What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick...

If CJ falls to #6, I would most definitely trade down.I'd be happy either way.

I'm still OK with the interior of our DL. Branch seems likes he could make the biggest impact but, that means sitting Golston, who has some upside. I badly want Daniels replaced (Jamal Anderson) even if his stats are better than everyone else's.

I'm not sure what people see in Golston. I like the guy and he played well for a 6th rounder, but I didn't see enough good things out of him to think he'll be a great starter or that we should rely on his development. I'd like to see him being the #3 DT and hopefully replace Griffin in about 2 years.

CJ would be a bit of a waste (Well, he'd point out how stupid the skins were to invest 76mill$ in patten, lloyd, and el), but he's by far the safest pick and the biggest first year impact player.

imagine randy moss or TO, in their prime, only team-first, no ego, no backtalk, and a hellish blocker (for a WR, of course). I mean, the only bad thing about him was that he had reggie ball throwing him passes (talk about a waste).I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.


I agree that there is always a chance of a WR being a bust, no matter how good he looks to scouts. But that is true of every position (See Robert Gallery, the former "can't-miss" prospect). As for CJ not being different from those other wideouts, I don't ever recall seeing a wideout with his speed, size, hands, work-ethics, and character.

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

But, on the other hand, all of this could mean that the league is due for a phenom wideout in the draft.

QB/WR chemistry is so hard to come by... that's why the Colts opted to keep Reggie Wayne instead of Edge. Campbell has to have some consistency with his wideouts. If Lloyd hasn't gotten on the same page by the 4th or 5th game of the season -- assuming Campbell is the real deal -- then Lloyd's gone. Throwing Calvin Johnson into the mix probably won't pay dividends for a few seasons, so you'd have to pass especially given the gaping holes we have on defense.

Oh, and for all of the Golston-lovers, settle down. The guy is in the #3 rotation spot, and to expect anything more out of him would be a serious overestimation of his abilities.

Griffin and Salave'a are all but done. Draft Alan Branch.

all 3 of those guys make the redskins instantly better. but they do not need johnson. so a trade may be in order.

I'm not sure what people see in Golston. I like the guy and he played well for a 6th rounder, but I didn't see enough good things out of him to think he'll be a great starter or that we should rely on his development. I'd like to see him being the #3 DT and hopefully replace Griffin in about 2 years.

Agreed. Maybe down the line Golston can be a reliable starter, but that will be contingent upon him putting on some weight. He played at 290 this past year. That's too light for a DT, and I don't think he'll be heavy and strong enough this season to be relied upon.

I want an immovable object in the middle of our defensive line. Stopping the run is supposedly "Redskin Football" right?

Lloyd didn't get it done last year and if I'm not mistaken, Randle El was starting in front of him as the season ended. Lloyd seems to have a problem locating the ball once it's thrown.The difference between Lloyd and Randle El purely as wideouts is negigible. Neither is very good.

Where my opinion differs on the two is in the things that each receiver brings to the table other than being a wide receiver. Randle El is a heady player, a good blocker for his size, smart after the catch, understands the position from the QB perspective (which helps in blitz reading and whatnot), can run with the ball on reverses and throw it to keep defenses off balance, is a top notch punt returner, and in a pinch can run down on teams and hit someone. Basically he's the kind of player who maximizes the roster spot given to a wide receiver. He's the kind of player you want on the field as much as possible despite his shortcomings as a wideout.

Lloyd can't do any of that. Lloyd made a rep based off highlight reel catches in single coverage or while wide open. And although the value of that ability isn't to be understated, neither should it be overstated. How many plays in Saunders' playbook call for the QB to blindly throw a ball into coverage so that Lloyd can make the sportscenter highlight reel? No good ones, that's for sure. Lloyd isn't a good route runner, he drops the ball far too often, and isn't keen on going over the middle.

If cost and reputation were not a factor in roster building, Lloyd wouldn't make a 53 man roster. Every team in the league has at least 2 WRs better than him, and every receiver that doesn't start in this league plays teams.

Except Lloyd.

Randle El may not be a great WR, but he deserves a roster spot for sure. Lloyd doesn't. I just don't get the trade for him, he's just not a traditional Gibbs' sort of guy.

all three if i could get them but i would say alan branch or that guy from arkansas.

for me i hope it,s a dl ...

Agreed. Maybe down the line Golston can be a reliable starter, but that will be contingent upon him putting on some weight. He played at 290 this past year. That's too light for a DT, and I don't think he'll be heavy and strong enough this season to be relied upon.

I want an immovable object in the middle of our defensive line. Stopping the run is supposedly "Redskin Football" right?

I can't imagine a front four featuring Golston (290), Carter (265), Adams (258), and Griffin (305), being that great against the run. That's why the idea of drafting Adams and relying on Golston kinda scares me. If I had to choose between our front four being good against the run or good at getting to the passer, I'd prefer to be good at being good against the run. I know it's sexier to get sacks (like the Colts' front four) than to stuff running backs (like our 2004 & 2005 front four), but I think it's more important for our front four to be able to stuff than run than get to the QB.