Ocho Cinco In B&G

[Drift Reality]

I'm really sorry to be a hater but the problem with the Redskins is that our owner and his monkey boy might as well be participants in this forum because I'm sure they'd love nothing more than to give Chad Johnson a 15 million dollar signing bonus and lock him up for the next five years (or two - until they renegotiate his contract).

We currently have over 13 million in salary for 2008 locked up in 3 wide receivers - even if Lloyd is cut, the cap hit will be substantial and we are still talking about a big chunk of our cap being devoted to wide receivers.

No offense to all the people who are getting a hard-on for #85 but are you insane?

I don't understand why we are talking about Briggs and Chad Johnson when year after year, the teams that are winning super bowls are following such a different personnel model than the Redskins.

We are talking about teams that draft well, sign free agents for below market value, cultivate their own talent.

Why are we still talking about signing two guys who we are going to pay above market for - and in the process, sacrifice depth at other - more vital - positions.

Personally, I would rather use the finances to build depth on our lines and focus on the draft. Let someone else blow up their cap to sign this over-priced free agent.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

I'm really sorry to be a hater but the problem with the Redskins is that our owner and his monkey boy might as well be participants in this forum because I'm sure they'd love nothing more than to give Chad Johnson a 15 million dollar signing bonus and lock him up for the next five years (or two - until they renegotiate his contract).

We currently have over 13 million in salary for 2008 locked up in 3 wide receivers - even if Lloyd is cut, the cap hit will be substantial and we are still talking about a big chunk of our cap being devoted to wide receivers.

No offense to all the people who are getting a hard-on for #85 but are you insane?

I don't understand why we are talking about Briggs and Chad Johnson when year after year, the teams that are winning super bowls are following such a different personnel model than the Redskins.

We are talking about teams that draft well, sign free agents for below market value, cultivate their own talent.

Why are we still talking about signing two guys who we are going to pay above market for - and in the process, sacrifice depth at other - more vital - positions.

Personally, I would rather use the finances to build depth on our lines and focus on the draft. Let someone else blow up their cap to sign this over-priced free agent.

THANK YOU. See, what we should do is let Blades play the weak side until Rocky comes back. The guy was a tackling machine in college. Put his ass out there and let him learn. You need to have some starters that make 500k to balance out the team. Unless you're the Pats, and you already have most of the pieces in place, chasing high priced FA's is such a waste of time. Look at SF last year? They signed a bunch of guys and they still sucked. You can't go around trying to buy a team. Nate Clemons got big $. They signed a guy from NE and Balt, can't remember their names. Did it help them? Nope. IT DOESN'T WORK. You don't see Pittsburgh chasing around these guys. That's cause they draft and have guys waiting in the pipeline. When is our FO going to learn?

[ingibbswetrust]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

I'm really sorry to be a hater but the problem with the Redskins is that our owner and his monkey boy might as well be participants in this forum because I'm sure they'd love nothing more than to give Chad Johnson a 15 million dollar signing bonus and lock him up for the next five years (or two - until they renegotiate his contract).

We currently have over 13 million in salary for 2008 locked up in 3 wide receivers - even if Lloyd is cut, the cap hit will be substantial and we are still talking about a big chunk of our cap being devoted to wide receivers.

No offense to all the people who are getting a hard-on for #85 but are you insane?

I don't understand why we are talking about Briggs and Chad Johnson when year after year, the teams that are winning super bowls are following such a different personnel model than the Redskins.

We are talking about teams that draft well, sign free agents for below market value, cultivate their own talent.

Why are we still talking about signing two guys who we are going to pay above market for - and in the process, sacrifice depth at other - more vital - positions.

Personally, I would rather use the finances to build depth on our lines and focus on the draft. Let someone else blow up their cap to sign this over-priced free agent.

I agree that we should be building through the draft (and that we don't need Briggs) but at a position like WR, I really feel this is a trade worth making. I've been struggling with this lately and I keep coming back to the cowboys getting TO and the lions drafting flop after flop at the WR position. The cowboys took a huge gamble on bringing TO to town and it has put their offense over the top. Just look at them without him over the last few games of this season, they were an average offense at best and with him they are 2nd best offense the NFL.

We're mediocore as is on the offensive side of the ball and I really feel if we could have CJ open up the vertical game and take double teams off of Santana it would open up things for Moss, ARE in the slot and cooley over the middle (and of course the run game).

Depending on what we have to give up, I think this is a risk worth taking. Even if we were to draft a WR, that's a huge risk when we could draft a dependable linemen. This would obviously be an expensive trade for us but at least we know what we're getting in return (which we didn't really with B. Lloyd) , which is a bonafide game changing consistent WR for the next 5 years.

That's my vote. HAIL.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by ingibbswetrust

I agree that we should be building through the draft (and that we don't need Briggs) but at a position like WR, I really feel this is a trade worth making. I've been struggling with this lately and I keep coming back to the cowboys getting TO and the lions drafting flop after flop at the WR position. The cowboys took a huge gamble on bringing TO to town and it has put their offense over the top. Just look at them without him over the last few games of this season, they were an average offense at best and with him they are 2nd best offense the NFL.

We're mediocore as is on the offensive side of the ball and I really feel if we could have CJ open up the vertical game and take double teams off of Santana it would open up things for Moss, ARE in the slot and cooley over the middle (and of course the run game).

Depending on what we have to give up, I think this is a risk worth taking. Even if we were to draft a WR, that's a huge risk when we could draft a dependable linemen. This would obviously be an expensive trade for us but at least we know what we're getting in return (which we didn't really with B. Lloyd) , which is a bonafide game changing consistent WR for the next 5 years.

That's my vote. HAIL.

The main point is though that the ability to trade for Chad Johnson directly conflicts with the ability to draft linemen.

A trade makes sense for the Redskins because this is the first year in a long time we won't be able to outbid the opposition on the FA market. With the cap room we have, we can still offer a fair market deal, but another team would find it no issue at all to match or exceed our deal, because they aren't limited by the cap. That's why we have interest in Johnson.

However, that still doesn't mean that we can aquire him cheaply. The price tag the Bengals want is a first and a third, or two seconds. Let's say that we can negotiate a lower price tag: say a second now, and a third next year. Well, we still have to address the following positions in the next two years: CB, C, G, DE, DT, but now we have one fewer first day pick to do it with.

Knowing this franchise, that likely means we neglect the offensive line another year, and our offense declines, despite Johnson's presence. Though we would still be competitive, we've made no net gain in 2008, and are down a 3rd round pick in 2009.

And that's all assuming we negotiate a more reasonable price...not something Danny's exactly known for doing.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The main point is though that the ability to trade for Chad Johnson directly conflicts with the ability to draft linemen.

A trade makes sense for the Redskins because this is the first year in a long time we won't be able to outbid the opposition on the FA market. With the cap room we have, we can still offer a fair market deal, but another team would find it no issue at all to match or exceed our deal, because they aren't limited by the cap. That's why we have interest in Johnson.

However, that still doesn't mean that we can aquire him cheaply. The price tag the Bengals want is a first and a third, or two seconds. Let's say that we can negotiate a lower price tag: say a second now, and a third next year. Well, we still have to address the following positions in the next two years: CB, C, G, DE, DT, but now we have one fewer first day pick to do it with.

Knowing this franchise, that likely means we neglect the offensive line another year, and our offense declines, despite Johnson's presence. Though we would still be competitive, we've made no net gain in 2008, and are down a 3rd round pick in 2009.

And that's all assuming we negotiate a more reasonable price...not something Danny's exactly known for doing.

I hope like hell we don't neglect the O-line.

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by ingibbswetrust

I agree that we should be building through the draft (and that we don't need Briggs) but at a position like WR, I really feel this is a trade worth making. I've been struggling with this lately and I keep coming back to the cowboys getting TO and the lions drafting flop after flop at the WR position. The cowboys took a huge gamble on bringing TO to town and it has put their offense over the top. Just look at them without him over the last few games of this season, they were an average offense at best and with him they are 2nd best offense the NFL.

We're mediocore as is on the offensive side of the ball and I really feel if we could have CJ open up the vertical game and take double teams off of Santana it would open up things for Moss, ARE in the slot and cooley over the middle (and of course the run game).

Depending on what we have to give up, I think this is a risk worth taking. Even if we were to draft a WR, that's a huge risk when we could draft a dependable linemen. This would obviously be an expensive trade for us but at least we know what we're getting in return (which we didn't really with B. Lloyd) , which is a bonafide game changing consistent WR for the next 5 years.

That's my vote. HAIL.

I think the reason we are mediocre on offense has more to do with continuity and the player's comfort in a system.

I think everyone would agree that once Collins stepped in last year and our line started to gel - then suddenly our offense started moving up and down the field.

Going out and getting a Chad Johnson isn't suddenly the magic solution to all our systemic problems - especially when in my opinion, if we want to point to a weakness, I would point to our offensive line last year after the key injuries.

Great teams are built from the lines out - there is no point in having a dynamic receiver in here if our QB is on his back and our RBs are getting stuffed at the line.

Let me ask this question: Would you rather have Chad Johnson at $8 million per year, or find a way to bring in a couple of solid O-line guys and maybe a D-line guy?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

Going out and getting a Chad Johnson isn't suddenly the magic solution to all our systemic problems - especially when in my opinion, if we want to point to a weakness, I would point to our offensive line last year after the key injuries.

This is the best point in the thread. If we go out and acquire Johnson, we improve just a tiny, tiny bit--but the oppertunity costs far outweigh any potential benefit.

If Johnson has a career year here, we improve maybe a whole win in the standings over last year, but 1) its a bad idea to make a trade assuming a guy will be even better than he's proven (**Lloyd**), and 2) we could improve more investing picks and money elsewhere.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This is the best point in the thread. If we go out and acquire Johnson, we improve just a tiny, tiny bit--but the oppertunity costs far outweigh any potential benefit.

If Johnson has a career year here, we improve maybe a whole win in the standings over last year, but 1) its a bad idea to make a trade assuming a guy will be even better than he's proven (**Lloyd**), and 2) we could improve more investing picks and money elsewhere.

got any proof of that?

we've got good starters on OL, and depth takes time to improve, so new linemen aren't going to come in and make an immediate impact (until at least 6 games in when they learn how the other guys play), but a WR could immediately. TO gave philly and dallas a LOT more than a 1 win advantage, and so did randy moss (both in minn and NE... oak didn't have a QB that could take advantage of him).

the only two spots where you could get a bigger immediate impact would be DE (which is still rare for a strong 1st year contribution) or getting phillips at safety.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

got any proof of that?

we've got good starters on OL, and depth takes time to improve, so new linemen aren't going to come in and make an immediate impact (until at least 6 games in when they learn how the other guys play), but a WR could immediately. TO gave philly and dallas a LOT more than a 1 win advantage, and so did randy moss (both in minn and NE... oak didn't have a QB that could take advantage of him).

the only two spots where you could get a bigger immediate impact would be DE (which is still rare for a strong 1st year contribution) or getting phillips at safety.

R. Moss was valued (purely on catch and value on passes thrown in his direction) at 51 DPAR this season. That is roughly a one win advantage (over the replacement level ish Reche Caldwell), or so my research on the topic has shown. This of course, doesn't account for how defenses alter their play to account for the threat that Moss brings, but you can only give a guy so much credit on plays he doesn't get the ball. Let's not act like Welker wasn't just as big a part of the Pats success as Moss was.

Johnson's DPAR was valued at 34, or roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of a win. But if he came here, he would not be replacing Reche Caldwell. He would be replacing Santana Moss, who is on the basis of the career, a lot stronger than Caldwell. Johnson is obviously an upgrade, but not more than maybe a 3rd of a win.

Johnson isn't Owens, and he isn't Moss. He's very, very good. But he would have a reasonably negligible effect on our team because it's not like we don't already have a competent passing game. It would just get slightly better.

I'm not sure drafting a guard with a pick that we would have traded for Johnson improves our team a whole lot in the short run, but if you think about where we will be a year or two years from now with no talent in the interior vs. a potential solid starter or even probowler, it makes little sense to argue that the possibility of an extra win this year is a good move when it costs us a few wins in the future.

None of that even begins to address the financial applications which make a CJ acquisition silly at best, and crippling at worst (depending on how many added restructurings we do to fit him in).

[Monkeydad]

"Chad Johnson is due a $250,000 workout bonus on March 24.
If Chad's not in Cincinnati then, we'll know he's serious about holding out.

Agent Drew Rosenhaus has said Johnson won't skip important offseason work, but forfeiting $250,000 would make an early statement."


Source: Cincinnati Enquirer