That's a hell of an expensive BJ! ;) (Sorry couldn't resist.)

Seriously though, he won't be badly missed. If Gibbs is running his old offensive style virtually unchanged, Johnson would have been an expensive luxury.

One thing though - according to the write up I saw the contract is heavily laden with almost unobtainable incentives. The 2.2M amount qouted is the cap hit IF all his bonuses are paid. He's unlikely to get anywhere near that, so the Saints will get a cap rebate based on what he actually earns. The big problem in reality is his $800,000 roster bonus - it's not a signing bonus so hits the cap in full this year. We can't afford that for what we get out of him.

[QUOTE=AnonEmouse]That's a hell of an expensive BJ! ;) (Sorry couldn't resist.)

Seriously though, he won't be badly missed. If Gibbs is running his old offensive style virtually unchanged, Johnson would have been an expensive luxury.

One thing though - according to the write up I saw the contract is heavily laden with almost unobtainable incentives. The 2.2M amount qouted is the cap hit IF all his bonuses are paid. He's unlikely to get anywhere near that, so the Saints will get a cap rebate based on what he actually earns. The big problem in reality is his $800,000 roster bonus - it's not a signing bonus so hits the cap in full this year. We can't afford that for what we get out of him.[/QUOTE]
The $2.2 million cap hit sticks in 2004, so it actually is a real number and it does have to be accounted for on this year's cap. It's due to the fact that the unobtainable incentives you speak of are actually included as "likely to be earned" incentives-- which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it's one of the latest toys teams have started playing with to improve their [i]future[/i] cap numbers. The Vikings did this to great success last year, and got a huge total rebate on this year's cap. It basically gives you extra cap room in future years. So the Saints would have a little more money to play with in 2005.

By including the $800,000 roster bonus up front-- rather than a prorated signing bonus--the Saints are using their 2004 cap room (around $11 million) as leverage against the Skins (around $4 million), essentially betting that the Skins can't afford to take such a large up-front hit for an unessential player. It actually makes a lot of sense-- if you have extra money in the current cap year to play with, why not use it to your advantage, while improving your outlook in future years?

Correct JC - I misquoted in my post - the rebate applies next year, but my point was it wasn't what he will really earn. As you say it's a kind of loophole they are exploiting to discourage the Skins.

Get the feeling this is the kind of thing someone will pull with McCants too.

Cecil Martin who was a hell of a blocking FB could be picked up for real cheap

I don't know what the big deal about a fullback is in gibb's offense, can someone give me the name of the blocking fullback gibb's used his last tenure?

[QUOTE=offiss]I don't know what the big deal about a fullback is in gibb's offense, can someone give me the name of the blocking fullback gibb's used his last tenure?[/QUOTE]
Gibbs typically used his TEs as blocking "H-backs", bringing them in motion, or shifting them into a set where they line up as a lead blocker. I don't recall any true fullbacks in Gibbs' tenure.

Now that I think about it, Riggins was often referred to as a fullback, but he's the only one I recall ever being referred to as a "fullback".

[QUOTE=joecrisp]Now that I think about it, Riggins was often referred to as a fullback, but he's the only one I recall ever being referred to as a "fullback".[/QUOTE]
Timmy Smith and Brian Mitchell, too. But all of these guys were used as multi-purpose ace backs for the most part. None of them fit the classic blocking fullback mold.

When I think of blocking backs under Gibbs 1.0, I immediately think of Otis Wonsley and Don Warren. Although Warren was really a half-back

What New Orleans is doing is no different than what the Skins did last year. The deal for a RFA has to be structured in some way to discourage the current team, which usually means overpaying in some way or another.
If Joe Gibbs thinks this guy is worth keeping, it will be matched.

[QUOTE=joecrisp]Timmy Smith and Brian Mitchell, too. But all of these guys were used as multi-purpose ace backs for the most part. None of them fit the classic blocking fullback mold.[/QUOTE]

Which is my point, Gibb's really never uses a fullback in a conventional sense, with A 1 back set the back is a multi purpose back which is not BJ he is not a runner he is more of a conventional blocking and catch the occasional pass FB, Gibb's likes to use the bigger TE's to lead block, guy's who can put a good lick on a D-linemen, that's 1 reason I am kind of exited to see seller's in that role I think it's perfect for him, the guy is big, fast, and strong.

[QUOTE=offiss]I don't know what the big deal about a fullback is in gibb's offense, can someone give me the name of the blocking fullback gibb's used his last tenure?[/QUOTE]

I remember Otis Wonsley and Clarence Harmon early on when Gibbs first arrived. Seems to me he had tight ends (Doc Walker, Clint Didier, Don Warren) and linemen (Russ Grimm, Joe Jacoby) blocking later on in his tenure.

Regards,

H2TR

[QUOTE=smootsmack]When I think of blocking backs under Gibbs 1.0, I immediately think of Otis Wonsley and Don Warren. Although Warren was really a half-back[/QUOTE]

Hey, I thought Don Warren was a tight end?

Regards,

H2TR

I think Warren was one of those h-back/tight end hybrids

Just so everyone knows, veteran FBs like Cecil Martin won't come much cheaper than Bryan Johnson. Johnson is going to cost $1 million per year. Vets like Cecil Martin are going to cost somewhere around 800K/year because the league minimum rises for each year a player has been in the NFL.