Re: Offer made on Chad
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;441972]I think you'd be hard pressed to find 1 #3 wideout who posted ARE's numbers last year.[/QUOTE]

Well of course I would be hard pressed to do that. But ARE was the #2 wideout in '07. 51 receptions are about the norm for a #3 wr.

Re: Offer made on Chad
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;442222]Well of course I would be hard pressed to do that. But ARE was the #2 wideout in '07. 51 receptions are about the norm for a #3 wr.[/QUOTE]

Well you said ARE produced like a "seldom used #3." I don't think you'll find [U]any[/U] #3 who put up ARE's 2007 stats, let alone a "seldom used #3." I doubt more than half of the #2s in the league put up better stats than ARE in 2007. He did just fine IMO.

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

[url=http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/wr.php]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2008[/url]

ARE ranked 15th in (per play) DVOA and 24th in DPAR (total value) last season. Of course, I think you could make the argument that he was our Number One WR last year, but 12 teams did not have [B][U]any[/U][/B] receivers as strong as ARE was last season.

It was probably a career year for him as he's best suited to be a no. 2 or no. 3, but he's totally capable of staying in the No. 2 role if we need him.

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

51 receptions the norm for a #3 wideout? That's crazy talk imo, I'd consider that the exception, not the norm. I think ARE would put up better numbers as the #3 because that's probably his most natural position. I asked this question earlier in the thread but it didn't seem to be answered. Is this Danny/Vinny wanting Chad or is this Danny/Vinny/Zorny wanting Chad? I think I'd be ok giving up a first and a third for Chad if Zorn wanted him and thought he would fit into the WCO, but if this was just Dan and Vinny wanting Chad because he's the big name guy and they think he'd solve their problems, but Zorn wasn't on board then I probably wouldn't want it to happen. What if we did get Chad but he didn't fit into the system and wasn't able to be productive? I mean there's a slim chance of that happening but the possibility exists. I'm still hurting over giving up a third and a fourth for B-Lloyd, I don't want to invest heavily in another wideout and then find out that he can't be productive for us.

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

[QUOTE=mooby;442238]I asked this question earlier in the thread but it didn't seem to be answered. Is this Danny/Vinny wanting Chad or is this Danny/Vinny/Zorny wanting Chad? I think I'd be ok giving up a first and a third for Chad if Zorn wanted him and thought he would fit into the WCO, but if this was just Dan and Vinny wanting Chad because he's the big name guy and they think he'd solve their problems, but Zorn wasn't on board then I probably wouldn't want it to happen.[/QUOTE]

I heard on ESPN's Redskins Radio that all HC candidates were told that the team was going to target a #1 WR like Chad. All signs indicate that the trade for Chad was conceived and orchestrated by Vinny and/or Snyder.

[QUOTE=mooby;442238]What if we did get Chad but he didn't fit into the system and wasn't able to be productive? I mean there's a slim chance of that happening but the possibility exists. I'm still hurting over giving up a third and a fourth for B-Lloyd, I don't want to invest heavily in another wideout and then find out that he can't be productive for us.[/QUOTE]

I would be nothing short of stunned if Chad wasn't highly productive for at least two years. My concern isn't with Chad being unproductive, it's with the price (in terms of cap space and draft picks) to acquire him, the risk that he would disrupt locker room chemistry, and the possibility that he could have a TO-like meltdown.

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

[quote=mooby;442238]51 receptions the norm for a #3 wideout? That's crazy talk imo, I'd consider that the exception, not the norm. I think ARE would put up better numbers as the #3 because that's probably his most natural position. I asked this question earlier in the thread but it didn't seem to be answered. Is this Danny/Vinny wanting Chad or is this Danny/Vinny/Zorny wanting Chad? I think I'd be ok giving up a first and a third for Chad if Zorn wanted him and thought he would fit into the WCO, but if this was just Dan and Vinny wanting Chad because he's the big name guy and they think he'd solve their problems, but Zorn wasn't on board then I probably wouldn't want it to happen. What if we did get Chad but he didn't fit into the system and wasn't able to be productive? I mean there's a slim chance of that happening but the possibility exists. I'm still hurting over giving up a third and a fourth for B-Lloyd, I don't want to invest heavily in another wideout and then find out that he can't be productive for us.[/quote]

Well I think at least at first it was very clear who wanted CJ Vinny and Dan or vise versa. I'm sure either way Zorn would be on board, although he would and should have input (why would he not, this has been a main area of concern the team has stated for some time and get the chance to get an elite WR?). That is ultimately Vinny's job to bring in the talent as our GM/VP but a group decision with Dan's blessings.

And you sure can't compare CJ to Lloyd, CJ has a proven track record in this league of being an elite WR on the field, as much as I like or don't like him he is one of the very best at his position that requires ultimate respect from opponents. Lloyd for the most part was an unproven WR, and as we all know turned out being still unproven/no good, with a whole lot more cash in his banking account or a rich bust.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but the more I think about this potential trade if it where to ever happen (Which by the way I doubt it will) I would not have a problem giving up a late first round draft pick and next years third for CJ. IF the contract isn't crazy AND their are contract clauses that if he becomes an issue. I'm sure the Redskins and all other NFL teams for that matter have learned from the TO, philly ordeal.

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

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;442182]Why would he be a nightmare?[/QUOTE]

Jim Zorn will be trying to establish himself as the leader and he'll face many challenges. He has huge shoes to fill and is inheriting a team that was very loyal to Gibbs and Williams. Zorn doesn't need a self-absorbed hot head like Ocho Sinco adding fuel to the fire if things go wrong. Jason Campbell is learning yet another offense. If Chad Johnson can't deal with Carson Palmer, is he going to keep his mouth shut if Campbell isn't getting him the ball? Chad Johnson is obviously very talented, but I don't think he's worth the risk (or the draft picks).

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

I dont believe that the Redskins ever made this offer. I believe that it is Drew Rosenhous using the Reskins as a tool,to get his client out of Cincinati. The offer is outlandish for a player over 30. I know many people will tell say that a reciever can play well into their thirties, but teams just dont give that kind of comprnsation for potential trouble maker stars like Chad. Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Chad in B&G. Just look at a superstar like Deangelo Hall. They only gave up a second rounder for him. A talent that is usualy found in the top of the first round. He is only twenty four.

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

I'm going to say this once, because it just occurred to me, and I'm sure I'll get blasted by some, but whatever.

Chad Johnson is a funny guy; outspoken, gregarious, playful. In fact, his touchdown celebrations are not totally unlike Clinton Portis dressing up as wacky characters on Wednesdays in 2005 ... the guy is keeping it loose. He had a few VERY publicized spats with Carson Palmer during games but, newsflash, receivers tend to do things like that - Santana Moss can get pretty moody, if not as vocal (largely a product of the fact that they only see the play from a very small perspective and don't see all the things going on around the LOS I think, but I digress). But he has never been in trouble with the law, he has not had injury problems, he has been to multiple Pro Bowls, put up HOF numbers quite frankly.

Now what happened last year is that the the media in Cincinnati jumped on Chad and started blaming his antics - which somehow were never a problem when the team was winning back in 2005 and everyone thought they were pretty funny then - were the cause of Cincy's troubles (as opposed to the non-existent run game or wretched defense). Chad Johnson took great offense to that and stopped talking to the local press. This situation seems vaguely familiar ... like Sean Taylor's distrust of the media. Now Taylor decided not to talk at all, but that is not Chad Johnson ... the guy is a character ... and also represented by Drew Rosenhaus ... so he is making a play to get out of town.

I think if he comes to D.C. all the haters - those who don't hurl themselves out of a window - will embrace him the same way that they have embraced Clinton Portis. Both are characters. Both are elite talents. Both produce on the field. I think all the hatred directed at Chad Johnson is misguided, and as I said, not totally unlike some of the representations made about Sean Taylor that had us all up in arms. The guy is getting way too much hate heaped upon him, stop the madness.

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

[QUOTE=Warren85Ellard;442254]Jim Zorn will be trying to establish himself as the leader and he'll face many challenges. He has huge shoes to fill and is inheriting a team that was very loyal to Gibbs and Williams. Zorn doesn't need a self-absorbed hot head like Ocho Sinco adding fuel to the fire if things go wrong. Jason Campbell is learning yet another offense. If Chad Johnson can't deal with Carson Palmer, is he going to keep his mouth shut if Campbell isn't getting him the ball? Chad Johnson is obviously very talented, but I don't think he's worth the risk (or the draft picks).[/QUOTE]

I don't know that Chad Johnson can't deal with Palmer. I mean, his stats certainly show that he dealt with Palmer. Yeah, they had that one argument on the sidelines and they had a little spat last week. But really I don't think CJ at any point has said he can't play with Carson Palmer.

I think that Campbell can really benefit from having a top WR like Chad Johnson. Maybe it's just me, but I think (from what I've seen) CJ-unlike say Randy Moss-doesn't let up on the field because he's upset off the field. He may not be as good an option as say Boldin or Williams but I don't see him holding Campbell's progress back.

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

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;442260]I'm going to say this once, because it just occurred to me, and I'm sure I'll get blasted by some, but whatever.

Chad Johnson is a funny guy; outspoken, gregarious, playful. In fact, his touchdown celebrations are not totally unlike Clinton Portis dressing up as wacky characters on Wednesdays in 2005 ... the guy is keeping it loose. He had a few VERY publicized spats with Carson Palmer during games but, newsflash, receivers tend to do things like that - Santana Moss can get pretty moody, if not as vocal (largely a product of the fact that they only see the play from a very small perspective and don't see all the things going on around the LOS I think, but I digress). But he has never been in trouble with the law, he has not had injury problems, he has been to multiple Pro Bowls, put up HOF numbers quite frankly.

Now what happened last year is that the the media in Cincinnati jumped on Chad and started blaming his antics - which somehow were never a problem when the team was winning back in 2005 and everyone thought they were pretty funny then - were the cause of Cincy's troubles (as opposed to the non-existent run game or wretched defense). Chad Johnson took great offense to that and stopped talking to the local press. This situation seems vaguely familiar ... like Sean Taylor's distrust of the media. Now Taylor decided not to talk at all, but that is not Chad Johnson ... the guy is a character ... and also represented by Drew Rosenhaus ... so he is making a play to get out of town.

I think if he comes to D.C. all the haters - those who don't hurl themselves out of a window - will embrace him the same way that they have embraced Clinton Portis. Both are characters. Both are elite talents. Both produce on the field. I think all the hatred directed at Chad Johnson is misguided, and as I said, not totally unlike some of the representations made about Sean Taylor that had us all up in arms. The guy is getting way too much hate heaped upon him, stop the madness.[/QUOTE]

I think you make several valid points.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;442262]I think you make several valid points.[/quote]

I just went over to the WP and saw that Randle El said something similar:

(in reference to Chad Johnson) "I remember before I got here, I heard stuff about the late [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sean+Taylor+%28Football%29?tid=informline"]Sean Taylor[/URL]," Randle El said. "I thought he was just going to be one of those guys who's a thug and that kind of thing, and he blew my mind when I got here. He was nothing like that, just a totally different guy than I thought he would be. That's why you shouldn't have preconceived ideas about guys."

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

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;441923]Really? You think there's that much first-round OL talent in this year's draft?[/QUOTE]

Sure several drafts have 1) Jake Long 2) Ryan Clady 3) Chris Williams 4) B. Albert 5) Jeff Otah 6) Gosder Cherilus going in the first round. Most of these guys are expected to go before the 21st pick, but I just think it's unlikely all of them will definitely be gone. The steelers have publicly said this is the most talented o-line draft group in 25 years. On the other hand, the top DTs will probably be gone by 21 but who knows. I could be wrong on taking o-line at 21 over a trade for CJ... but I still think it's a much more practical move. I still think young talent on the line kills two birds w/ a single stone: better line (rushing attack/pass protection) and it lets Cooley get away from the line of scrimmage to work his magic. IMO we will all be shocked at what he'll do if given the chance to work more as a receiver. (sorry for being long winded)

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

[QUOTE=The Goat;442267]Sure several drafts have 1) Jake Long 2) Ryan Clady 3) Chris Williams 4) B. Albert 5) Jeff Otah 6) Gosder Cherilus going in the first round. Most of these guys are expected to go before the 21st pick, but I just think it's unlikely all of them will definitely be gone. The steelers have publicly said this is the most talented o-line draft group in 25 years. On the other hand, the top DTs will probably be gone by 21 but who knows. I could be wrong on taking o-line at 21 over a trade for CJ... but I still think it's a much more practical move. I still think young talent on the line kills two birds w/ a single stone: better line (rushing attack/pass protection) and it lets Cooley get away from the line of scrimmage to work his magic. IMO we will all be shocked at what he'll do if given the chance to work more as a receiver. (sorry for being long winded)[/QUOTE]

The Steelers, and others, have said this is the deepest OL draft group (which isn't exactly the same as most talented). I think that even if Otah or Cherilus is there at #21 that is too high to take them. Unless Albert, Williams, or Ryan Clady (I wish!) fell to us at #21 I think we can be as effective addressing our OL needs by selecting something like Schuening and Hills in the 3rd round. In fact, I would argue that what we need more than one great lineman is several very good linemen.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;441665]How important a need do you think WR is and how should we solve the need?[/quote]

WR is not as important as a pass rusher or a road grading guard. That's what wins in the NFL. Not diva wr's. I give Parcells and the gang credit for taking J.Long. They get it. You win football games in the trenches. Take Ariz, Det and Cinn for example. They have great wr tandems yet they never do anything in the post season. Why? Why is that? Skill guys sell tickets but in the end you've got to be able to protect your passer and knock down the opponents passer.

I would address the wr position in the mid rounds or next year. You can't fix everything in one year. I don't know these guys names but the guy on K. State just was an animal. All he does it get open. Same with the guy on Vanderbuilt. I think he is the all time leading wr in SEC history but no one is talking about him. All the pub is going to Devin Thomas. These guys can be found in the mid rounds and there would be good value picking one of them and I would bet that one or both will have good NFL careers.

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

Otah has gone very high in several boards. Why is 21 too high for him? Cherilus seems pretty likely to fall to 21 and you're probably right about him. I too would be thrilled to see us take more than one o-lineman (like our first and second or first and third). I can't deny being partial to dominant lines on both sides of the ball. I've always thought lines are the core of the team on a week to week basis and my worst fear is another season of injuries to our current coral of o-lineman and average production of our d-line. I think injuries to the guys on o are a matter of when not if, and if we start the season with just RT, JJ, Heyer and Fabini on the right side its gonna get ugly (again) IMO.

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

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;442271]WR is not as important as a pass rusher or a road grading guard. That's what wins in the NFL. Not diva wr's. I give Parcells and the gang credit for taking J.Long. They get it. You win football games in the trenches. Take Ariz, Det and Cinn for example. They have great wr tandems yet they never do anything in the post season.

I would address the wr position in the mid rounds or next year. You can't fix everything in one year. I don't know these guys names but the guy on K. State just was an animal. All he does it get open. Same with the guy on Vanderbuilt. I think he is the all time leading wr in SEC history but no one is talking about him. All the pub is going to Devin Thomas. These guys can be found in the mid rounds and there would be good value picking one of them and I would bet that one or both will have good NFL careers.[/QUOTE]

You make some really good points. However, I wouldn't give too much credit to the Phins for taking Jake Long. They sort of backed into that because he was the cheapest option and other top candidates not so subtly said they wouldn't play for the Dolphins. This isn't to say they didn't value JL or that they're not happy with him.

I would have an issue with the Chad Johnson trade (or one for RW or Boldin) if I felt it would seriously cripple our ability to fill other needs. Right now I don't feel that it does.

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

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;442260]I'm going to say this once, because it just occurred to me, and I'm sure I'll get blasted by some, but whatever.

Chad Johnson is a funny guy; outspoken, gregarious, playful. In fact, his touchdown celebrations are not totally unlike Clinton Portis dressing up as wacky characters on Wednesdays in 2005 ... the guy is keeping it loose. He had a few VERY publicized spats with Carson Palmer during games but, newsflash, receivers tend to do things like that - Santana Moss can get pretty moody, if not as vocal (largely a product of the fact that they only see the play from a very small perspective and don't see all the things going on around the LOS I think, but I digress). But he has never been in trouble with the law, he has not had injury problems, he has been to multiple Pro Bowls, put up HOF numbers quite frankly.

Now what happened last year is that the the media in Cincinnati jumped on Chad and started blaming his antics - which somehow were never a problem when the team was winning back in 2005 and everyone thought they were pretty funny then - were the cause of Cincy's troubles (as opposed to the non-existent run game or wretched defense). Chad Johnson took great offense to that and stopped talking to the local press. This situation seems vaguely familiar ... like Sean Taylor's distrust of the media. Now Taylor decided not to talk at all, but that is not Chad Johnson ... the guy is a character ... and also represented by Drew Rosenhaus ... so he is making a play to get out of town.

I think if he comes to D.C. all the haters - those who don't hurl themselves out of a window - will embrace him the same way that they have embraced Clinton Portis. Both are characters. Both are elite talents. Both produce on the field. I think all the hatred directed at Chad Johnson is misguided, and as I said, not totally unlike some of the representations made about Sean Taylor that had us all up in arms. The guy is getting way too much hate heaped upon him, stop the madness.[/QUOTE]

Portis' and Chads' antics are distinguishable. I have no problem whatsoever with a player celebrating a touchdown, dressing up in costumes, etc. I do, however, have a serious problem with a player who plans a celebration days before a game, knowing full well that the celebration is going to draw a 15 yard penalty and put the defense in a bad situation. Portis has [U]never[/U] drawn a flag for a post-TD celebration, at least not since he's been a Redskin.

Also, is it me or are all people who oppose this proposed trade getting automatically lumped in with "the world is ending crowd?" Aside from a few select individuals, those of us who have opposed the trade have articulated reasonable arguments in support of our belief that the trade doesn't make sense (e.g., cap considerations, that we are the oldest team in the league, the need for help at multiple positions, etc.). But, for whatever reason, it appears that most people have drawn a line in the sand in this debate, determined that Chad Johnson is Jesus Jr. or pure evil, and labeled anyone with a different POV as a raving lunatic/idiot. I still can't believe that certain people won't admit that Chad will help this team and is an enormous talent. I also can't believe that others won't admit that Chad has some baggage and, on balance, the trade may not make sense.

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

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;442274]Portis' and Chads' antics are distinguishable. I have no problem whatsoever with a player celebrating a touchdown, dressing up in costumes, etc. I do, however, have a serious problem with a player who plans a celebration days before a game, knowing full well that the celebration is going to draw a 15 yard penalty and put the defense in a bad situation. Portis has [U]never[/U] drawn a flag for a post-TD celebration, at least not since he's been a Redskin.

Also, is it me or are all people who oppose this proposed trade getting automatically lumped in with "the world is ending crowd?" Aside from a few select individuals, those of us who have opposed the trade have articulated reasonable arguments in support of our belief that the trade doesn't make sense (e.g., cap considerations, that we are the oldest team in the league, the need for help at multiple positions, etc.). But, for whatever reason, it appears that most people have drawn a line in the sand in this debate, determined that Chad Johnson is Jesus Jr. or pure evil, and labels anyone with a different POV as a raving lunatic/idiot. I still can't believe that certain people won't admit that Chad will help this team and is an enormous talent. I also can't believe that others won't admit that Chad has some baggage and, on balance, the trade may not make sense.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the insight - definitely see what you're saying. I don't personally have bias for or against CJ, but I'll openly admit I have a bias toward dominant lines. Practically speaking I just see far more risk/potential downside in a CJ trade than I do in drafting young talent on the line, but I know I could be wrong on this.

I guess what I really feel is that he's not worth a first rounder. R. Moss is as good as CJ IMHO and what did he go for? 6th rounder? I know circumstances are always different but at the end of the day what I care about is talent and how the player will fit in. If Moss wasn't worth a 1st neither is Johnson and I think we could show better restraint.

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

I would not be opposed to trading our 2nd and a contingent next year for Johnson, but obviously that's out of the question since we offered the farm on the first try. I'm glad Cinci rejected the offer.

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

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;442274]Portis' and Chads' antics are distinguishable. I have no problem whatsoever with a player celebrating a touchdown, dressing up in costumes, etc. I do, however, have a serious problem with a player who plans a celebration days before a game, knowing full well that the celebration is going to draw a 15 yard penalty and put the defense in a bad situation. Portis has [U]never[/U] drawn a flag for a post-TD celebration, at least not since he's been a Redskin.

Also, is it me or are all people who oppose this proposed trade getting automatically lumped in with "the world is ending crowd?" Aside from a few select individuals, those of us who have opposed the trade have articulated reasonable arguments in support of our belief that the trade doesn't make sense (e.g., cap considerations, that we are the oldest team in the league, the need for help at multiple positions, etc.). But, for whatever reason, it appears that most people have drawn a line in the sand in this debate, determined that Chad Johnson is Jesus Jr. or pure evil, and labeled anyone with a different POV as a raving lunatic/idiot. I still can't believe that certain people won't admit that Chad will help this team and is an enormous talent. I also can't believe that others won't admit that Chad has some baggage and, on balance, the trade may not make sense.[/QUOTE]

Well, I can't speak for others. But I will say that are several valid arguments for why this trade is a mistake. I think you, Schneed, and Skinsfan69 (to name a few) have brought up great points (though I may not necessarily agree with all of them). I think there are valid reasons for and against acquiring CJ.

I've always believed that we should only make a move for Chad Johnson if we're not giving up too much (namely in terms of not giving up our opportunity to make other moves). I would be comfortable making the trade as reported now, though I'd prefer to get more/give less. I would not be happy giving up more than we are reportedly offering.

All that said, there is no denying that some people here have done nothing but rant and rave without any thought or substance behind their posts. And, for me at least, it's near impossible to respect those posts.

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

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;442277]All that said, there is no denying that some people here have done nothing but rant and rave without any thought or substance behind their posts. And, for me at least, it's near impossible to respect those posts.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I also want to clearly state that there are really good reasons to think the trade makes sense, including: (1) we were a playoff team last year, we retained all our key contributors from last season, and, with Chad, we might make that last leap towards SB contention; (2) we don't have a true #1 wideout, Chad is a true #1 wideout, and Chad would undoubtedly help our passing attack and Jason Campbell's development; (3) whereas draft picks take several years to develop and many turn out to be busts, Chad is a proven and consistent playmaker who can contribute immediately. I don't intend to sound like a flip-flopper and I still disagree with the trade offer (the conditional 3rd rounder is the deal-breaker). I guess I'd just like to see more balanced posts.

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

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;442247]I heard on ESPN's Redskins Radio that all HC candidates were told that the team was going to target a #1 WR like Chad. All signs indicate that the trade for Chad was conceived and orchestrated by Vinny and/or Snyder.
[/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I would definitely feel better about this happening knowing that this isn't just Dan and Vinny.

[quote]
I would be nothing short of stunned if Chad wasn't highly productive for at least two years. My concern isn't with Chad being unproductive, it's with the price (in terms of cap space and draft picks) to acquire him, the risk that he would disrupt locker room chemistry, and the possibility that he could have a TO-like meltdown.[/quote]

Well I wasn't trying to say that he's going to be unproductive, I do think if he came here that given his track record there's a great chance that he will be a productive wide receiver and someone who will help this team out for at least 4-5 years given how productive wide receivers are in their 30's.

And for the record, I'm on board with the 1st this year and the third next year (potentially a first) because in the grand scheme of things, that's not a back breaking price to pay for a gamebreaking wide receiver. We do have other needs but it's not like we have 5 picks this year and the next, and we wouldn't have to worry about drafting a wideout this year so we would be free to shore up our lines this season.

I guess it's safe to say that I am about 85-90% on the bandwagon to get him. My only concerns are about his antics, I wouldn't want him coming here and then after 2-3 seasons mouthing off to the media about wanting to get the hell out because we had a bad season or two. And I don't want him to get frustrated and start fighting with JC if things don't go that smoothly. I mean if he caught 93 passes for over 1400 yards and still got in arguments with Carson Palmer I'd hate to see what happens if his numbers severely drop in Washington. The last thing I want would be him badmouthing the Redskins in the media and complaining if things didn't go his way.

My only other concern is his contract. Because he is going to be 30 years old, it's safe to assume he's only gonna be in the league about 7 or so more years. I don't want him to get traded here and then sign a backbreaking deal that pays him huge amounts of money down the road when there's a chance that his skills have diminished. If he wants a new contract (which he shouldn't, considering he's been one of the highest paid wide receivers in the NFL the past few years and will continue to be for the next few seasons) then I would want to see him sign a 4-5 year deal with the money evenly spread out so if the time comes and he's not worth his salary we won't be forced to keep him because of the cap hit.

With all that said, I'd rather see the Redskins trade for Boldin than CJ. This is just because I believe that Boldin would be a better fit in the WCO, and he's younger, and he could be potentially cheaper, not to mention almost no worries about him being a prima donna, and he's a #1 who would be a fine #2.

One last thing I would like to add. If this does happen, I think it would be have to be done before we use our first pick in the draft on Saturday. I know there's a better chance of it happening after June 1st because CJ's salary cap hit would be pretty much cut in half. But if it happened after the draft then we'dve used our picks and chances are we take a wide receiver with one of them, lessening the odds that we trade for another one. Plus what happens if we trade for CJ after the draft, and we give up the '09 first rounder and the '10 third rounder (potentially the first that year too), and one of those picks ends up being top 10 or top 5 and there's a game breaking wide receiver coming out in one of those drafts?

That would suck. I know most fans are thinking this team is one or two pieces away from being a Super Bowl contender, but I remember a similar thing after 05' when we went to the playoffs too, and then '06 just turned into a complete disaster.

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

[quote=T.O.Killa;442256]I dont believe that the Redskins ever made this offer. I believe that it is Drew Rosenhous using the Reskins as a tool,to get his client out of Cincinati. The offer is outlandish for a player over 30. I know many people will tell say that a reciever can play well into their thirties, but teams just dont give that kind of comprnsation for potential trouble maker stars like Chad. Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Chad in B&G. Just look at a superstar like Deangelo Hall. They only gave up a second rounder for him. A talent that is usualy found in the top of the first round. He is only twenty four.[/quote]

Well being Marvin Lewis made a public statement about this trade issue, I would have to think your not accurate in your post. Of course the Skins made the trade offer.

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3358557]ESPN - Skins offer '08 first-rounder, '09 pick for Johnson; Cincy says no - NFL[/url]

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

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;442271][B]WR is not as important as a pass rusher or a road grading guard. That's what wins in the NFL. Not diva wr's. [/B]I give Parcells and the gang credit for taking J.Long. They get it. [B]You win football games in the trenches. Take Ariz, Det and Cinn for example. They have great wr tandems yet they never do anything in the post season. Why? Why is that? Skill guys sell tickets but in the end you've got to be able to protect your passer and knock down the opponents passer.[/B]

I would address the wr position in the mid rounds or next year. You can't fix everything in one year. I don't know these guys names but the guy on K. State just was an animal. All he does it get open. Same with the guy on Vanderbuilt. I think he is the all time leading wr in SEC history but no one is talking about him. All the pub is going to Devin Thomas. These guys can be found in the mid rounds and there would be good value picking one of them and I would bet that one or both will have good NFL careers.[/QUOTE]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The guy from K-State you mentioned was Jordy Nelson. I'm hoping we can take him in the second round. Meantime, 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]

When it comes to NFL wide receivers, the watchword of the day is "disgruntled." Chad Johnson is unhappy in Cincinnati and has demanded a trade. Anquan Boldin is unhappy in Arizona and has also demanded a trade. At least we know Boldin is unhappy about money; nobody seems to know why Johnson wants out of Cincinnati.

In recent years, adding a disgruntled wide receiver has provided the final piece of the puzzle for a number of Super Bowl contenders. Trading for Terrell Owens helped the 2004 Eagles finally advance to the Super Bowl. Trading for Randy Moss transformed the New England offense and led to a 16-0 regular season. It's no wonder numerous teams have contacted Cincinnati and Arizona, trying to talk trade.

However, if the Bengals and Cardinals give in to the trade demands, it may not mean as much as people think. NFL teams that add a star wide receiver don't actually have a very good record of improvement.

Of course, there is no precedent for a consistent wide receiver of Johnson's caliber changing teams. Johnson was third in the NFL last year with 1,440 receiving yards, and has five straight seasons with at least 1,200 receiving yards. No wide receiver in NFL history has ever changed teams after two straight 1,200-yard seasons, let alone five. No wide receiver has ever changed teams after five straight 1,000-yard seasons, and only two changed teams after four (Owens and Muhsin Muhammad).

Since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, only six different receivers have changed teams after a 1,200-yard season. Each of the teams that lost a 1,200-yard receiver suffered except for the 2005 Panthers, but that's a special case -- they lost Muhammad, but they also got Steve Smith back from the broken leg that cost him nearly all of 2004, and he moved right back into the No. 1 receiver role.

Meanwhile, the teams that added these receivers generally didn't get any better. By far the biggest improvement came from the 2005 Bears, but that had a lot more to do with defense than it did with signing Muhammad. Of these six wide receivers, Laveranues Coles was the only one who gained 1,000 yards in his first season with his new team.

Loosen the restrictions to get a bigger group of receivers, and the analysis gives pretty much the same result: Teams that lose a top receiver usually decline, but despite what we've seen in recent years from Owens and Moss, the average team that gains a top receiver doesn't improve.

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.

Even if we look at the teams with the biggest improvement, it is hard to say that the new receivers made a big difference. The 2004 Chargers had already turned things around by the time they picked up McCardell at midseason. The 2002 Colts bounced back because Edgerrin James returned from his ACL injury, not because they added Qadry Ismail. Brett Perriman had nothing to do with the 1997 Chiefs going 13-3; he caught just six passes and Kansas City released him after five games. I already mentioned Muhammad above. Of the five receivers whose new teams gained four wins or more, the only one who really had a major impact was Tony Martin joining the 1998 Falcons, who didn't have a 1,000-yard receiver the year before.

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.

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.