You don't have to take it back, it could still be a bad trade. Griffin will probably be solid, but he hasn't been tested against a decent defense yet. He's only played the Chiefs and Colts. John Madden could get 100 yards against them.
But the glaring thing that stuck out to me was how Denver talked about bring able to bring guys up to stop the run because of what Bailey would bring to pass coverage. Where was the run stopping? Granted, it was Priest Holmes, but Denver has held him to much less than that in the past. If there's no signifigant improvement in the D then I think trading Portis will end up being looked at as a bad move.
At first I was upset with the deal...but then realized that in 2003 the Broncos had roughly 2 or 3 games that they might have won if they had employed a decent corner. I'm looking at the Monday nighter against New England as the prime example. In those games, I feel Champ would have made a difference...and a basic 100 yard perfomance from any back would have sufficed.
Portis had some unreal video game-type stats last year. Especially against Kansas City in December. But did they really need 200+ yards to beat the Chiefs that day?
So much for a Ryan Grant return. Cedric Benson, welcome to Titletown. (Packers.com) Considering the injuries to the Packers' RB corps, it make some bit of sense. (Even if the running game is just a changeup pitch in Mike McCarthy's offense.)