, but we traded ONE YEAR of Champ for 6-7 years of Portis so I think we did well considering the circumstances.

Posted by: junkiwonteverread | November 24, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

i agree with junk here. how soon people forget. would u rather let champ leave in free agency when his agent made it clear he was not coming back here and get nothing, or in return get the 2nd leading rusher in franchise history? we didn't get the best end of the trade but we never would of and i think at the time we did pretty damn good.

Posted by: mossisoldbutstillgood | November 24, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

You never ever ever ever ever trade a solid corner back (The hardest position to play in NFL, Period.) with any other position even it's a QB.

Posted by: DesiHungama | November 24, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

What a dumb question.

One (Champ) is going to the Hall of Fame - as a Bronco.

The other (Portis) is not - unles it's to see Champs induction speech. Regardless of how the teams did, Denver got a future HOF CB + a 2nd round pick for a good but not great (think Emmitt or Barry or Thurmond) RB.

Posted by: morrisday1 | November 24, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Jason Campbell.

Norv Turner.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | November 24, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. Did the Broncos get the better deal? Yes, only because they got a 2nd round pick out of us as well. Straight up trade between Portis and Champ would have been a huge win for the skins, since Champ was going free agency any way. You cannot compare the productivity of the two positions. Being a RB in the NFL is the most violent position outside of being a tackling dummy on kick offs. People forget the early years when Portis ran for 1200 yards, even when we weren't that good. The only consistency in the skins offense in the last 5 years has been the RB position with Portis. Clinto Portis gave up a lot of his body to paly the position, let's give him some due.

As for Champ, he still hasn't won a SB with Denver. Besides the skins CB's have not been that bad since his departure. It's the QB, WR, and O-line that has cost this team the most in the last 5 to 10 years.

Posted by: sd-bones | November 24, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

The Skins managed to have a bunch of top 10 defenses without Champ, and the offense has really relied heavily on CP over the years, so on the surface you can't really call it a bad trade for the Skins.

But the Skins did lose a pick in the trade, and they have spent picks on DBs since losing Champ. This puts the advantage in Denver's favor.

Posted by: CommieX | November 24, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Bailey was leaving town as a free agent. That the Skins got anything for him is remarkable. Stupid pol question.

Posted by: howjensen | November 24, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

This is the first time I have ever comment on a topic. Portis with all his antics was worth far more than Bailey. His body of work on sub-par teams, switching running styles, and sorry O-lines makes him worth more and CP is a borderline HOFer also.

Posted by: HeavyGEE | November 24, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

What a lot of people miss about Portis is that his blocking has been so much better than any RB in the league over such a long career (considering how long he's held up in a position notorious for very early retirement). His ability to pick up blitzes has made him an invaluable asset. Combine that with his terrific rushing stats and the fact that Bailey was going to leave as a free agent, and I think you've pretty much got a tie, or at least as close to it as possible when you're talking about trading away one of the very best CBs to ever play the position.

And let's also not forget that the secondary has been pretty much the only place on either side of the ball where we've had any sort of consistent talent in the ghastly Snyder era, so we've done all right there and would have been even better had Sean Taylor not met his tragic end.

Posted by: justin_timberwolf | November 24, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Will Portis be in Canton?

Will Champ?

Enough said. + Denver got a pick too.
Enough said.

Posted by: morrisday1 | November 24, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

morrisday1, we're talking about the trade. Not the players themselves. You're right, Bailey is one of the best EVER at the CB position, and Portis has only had a great career, not a HOF one, but a great one that's gonna be remembered for a long time.

But as far as the trade, the transaction itself, I think you've got to say that we did okay, and I hate Snyder more than anyone so I'm not just being a homer.

Posted by: justin_timberwolf | November 24, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

I never thought that Bailey was a great as everyone made him out to be. Was he above average? Yes. But I remember him getting beat as often as other CB's in the NFL. I also remember as others have stated that Bailey was going to bolt via free agency.

I think the trade would be even up if not for the 2nd round pick. Portis was a premier RB when he came to DC and set Redskins records for yards gained in a season not once, but twice.

Portis sacrificed his body like few so called "skill position" players in the NFL who are not named Hines Ward. Remember how he threw a devastating block/tackle in a pre-season game in Cincy that cost him most of the season. Portis laid out many defenders protecting the many QB's who were constantly getting killed because of a non-existent offensive line.

The Skins and us fans got a great deal having Portis here in DC and the fact we got to watch him play here for six of his nine years. Remember, the average career in the NFL for running back is I believe four years.

'OL Southest Jerome did pretty well by my standards and I'm proud to wear his jersey now and forever and that we got him for a player who didn't want to be here in the first place.

Posted by: mjbrooks1963 | November 24, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Denver had many 1,000 yard rushers with Portis being one of them. The one that came here.

Name on in the HOF. None, not even T. Davis who might make it. Portis is a long shot to make it, waaaay after T. Davis.

Champ, the guy we traded to get Portis is not a HOF RB. Bottom line. Thus not an even trad, regardless of stats. Like trading Deion and a pick to get Ricky Waters. Advantage team that got the HOF + pick.

Posted by: morrisday1 | November 24, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Damn, I'm too late for the discussion. The advantage goes to the Broncos. They (M.Shanahan ironically) fleeced the Skins for Bailey, then the game's best corner and a pick for Portis, a solid RB.

To those who keep pointing out that Bailey didn't plan to resign and giving the WaPo, a hard time about that, remember, Bailey took the time to write an open letter to the WashTimes to explain exactly WHY he wasn't taking what seemed to be a generous contract offer(54million,I believe). In the letter, he explained the numbers were all a mirage and he wanted his money, not a b/s contract. Snyder is all about the b/s contract (see Arrington,Lavar) and will intimidate players into giving back money (see Coles, Laveranues).

So when Snyder saw that Bailey was unwilling to put up with contractual shenanigans, Snyder traded him in a snit.

So keep that in mind.(Whoever sees this, I'm late as hell to this thread, damn!)

Posted by: ArmchairGM | November 25, 2010 1:50 AM | Report abuse

All you clowns excusing the Redskins for this trade because Champ was "going to leave anyway" are really, really misguided.

First of all, he had a year left on his contract. Secondly, the Skins would have franchised him -- he never would have become a free agent. That's how it works with shutdown corners.

Champ was unhappy, but honestly, who can blame him? The Snyder-Skins have been a disaster. But he wasn't going anywhere if the Skins didn't want him to go.

So take that out of the equation.

There is absolutely no doubt the Broncos bent little Danny over, pulled down his panties, and spanked him til his dwarf butt glowed red on this trade.

Posted by: diesel_skins_ | November 25, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Of course Denver got a better deal, but I don't think you can keep Champ around long-term if he isn't happy. The Skins got decent, but lesser, value.
If that trade had not been made I think Portis overall has a better career running in the Denver scheme he was accustomed to. He'd have a better yards per carry average, and be less banged up the past several years. If he stays in Denver, he might be HOF-material.

In that alternate universe Shanahan keeps his job, never having to invent the running back platoon system (so many teams follow now) w/ Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell to make up for the loss of Portis.

The Skins franchise Champ and instead of picking up Tackle Mark Wilson in the draft, take a flyer on a little known Northern Illinois runner.
Happy as the Skins revive under the running of rookie sensation Michael Turner (whose running style is a much better fit for the Gibbs offense) Champ resigns with a long-term deal.

How's that for turkey day extrapolation?

Posted by: positiveforce | November 25, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

WE got hosed! I mean com'on, really? We've made a few trades with the Broncos over the years and we got hosed on all of them. Gibbs/Cerrato was a horrible combination for player personnel. We traded two or 3 picks to move up 15 spots I think to take Jason Campbell. I liked Jason and thought he could be a good QB and I think he'd be better in our system now than the last two years but he wasn't worth all of that. Broncos always hosed us. One move we should have made and I'm surprised Shanahan didn't this off season was to get Peyton Hillis from the broncos.

Posted by: avbanig | November 25, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company