Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442294]AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below is an article taken from Football Outsiders.com:

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3363588"]ESPN - Adding star WR rarely improves team - NFL[/URL]

...For example, let's look at a group that would include not only Johnson but also Boldin: receivers who gained 1,000 yards the previous season or a combined 2,000 yards the previous two seasons. Twenty-eight receivers qualify for a total of 31 seasons, since three receivers did it twice (Coles, Tony Martin and Keenan McCardell). Note that Moss counts only when he went from Minnesota to Oakland, not when he went from Oakland to New England, because of his poor 2006 season.

The 31 teams that lost these receivers dropped from an average of 7.3 wins to an average of 6.6 wins. But the 31 teams that picked up these receivers also dropped slightly, from an average of 7.9 wins to an average of 7.8 wins. ...

One reason these players haven't been more important to their new teams is that 1,000-yard receivers who change teams have usually tended to be very good No. 2 receivers like Boldin, rather than superstars like Johnson. Only 15 of these 31 receivers led both their old team and their new team in receiving yards. This group had a slightly positive effect, with teams that picked up these players going from an average of 7.7 wins to an average of 8.1 wins. ...

... As I said earlier, no player with Johnson's pedigree has ever changed teams in the offseason. Just because guys like Derrick Mason and Yancey Thigpen weren't major difference-makers when they changed teams, that doesn't mean Johnson couldn't transform an offense that desperately needed a No. 1 receiver (hello, Jacksonville). Obviously, this analysis doesn't do a good job of measuring the transformative power of Owens in Philadelphia or Moss in New England. Owens helped the Eagles win more playoff games, not more regular-season games. Moss and the 2007 Patriots don't even show up in the analysis because he was so bad in Oakland.

On the other hand, Owens and Moss have each switched teams twice, and neither one made as much of a difference the other time. The Cowboys signed Owens and went from 9-7 to … 9-7. Even after trading for Moss, the Raiders' offense was still a joke.

Nothing guarantees Johnson will help carry his new team to the Super Bowl the way Owens and Moss did for the Eagles and Patriots. Odds are that the loss of Johnson or Boldin will hurt Cincinnati or Arizona more than the addition will help their new teams. ...[/quote]

I enjoy FootballOutsiders, but sometimes their analysis get pretty equivocal and try to mask opinion behind what looks like some sort of sophisticated (or not) statistical analysis. Their DVAR etc. is good, but here they don't really say much. I have broken down what I think is the heart of the article for quick reading.

If you notice they say, "One reason these players haven't been more important to their new teams is that 1,000-yard receivers who change teams have usually tended to be very good No. 2 receivers like Boldin, rather than superstars like Johnson." So already they are not really taking a firm stand. I think it would also be difficult to argue that Terrell Owens has not made the Cowboys a more explosive offense - they did go 13-3 last year in his second season with the team (at one point they also write that Terrell Owens helped the Eagles win more games in the playoffs not in the regular season, quite a feat since he did not play in the playoffs and they lost the Super Bowl ... but I'm nit picking perhaps).

They also say numerous times that a player of Johnson's caliber switching teams is unprecedented - again saying something while saying that what they say doesn't actually matter.

The larger point, as SmootSmack has indicated, is that giving up a 1st for Johnson would not preclude the Redskins from addressing other needs in this draft. You say Johnson is not the panacea, but do you think Phillip Merling is? A good DE, who plays the run, but was not even a pass rush threat at the collegiate level? I could see if we were giving up an opportunity to take Chris Long, but likely there will not be an elite pass rusher at 21 to take. Then you say that you would like them to take Jordy Nelson in the 2nd round, which brings up opportunity costs because you are giving up the chance to get a DT or CB or OL at that spot. So one of the two picks, whether it goes for Johnson or Nelson, would go to a WR. Clearly there are also costs for acquiring Johnson, most notably his salary. I can see that argument too. I just think some are too quick to decry him as a 'locker room cancer'. And SGY brings up a good point about the penalties for excessive celebration ... that is boneheaded and does differentiate him from Portis. So that is something to consider perhaps.

I am fine if the trade doesn't go through. I am ok if it does. Now, if the FO adds more to the pot, or if the escalators on the conditional 3rd are not sufficiently high to all but preclude their attainment, then I would have more difficulty accepting the deal. I really don't think it will happen and think the Skins will be picking at 21 come Saturday night.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;442299]I enjoy FootballOutsiders, but sometimes their analysis get pretty equivocal and try to mask opinion behind what looks like some sort of sophisticated (or not) statistical analysis. Their DVAR etc. is good, but here they don't really say much. I have broken down what I think is the heart of the article for quick reading.

If you notice they say, "One reason these players haven't been more important to their new teams is that 1,000-yard receivers who change teams have usually tended to be very good No. 2 receivers like Boldin, rather than superstars like Johnson." So already they are not really taking a firm stand. I think it would also be difficult to argue that Terrell Owens has not made the Cowboys a more explosive offense - they did go 13-3 last year in his second season with the team (at one point they also write that Terrell Owens helped the Eagles win more games in the playoffs not in the regular season, quite a feat since he did not play in the playoffs and they lost the Super Bowl ... but I'm nit picking perhaps).

They also say numerous times that a player of Johnson's caliber switching teams is unprecedented - again saying something while saying that what they say doesn't actually matter.

The larger point, as SmootSmack has indicated, is that giving up a 1st for Johnson would not preclude the Redskins from addressing other needs in this draft. You say Johnson is not the panacea, but do you think Phillip Merling is? A good DE, who plays the run, but was not even a pass rush threat at the collegiate level? I could see if we were giving up an opportunity to take Chris Long, but likely there will not be an elite pass rusher at 21 to take. Then you say that you would like them to take Jordy Nelson in the 2nd round, which brings up opportunity costs because you are giving up the chance to get a DT or CB or OL at that spot. So one of the two picks, whether it goes for Johnson or Nelson, would go to a WR. Clearly there are also costs for acquiring Johnson, most notably his salary. I can see that argument too. I just think some are too quick to decry him as a 'locker room cancer'. And SGY brings up a good point about the penalties for excessive celebration ... that is boneheaded and does differentiate him from Portis. So that is something to consider perhaps.

I am fine if the trade doesn't go through. I am ok if it does. Now, if the FO adds more to the pot, or if the escalators on the conditional 3rd are not sufficiently high to all but preclude their attainment, then I would have more difficulty accepting the deal. I really don't think it will happen and think the Skins will be picking at 21 come Saturday night.[/QUOTE]

We need young, healthy bodies in the trenches (offensive and defensive lines) more than we need an elite wide receiver. The Cowboys have a great offensive line and decent pash-rushers on the other side. Thus, they only needed to add an explosive receiver to take their offense to the next level. The Redskins are sorely lacking in those two areas. To me, we could have the Posse in its prime and it wouldn't matter. I just think we need to stop being so "star-struck" by the big names and get back to building from the inside and grooming our own players.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

I think some people are really overstating our OL issues. This was a unit that suffered through some pretty tough injuries last year and the kind that you can't necessarily chalk up to a player being "injury prone". That said regardless of what we do with the #21 pick, the OL is still likely to be a position of priority throughout the draft. So it's not as if we can't address the line if we trade away one pick.

Plus, WR is a need regardless of whether it's addressed through trade or by the draft.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

I am glad the offer got turned down. I think Johnson is a great reciever but I could live without the drama.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442313]I think some people are really overstating our OL issues. This was a unit that suffered through some pretty tough injuries last year and the kind that you can't necessarily chalk up to a player being "injury prone". That said regardless of what we do with the #21 pick, the OL is still likely to be a position of priority throughout the draft. So it's not as if we can't address the line if we trade away one pick.

Plus, WR is a need regardless of whether it's addressed through trade or by the draft.[/QUOTE]

But, how about the fact that each of your starting O-line members are in their '30s, one is playing on two arthritic knees, two others are coming off season-ending injuries. Add to the equation, there's only one quality back-up and we had to move a guy from defense to offense because we had no depth? Do we just "hope" that we can get through again? That line is a year older and, because of that, the chances of injury are very good. I'd rather use ALL of our picks to get younger and build depth. This is something that's been missing from this team for quite a while and it's come back to haunt us quite a bit. WR is a need, but not as big as the need that exists on our lines.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442319]But, how about the fact that each of your starting O-line members are in their '30s, one is playing on two arthritic knees, two others are coming off season-ending injuries. Add to the equation, there's only one quality back-up and we had to move a guy from defense to offense because we had no depth? Do we just "hope" that we can get through again? That line is a year older and, because of that, the chances of injury are very good. I'd rather use ALL of our picks to get younger and build depth. This is something that's been missing from this team for quite a while and it's come back to haunt us quite a bit. WR is a need, but not as big as the need that exists on our lines.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you are missing but I said that OL is likely to be a high priority this weekend. I wouldn't be surprised to see them take at least 2 offensive lineman.

Are you suggesting they should use all 9 picks on the OL?? That's slightly absurd.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442319]But, how about the fact that each of your starting O-line members are in their '30s, one is playing on two arthritic knees, two others are coming off season-ending injuries. Add to the equation, there's only one quality back-up and we had to move a guy from defense to offense because we had no depth? Do we just "hope" that we can get through again? That line is a year older and, because of that, the chances of injury are very good. I'd rather use ALL of our picks to get younger and build depth. This is something that's been missing from this team for quite a while and it's come back to haunt us quite a bit. WR is a need, but not as big as the need that exists on our lines.[/quote]

Great point. The line issues hurt us badly in playoff losses to Seattle in 05 and 07. Time to address the issue.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442322]I'm not sure what you are missing but I said that OL is likely to be a high priority this weekend. I wouldn't be surprised to see them take at least 2 offensive lineman.

Are you suggesting they should use all 9 picks on the OL?? That's slightly absurd.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, not. I'm just saying we need to be wiser when it comes to using our picks and I'd rather see us use them on young, hungry players with something to prove than a 30-something receiver who, while elite, may relax once he gets his money. I also think you make this kind of trade if we're a player away from being a contender and we're just not there.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442324]Absolutely, not. I'm just saying we need to be wiser when it comes to using our picks and I'd rather see us use them on young, hungry players with something to prove than a 30-something receiver who, while elite, may relax once he gets his money. I also think you make this kind of trade if we're a player away from being a contender and we're just not there.[/quote]

I get it, you're against Johnson and that's fine and completely understandable. I just didn't understand why you seemed to be trying to insinuate that by trading that pick we wouldn't be able to address the OL.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442324]Absolutely, not. I'm just saying we need to be wiser when it comes to using our picks and I'd rather see us use them on young, hungry players with something to prove than a 30-something receiver who, while elite, may relax once he gets his money. I also think you make this kind of trade if we're a player away from being a contender and we're just not there.[/quote]


I'd rather use the pick on a 30-something WR who has proven himself and is a pro bowl player then to make a guess at who the next T.O., Williams, or CJ is going to be in this yrs draft who ultimatly turns out to be a bust. Imagine spending the money a #21 will get on one of the 3 we let go from last yrs draft. Hell we did just as good if not better with the invites after the draft. Marcus Mason will turn out to be something someday if not with us then with another team and Heyer is better then most of us thought. Let Bugel develope him this year and see how he does. As a matter of fact I believe most of the Redskins histroy with O-lineman is that they were not the top pick. Bugel has a way of developing O-lineman. Take a look at the Hogs. None of them if I recall were 1st round draft picks.

Yes the line protects the QB to give him time to get the ball off, but it's also the QB who has to get the ball off pior to the rush getting to him. Which is why he is supposed to notice the rush and call a play for a check down if needed. I'll also point out that our O-line was doing fine prior to Gibbs picking up Saunders. Then I believe there was a difference in blocking schemes. More so then we all thought. Why don't we run the ball like Denver? because Denver uses smaller lineman who are faster so they use zone blocking. Gibbs always liked the big smash mouth lineman which is usually a little slower, but better for man blocking. Pick your poison. I think if we can get our run blocking scheme back prior to Saunders and utilize Zorn's unknown passing offense (which we all [B]hope[/B] is better then Saunders) then we should be alright. We do need back ups to our line now but don't think they are going to draft someone and stick him on the line come Sept. thats not how Bugel has worked. The only reason Heyer was put in was because of injuries. He is younger and probably faster then Janson.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[QUOTE=SBXVII;442333]I'd rather use the pick on a 30-something WR who has proven himself and is a pro bowl player then to make a guess at who the next T.O., Williams, or CJ is going to be in this yrs draft who ultimatly turns out to be a bust. Imagine spending the money a #21 will get on one of the 3 we let go from last yrs draft. Hell we did just as good if not better with the invites after the draft. Marcus Mason will turn out to be something someday if not with us then with another team and Heyer is better then most of us thought. Let Bugel develope him this year and see how he does. As a matter of fact I believe most of the Redskins histroy with O-lineman is that they were not the top pick. Bugel has a way of developing O-lineman. Take a look at the Hogs. None of them if I recall were 1st round draft picks.

Yes the line protects the QB to give him time to get the ball off, but it's also the QB who has to get the ball off pior to the rush getting to him. Which is why he is supposed to notice the rush and call a play for a check down if needed. I'll also point out that our O-line was doing fine prior to Gibbs picking up Saunders. Then I believe there was a difference in blocking schemes. More so then we all thought. Why don't we run the ball like Denver? because Denver uses smaller lineman who are faster so they use zone blocking. Gibbs always liked the big smash mouth lineman which is usually a little slower, but better for man blocking. Pick your poison. I think if we can get our run blocking scheme back prior to Saunders and utilize Zorn's unknown passing offense (which we all [B]hope[/B] is better then Saunders) then we should be alright. We do need back ups to our line now but don't think they are going to draft someone and stick him on the line come Sept. thats not how Bugel has worked. The only reason Heyer was put in was because of injuries. He is younger and probably faster then Janson.[/QUOTE]

But, other than Heyer, who else do we have? Also, our line is older than what it was BEFORE Saunders. I don't doubt Bugel's coaching abilities. I just think the bounty of draft picks is an opportunity to find some young talent we just don't have for depth right now.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;442330]I get it, you're against Johnson and that's fine and completely understandable. I just didn't understand why you seemed to be trying to insinuate that by trading that pick we wouldn't be able to address the OL.[/QUOTE]

Not only am I against Johnson, I just look at the big picture. He'd be a GREAT weapon to have on any offense and I don't doubt his talent. But, on a team like the Redskins, which is full of holes, I just don't see how an elite receiver will help us overcome them, should our older offensive line have another rash of injuries with no back-ups on the roster to come in and if our defensive line can't rush the passer consistently. As I mentioned earlier, I'd prefer to see us use this rare bounty of higher picks we have to get some young, hungry guys we can groom and be ready to come in if needed. Keep in mind, there were plenty of occasions where Chris Cooley had to stay in to block because the o-line wasn't getting it done. I'd rather have him in the secondary, creating mismatches and opening things up for the other receivers.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

If it were a 1 and a 3 in this draft it would be close to his value considering where we are picking. However, the conditions that will turn this into a #1 pick next year are very attainable for him. It's just to much...if we are trading 2 #1 picks then I want someone younger who can play 8+ years for me.

There are very few players in the league worth 2 #1 picks...based on age and production in my opinion the ony WR's worth that compensation are Fitzgerald & Braylon Edwards. Maybe I left one out but basically it has to be a young pro bowler IMO.

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442344]Not only am I against Johnson, I just look at the big picture. He'd be a GREAT weapon to have on any offense and I don't doubt his talent. But, on a team like the Redskins, which is full of holes, I just don't see how an elite receiver will help us overcome them, should our older offensive line have another rash of injuries with no back-ups on the roster to come in and if our defensive line can't rush the passer consistently. As I mentioned earlier, I'd prefer to see us use this rare bounty of higher picks we have to get some young, hungry guys we can groom and be ready to come in if needed. Keep in mind, there were plenty of occasions where Chris Cooley had to stay in to block because the o-line wasn't getting it done. I'd rather have him in the secondary, creating mismatches and opening things up for the other receivers.[/quote]

For anyone keeping score at home. You have now posted 31 messages in this thread, and 8 messages in the "Ocho Stinko" thread. Meaning 31% of your posts to date have been finding ways to say you don't want Chad Johnson on the team. Are there really 39 different ways to say that?

Edit: For the sake of fairness, I have now posted 16 times in this mind-numbing thread, or nearly 2% of my total post count. "Every time I think I'm out they pull me back in ..."

Re: Offer made on Chad (1st rd '08, conditional 3rd rd '09)
 

[quote=KB24;442344]Not only am I against Johnson, I just look at the big picture. He'd be a GREAT weapon to have on any offense and I don't doubt his talent. But, on a team like the Redskins, which is full of holes, I just don't see how an elite receiver will help us overcome them, should our older offensive line have another rash of injuries with no back-ups on the roster to come in and if our defensive line can't rush the passer consistently. As I mentioned earlier, I'd prefer to see us use this rare bounty of higher picks we have to get some young, hungry guys we can groom and be ready to come in if needed. Keep in mind, there were plenty of occasions where Chris Cooley had to stay in to block because the o-line wasn't getting it done. I'd rather have him in the secondary, creating mismatches and opening things up for the other receivers.[/quote]

Alright we're going in circles again. Let's just say we traded for Johnson. With 8 picks remaining, why could we not still address the lines and bring in hungry young players as you say and in theory have the best of both worlds?? I'm just not understanding your logic.

Acquiring CJ would not mean that the draft is doomed.