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

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 never 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

ESPN - Adding star WR rarely improves team - NFL (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3363588)

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.

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

Below is an article taken from Football Outsiders.com:

ESPN - Adding star WR rarely improves team - NFL (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3363588)

...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. ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am glad the offer got turned down. I think Johnson is a great reciever but I could live without the drama.

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.

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.