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

[skinsfan69]

If these reports are true then Vinny and the gang are still a bunch of tools. Haven't we learned our lesson with tempermental wr's. We've got an aging o-line, an aging #1 corner and a starting DE that's about to collect social sercurity. Do they even know the formula to success in the NFL? Vinny and Dan all you have to do is look north on route 95! It's not WR play. Sorry but it's not. You need some pass rushers, you need an offensive line and you need not spectacular, but solid mistake free qb play.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If these reports are true then Vinny and the gang are still a bunch of tools. Haven't we learned our lesson with tempermental wr's. We've got an aging o-line, an aging #1 corner and a starting DE that's about to collect social sercurity. Do they even know the formula to success in the NFL? Vinny and Dan all you have to do is look north on route 95! It's not WR play. Sorry but it's not. You need some pass rushers, you need an offensive line and you need not spectacular, but solid mistake free qb play.

We would still have 8 picks to fill holes.

I think we're going a little overboard here if trading away one pick means the draft is blown.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We would still have 8 picks to fill holes.

I think we're going a little overboard here if trading away one pick means the draft is blown.

If we were one player away or we were a team knocking on the door to the SB then I could see. Kind of like how Philly traded for TO. But we barely made the playoffs and we were one and done. We need a solid two years of good drafting before we're that type of team. The whole O-line is going to have to be replaced in 2 years. Most people might not want to admit it but we're a team in transition right now. Why potentially set yourself back for the future by trading for this guy. It's just not smart football.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If we were one player away or we were a team knocking on the door to the SB then I could see. Kind of like how Philly traded for TO. But we barely made the playoffs and we were one and done. We need a solid two years of good drafting before we're that type of team. The whole O-line is going to have to be replaced in 2 years. Most people might not want to admit it but we're a team in transition right now. Why potentially set yourself back for the future by trading for this guy. It's just not smart football.

We're trading away one pick ONE PICK in the 2008 draft for one of the best wide receivers in the game, a position we need. We'll still have 8 more picks. Plus who's to say we can't trade back into the 3rd round next year if need be? Not to mention a couple more comp picks will probably come our way from the Reche and Macklin signings (at least one).

I think that people just aren't thinking here. They just have it ingrained in their minds that because of failed maneuvers like Lloyd and Duckett. Yet we tend to forget failed draft maneuevers like Taylor Jacobs.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We're trading away one pick ONE PICK in the 2008 draft for one of the best wide receivers in the game, a position we need. We'll still have 8 more picks. Plus who's to say we can't trade back into the 3rd round next year if need be? Not to mention a couple more comp picks will probably come our way from the Reche and Macklin signings (at least one).

I think that people just aren't thinking here. They just have it ingrained in their minds that because of failed maneuvers like Lloyd and Duckett. Yet we tend to forget failed draft maneuevers like Taylor Jacobs.

Why would we give up two picks when we're a team that's in transition with many holes to fill? Does anyone remember the Seattle game last year?? Does anyone remember our o-line not being able to protect the QB or get a 1/2 yard in crucial 4th and short situations?? Or not being able to get the ball to Santana cause Collins was getting killed?? DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THAT?? It doesn't matter if we get CJ cause if the QB is on his backside then what good is it? Plus he's going to want a new deal. I just lost all faith in our FO. There just going back to their band-aid tactics.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Why would we give up two picks when we're a team that's in transition with many holes to fill? Does anyone remember the Seattle game last year?? Does anyone remember our o-line not being able to protect the QB or get a 1/2 yard in crucial 4th and short situations?? Or not being able to get the ball to Santana cause Collins was getting killed?? DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THAT?? It doesn't matter if we get CJ cause if the QB is on his backside then what good is it? Plus he's going to want a new deal. I just lost all faith in our FO. There just going back to their band-aid tactics.

Are you assuming an OL is going to fall to us with the #21 pick? Because if not, then your argument holds no weight.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Are you assuming an OL is going to fall to us with the #21 pick? Because if not, then your argument holds no weight.

Well if one doesn't then we should get a pass rusher.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We're trading away one pick ONE PICK in the 2008 draft for one of the best wide receivers in the game, a position we need. We'll still have 8 more picks. Plus who's to say we can't trade back into the 3rd round next year if need be? Not to mention a couple more comp picks will probably come our way from the Reche and Macklin signings (at least one).

I think that people just aren't thinking here. They just have it ingrained in their minds that because of failed maneuvers like Lloyd and Duckett. Yet we tend to forget failed draft maneuevers like Taylor Jacobs.

Dealing two early round picks for Chad Johnson would not doom our franchise and, at least in the short run, it would likely dramatically improve our offense. Chad is simply a dominant player who could really open things up for Cooley, Portis, Moss, and ARE. But, at 30 years of age, Chad Johnson wouldn't help us find a solution to problems that we are going to have to face pretty soon....youth and depth.

We and projected to field one of the oldest starting lineups in the league. We are likely to lose key starters at several positions within the next 2 years. Aside from QB and RB, I think we have depth issues at every position. It is becoming increasingly difficult to fill holes and build depth via free agency. So, in my opinion, we need to acquire more depth and youth via: (1) the draft; and/or (2) trades. Trading for Chad isn't making a trade for a younger, proven player and it costs us the opportunity to draft young, cheap talent.

So, IMO, while the world wouldn't end if we did make the trade, there are certainly legitimate reasons to think it might cause problems for us down the line.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Dealing two early round picks for Chad Johnson would not doom our franchise and, at least in the short run, it would likely dramatically improve our offense. Chad is simply a dominant player who could really open things up for Cooley, Portis, Moss, and ARE. But, at 30 years of age, Chad Johnson wouldn't help us find a solution to problems that we are going to have to face pretty soon....youth and depth.

We and projected to field one of the oldest starting lineups in the league. We are likely to lose key starters at several positions within the next 2 years. Aside from QB and RB, I think we have depth issues at every position. It is becoming increasingly difficult to fill holes and build depth via free agency. So, in my opinion, we need to acquire more depth and youth via: (1) the draft; and/or (2) trades. Trading for Chad isn't making a trade for a younger, proven player and it costs us the opportunity to draft young, cheap talent.

So, IMO, while the world wouldn't end if we did make the trade, there are certainly legitimate reasons to think it might cause problems for us down the line.

I think we're really making too big a deal out of this whole 30 year old issue. He likely has many good years ahead of him.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think we're really making too big a deal out of this whole 30 year old issue. He likely has many good years ahead of him.

Yep, 4 of the leading WRs from last year are 30 or over, and I threw Wayne in there because he's right at the cusp

R. Moss - 31
Johnson - 30
Owens - 34
Holt - 31
Wayne - 29

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think we're really making too big a deal out of this whole 30 year old issue. He likely has many good years ahead of him.

I think he has several more years of solid production. But, we wouldn't merely acquire a 30 year old, we'd also lose out on the opportunity to acquire two 21-23 year olds when we're clearly facing age and depth issues. Granted, we have 8 other picks in 2008 and 5 others in 2009. But, as you noted, drafting a future stud is no easy feat. I'd be surprised if we drafted more than 3 future starters with our current crop of picks (or 2 if we traded our 1st rounder).

I want to emphasize that, although I'd oppose trading 2 high picks for Chad, I don't believe that such a trade would send our franchise down the crapper. I simply think there are very legitimate reasons to be concerned with the rumored offer.

Also, I want to mention that, unlike most experts, I supported the Redskins decisions to pursue Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Clinton Portis, Coles/Moss, etc. I don't have a problem with using free agency or trades to acquire younger, budding stars. I think most people here distinguished our 2000 free agent acquisitions from the 2004 free agent acquisitions by noting that the players we acquired in 2004 were young. I'm also not opposed to any trades involving 30 year olds. I just think that it wouldn't be the best move to do so here.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We would still have 8 picks to fill holes.

I think we're going a little overboard here if trading away one pick means the draft is blown.

What's one or two of the team's early picks over the past 5 years?

Overboard is thinking that this has no ill effect on the future of our franchise.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

What's one or two of the team's early picks over the past 5 years?

Overboard is thinking that this has no ill effect on the future of our franchise.

Besides Arch, and Lloyd the only complaint I have is the Ducket deal. I for one did not believe we needed a RB. We were set at RB. No one will be able to change my mind but I totally believe that deal was about Gibbs wanting to keep a good/great RB out of the other NFC East teams. Philly was looking at him hard and was possibly looking to make another run at the playoffs with a better RB they might have done just that. The deal was a total waist! No bones about it. Totally agree with everyone on that deal. We traded to much for talent we already had on the team. As for the WR spot I don't see us giving up to much, especially for a WR like CJ. I would give it up for Williams also. Either one would be fine by me. I just get upset at the people who think CJ is an issue and we sign a kick returner who allegedly assaulted his pregnant girlfriend/wife. CJ will rock the boat but no one was up in arms when CP was putting on the ritz. CJ is to old...but we have older players in other possitions. CJ will cost to much...Snyder's going rate has been 30 mill for what 5-6 yrs for the past positional players WR and CB. CJ it sounds like was only going to make 21 mill. Our team can't handle the likes of a CJ......everyone forgot Arrington I guess. His tempertantrum led him to the bench. He was more humiliated there than missing his blocks.

The best Cincy can do is pull what we did to Arrington...bench him. The best CJ could do is show up and maybe be only 50% on the field. Drop a few ball or better yet tip a few balls and have them accidently fall into the opponants hands. He would quickly be benched (getting paid the whole time) or traded. I would certainly welcome sitting on the bench and getting paid to not break a leg.

Cincy thinks it's just a tempertantrum....I wonder what will be next.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

We would still have 8 picks to fill holes.

I think we're going a little overboard here if trading away one pick means the draft is blown.

Yes and no. It won't "blow" our draft, but it will hurt it since the traded pick will be our highest. Also, of the remaining 8 picks, 3 are 7th rounders. 7th rounders are definitely a crap shoot.

I'm in between. I think this proposed trade would hurt and help at the same time. It's not going to ruin the franchise by any means, but it will certainly be odd given the way we lowballed DJ Hackett, didn't even give Bryan Johnson a sniff, and have been preaching restraint and building through the draft.

As great as CJ is, it's still trading multiple picks for a very expensive 30 year old with a huge mouth and a penchant for whining when his team underperforms.

I'm still baffled the way we let Hackett get away. He's 4 years younger than Chad, waaaaay cheaper, big, very fast, and played for a few years with Zorn. Granted he's not the player CJ is, but he would have helped a lot at a smallish price and we wouldn't have had to give up a single draft pick.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yes and no. It won't "blow" our draft, but it will hurt it since the traded pick will be our highest. Also, of the remaining 8 picks, 3 are 7th rounders. 7th rounders are definitely a crap shoot.

Are you more upset that it's a trade for Chad Johnson or a trade of the pick?

I'm in between. I think this proposed trade would hurt and help at the same time. It's not going to ruin the franchise by any means, but it will certainly be odd given the way we lowballed DJ Hackett, didn't even give Bryan Johnson a sniff, and have been preaching restraint and building through the draft.

What Cerrato had said from the start was that they didn't expect to be big players in free agency this year (which we weren't) but that he is always looking for ways to improve the team and would entertain trade possibilities if he feels it would improve the team.

As great as CJ is, it's still trading multiple picks for a very expensive 30 year old with a huge mouth and a penchant for whining when his team underperforms.

It ain't braggin' if you can back it up

I'm still baffled the way we let Hackett get away. He's 4 years younger than Chad, waaaaay cheaper, big, very fast, and played for a few years with Zorn. Granted he's not the player CJ is, but he would have helped a lot at a smallish price and we wouldn't have had to give up a single draft pick.

I've said this before but I'll say it again. Why don't we even remotely consider that Zorn is very familiar with Hackett, and that's why we didn't sign him. That maybe, jussssst maybe, Zorn said "Hey, this guy has potential and can contribute but I've been around him every day for the past several years and keep this, this, that, and that in mind. And this is how I see him fitting in and this is what he's worth." (and it's not as much as the fans think)