Redskins draft day trade for veteran WR

....This guy is one of the top 3 or 4 receivers in the league.Better receivers right now than CJ.

Randy Moss, Reggie Wayne, Larry Fitzgerald, Terrell Owens (Ugh), Braylon Edwards, Torry Holt, TJ House-ma-zilly, Marvin Harrison.

Equal with better upside: Anquan Boldin, Greg Jennings, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Roy Williams, Marques Colston

The costs to get CJ (draft picks, cap space, team chemistry)are not worth it.

ESPN's Todd McShay reports the Bengals have informed Oklahoma WR Malcolm Kelly that they're interested in him.
McShay speculates that the Bengals are smokescreening and hope to trade down, while John Clayton says the interest is "valid." Kelly will work out for the first time this offseason Wednesday. Following the release of Chris Henry, the Bengals may very well use a pick in the top three rounds on a receiver.

Looks like the Bengals are already looking to replace ocho cinco. I am not opposed to trading ladell Betts and ocho cinco straight up.

Well it is Wednesday and did you hear how Kelly did at OU's pro day?
Kelly ran an ABYSMAL 40 time of 4.75 and 4.68 and only had a 32" vertical.

Kelly just dropped from the first round to the 12th round (if there were one).

Pro day workout updates (http://www.nfl.com/draft/story;jsessionid=3BFB7C37288A66D033C569836CC8319A? id=09000d5d806b4a39&template=with-video&confirm=true)

I certainly never said Chad Johnson was washed up. Chad Johnson likely has several (3-4) highly productive years left in the tank, but it's usually not smart to "buy" when the price is high and the value is in decline. Moreover, the question isn't whether CJ would add value to our team, the question is whether CJ adds more value to our team over the long haul than the draft picks and/or players we would likely have to trade to acquire him. In my opinion, the answer is no.


great approach! I couldnt agree more! Trading for CJ would be stupid on our part, although there is now possbility that it can be ruled out given our current reputation. But why would we trade for such a high dollar WR that will last 5 years at the most when we can draft a potential perennial pro bowler for 10+ years and a lower price plus the cost of development?

I remember when the bengals were terrible he was their only bright spot and helped turn them around. Motivation has alot to do with production. I think if he was a skin, he would have a lot to be motivated about. But I don't want the skins to reach on him there are some good recievers in this draft that can be developed into stars.

Paul Hubbard - College Football (http://nfldraft.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?sport=1&player=44490&type=scoutingreport#scouting)

Any thoughts on Paul Hubbard from Wiscousin. I looked up his profile on Scouts.com & ESPN, apparently he has a good combo of size and speed.

Looks like he'd be available in the 4th round and beyond. I'm intrigued.

I certainly never said Chad Johnson was washed up. Chad Johnson likely has several (3-4) highly productive years left in the tank, but it's usually not smart to "buy" when the price is high and the value is in decline. Moreover, the question isn't whether CJ would add value to our team, the question is whether CJ adds more value to our team over the long haul than the draft picks and/or players we would likely have to trade to acquire him. In my opinion, the answer is no.

Exactly.
ps- it's not just your opinion either. There are plenty of us that share your opinion.

Paul Hubbard - College Football (http://nfldraft.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?sport=1&player=44490&type=scoutingreport#scouting)

Any thoughts on Paul Hubbard from Wiscousin. I looked up his profile on Scouts.com & ESPN, apparently he has a good combo of size and speed.

Looks like he'd be available in the 4th round and beyond. I'm intrigued.

Welcome to the dark side:
http://www.redskinswarpath.com/423015-post9.html

He's raw, a converted track star, but loads of potential. Another one to look at in the mid rounds would be Bruce Hocker

But anyway back to Chad Johnson, what's the bigger concern, his "attitude" or his age?

But anyway back to Chad Johnson, what's the bigger concern, his "attitude" or his age?

I side with what Sheriff Gonna Getcha is saying about the cost and magnitude of acquiring CJ is not going to be worth passing up on bringing young talent to the team now so we can be stable and competitive in the future.

I think CJ is a great player and free of charge I wouldn't mind him being a Redskin but the Skins can't bear the cost.

Between age & attitude, I would say attitude by default because 30 is not old enough to worry about him retiring anytime soon. I don't think his attitude is a problem either, unless provoked by contract renewal.

Paul Hubbard - College Football (http://nfldraft.rivals.com/cviewplayer.asp?sport=1&player=44490&type=scoutingreport#scouting)

Any thoughts on Paul Hubbard from Wiscousin. I looked up his profile on Scouts.com & ESPN, apparently he has a good combo of size and speed.

Looks like he'd be available in the 4th round and beyond. I'm intrigued.


I swear that if we Draft Paul Hubbard, I will buy his jersey as soon as it is available. As of right now I do not own a Jersey. My kids do though, so back off!


Chad Johnson is no more of a headache than Clinton Portis. People forget that Portis was walking aroung on the sidelines in Denver with a Championship belt (modeled after boxing) around his waist after scoring. Chad is alot like Portis. He celebrates and makes jokes win the team is winning and is serious when the team is losing.

The irony is that no one considers Portis a headache, because he cares. So does Chad and that is why he wants out of Cincy.