Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=GTripp0012;292411]Didn't you hear? The No. 6 pick wants out of Washington![/quote]

I KNEW IT !!!! WE NEVER SIGN OUR OWN ! ALWAYS VALUING THE SEXIER FREE AGENT PICK UP !!!!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

briggs wants a long term deal and market value. they offered 7 years 33 mil, id say thats substantially below market value compared to what we have seen this offseason. joey porter got 5 years 32 million...

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=Beemnseven;292408]What do we have that will entice any team to trade places with us to move up?

It's not like we have another first round pick, and a second, third, fourth -- which is what it would take for someone to give up on Johnson.[/quote]

Agreed. I don't see it happening

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

Rocky has no value right now. The only way he will ever have any trade value again is if he earns it on the field.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=GTripp0012;292420]Rocky has no value right now. The only way he will ever have any trade value again is if he earns it on the field.[/quote]

Yeah, I realized how stupid it sounded after I said it. that's why I edited my post.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=GMScud;292421]Yeah, I realized how stupid it sounded after I said it. that's why I edited my post.[/quote]It's cool. I unquoted you.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=Big C;292414]briggs wants a long term deal and market value. they offered 7 years 33 mil, id say thats substantially below market value compared to what we have seen this offseason. joey porter got 5 years 32 million...[/quote]

Yeah, the Bears are pretty cheap. Not only that, Jerry Angelo is an insecure little bitch (and I don't use that word often). Look at the facts

- They lowball Lovie Smith on a contract extension
- They trade Thomas Jones because Jerry Angelo wants to show the world he made the right choice in drafting Benson.
- He turns down the Redskin trade claiming he doesn't want to be bullied by Briggs. What man, secure in himself, would announce that publicly.
- They let Ron Rivera, one of the best DC's in the league go because they think he'll cost to much.
- The reason Lovie Smith was hired in the first place had more to do with cost then credentials (though I will go on record and say he was definately qualified).

You deserve better Chicago. They did such a good job builidng a team but now there cheap nature is coming back to bite them in the ass.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;292423]Yeah, the Bears are pretty cheap. Not only that, Jerry Angelo is an insecure little bitch (and I don't use that word often). Look at the facts

- They lowball Lovie Smith on a contract extension
- They trade Thomas Jones because Jerry Angelo wants to show the world he made the right choice in drafting Benson.
- He turns down the Redskin trade claiming he doesn't want to be bullied by Briggs. What man, secure in himself, would announce that publicly.
- They let Ron Rivera, one of the best DC's in the league go because they think he'll cost to much.
- The reason Lovie Smith was hired in the first place had more to do with cost then credentials (though I will go on record and say he was definately qualified).

You deserve better Chicago. They did such a good job builidng a team but now there cheap nature is coming back to bite them in the ass.[/quote]Not true. If I was in his position, I would have made most of the same moves Angelo did. I think he's a good GM.

One thing about him is that he is an extremely patient team builder. He will not trade up to 6 unless he thinks there is a player who can help their team. Theres no guarentee the Bears make this trade.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[url=http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6618234]FOX Sports - NFL - For once, 'Skins better off trading[/url]

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=GTripp0012;292425]Not true. If I was in his position, I would have made most of the same moves Angelo did. I think he's a good GM.

One thing about him is that he is an extremely patient team builder. He will not trade up to 6 unless he thinks there is a player who can help their team. Theres no guarentee the Bears make this trade.[/quote]

I will give you the fact that hes a patint team builder but would you come out in public and say I'm not going to be bullied? The only thing that really seems to be on the line is Angelos ego.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[QUOTE=Dirtbag359;292427][url=http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6618234]FOX Sports - NFL - For once, 'Skins better off trading[/url][/QUOTE]


i heard him praise this deal for the skins on his radio show on sirius, thanks for the link :)

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

We need to stay put for a change. We need to finally focus on what we should have focused on 4 years ago, the D line with regards to the draft. The guys we have now were acquired when they already were passed their prime and were starting to become walking injuries. Stick with getting Branch or Okeye please. At the 6th pick it will be hard not to pick up a guy that will become a starter, but we need a pass rush desperately!!!!!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

We need to stay put for a change. Getting more lesser round picks is nice if you just want to stock up on new practice squad guys for the most part. Rarely is there a diamond in the rough past round 3. Stick with #6 and get Branch or Okeye, we need to address our needs in earnest for a change. We have wasted too many drafts in recent years.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

Honestly this might not be a bad move if you guys think about it and look at the contacts of our receivers. We are gonna have to do some house cleaning and AR-E and Moss's numbers skyrocket in a couple years. Might not be bad to have a good receiver. But at the same time we do need help on the D-line.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

The most recently rumored to deal is to Cleveland to leap from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to get C Johnson.

The deal includes the 6th overall, Ladell Betts, and our recently acquired 6th round pick for the 3rd overall and a 3rd round pick.

I dont think its a bad deal. WE get a stellar athlete with great upside and work ethic, and we get a 3rd round pick in the deal to draft a DT/DE/RB.

Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell. The 3rd round pick is up for grabs too.

If this went down I'd always think that we should go with what we need, but taking a player like Calvin Johnson, I would not be mad at that!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

If they see value in Jason Campbell I say pick up Calvin Johnson. He would make Jason better flat out. But if they want to improve the team they better draft a d-tackle to stop the run and help the Defense. The briggs trade is Idiotic and useless, just grome Rocky to be what we want him to be

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

The most recently rumored to deal, according to Washington Post Live show, is to Cleveland to leap from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to get C Johnson.

The deal includes the 6th overall, Ladell Betts, and our recently acquired 6th round pick for the 3rd overall and a 3rd round pick. Cleveland needs a RB, so the BEtts addition would help them out.

I dont think its a bad deal. WE get a stellar athlete with great upside and work ethic, and we get a 3rd round pick in the deal to draft a DT/DE/RB.

Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell. The 3rd round pick is up for grabs too.

If this went down I'd always think that we should go with what we need, but taking a player like Calvin Johnson, I would not be mad at that!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[QUOTE=SkinsFanSince91;292448]The most recently rumored to deal is to Cleveland to leap from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to get C Johnson.

The deal includes the 6th overall, Ladell Betts, and our recently acquired 6th round pick for the 3rd overall and a 3rd round pick.

I dont think its a bad deal. WE get a stellar athlete with great upside and work ethic, and we get a 3rd round pick in the deal to draft a DT/DE/RB.

Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell. The 3rd round pick is up for grabs too.

If this went down I'd always think that we should go with what we need, but taking a player like Calvin Johnson, I would not be mad at that![/QUOTE]

the one consistent all offseason though has been Gibbs praising Betts and talking about the split carries between Portis and Betts would become a lot more even than the last couple seasons so I just don't see Betts being traded at all. I like CJ but the running game has been the only consistent this team has had the last few seasons and will be fun to watch the 2 headed beast being even better this season.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=skinsfan69;292270]For the life of me I just don't understand why people are so against this. HE IS THE BEST PLAYER IN THE DRAFT. I get so tired of people saying we don't need wr's. DID ANYONE WATCH ANY GAMES LAST YEAR????????????? Outside of Santana which WR on our roster has done anything?

When you go 5-11 there is PLENTY of blame to go around. Not just on defense but on offense too. We hopefully solved the problem at QB, LB and DB's. Yes we need DE, DT but do any of you think that maybe alot of the players that are on the board are not that good?

I'll use this comparison one more time. Texans drafted for need and took Mario freaking Williams who didn't do shit. I bet if the Texans had a chance to do it all over again they would take Bush cause he was the best player on in the 06 draft.

We drafted for need a few years ago when Smoot left and took Carlos R. How in the hell did our scouting dept. grade Carlos higher than Merriman or D. Ware?

Calvin J. is simply put a freak. He's going to make any offense better the minute he walks on the field. He's going to do things that will NEVER EVER show up in the stat sheet. Can any of you imagine the PI's this guy will draw? Plus defenses are going to have to slide coverages to his side of the field which could open up all kinds of room for Santana and Cooley. Plus saftey's will never come near the LOS like they did last year when Brunell was QB. Opens up the running game so that helps Portis and Betts.

I hope we package Lloyd and move up and take this guy!!!!!!![/quote]

MAN WHO ARE? cause im gone brown nose here, your got damn right, how the hell we missed Merriman or Ware, I think most of the people here think we should get DT or DE, but for the last freakin time, there will be good veterans available come draft time, (bet on it) CJ dont come but every once in 5-10 years, look at all the flops the Lions made! if we can trade up give away this years next years and 1st rounder and a 2nd, shit take it, greg williams is a genius, he will figure it out, and who gives a shit who's the #1 receiver, as long as where winning, thats all i care about and in the red zone, they will have to pay special attention to Johnson, which leaves portis and coley with more plays for them. TAKE HIM, TAKE HIM, TAKE HIM!!!!!!!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=SmootSmack;292297]Here's the problem I have with this. We just spend big bucks and picks last year to get Randle-El and Lloyd; two relatively young receivers who have shown they can play in this league. Furthermore, we have Moss and Cooley (who I'll count as a WR for these purposes).

Granted, neither Lloyd nor El put up stellar numbers but a.) we were dealing with a new offense that everyone admits takes a year to learn and b.) Jason Campbell was for all intents and purposes a rookie when he played in the back half of the season.

CJ is great, no question about that. But why do we want to just give up on our current receivers-especially two guys we just spent big on just last year-after only one season in a new offense with a young quarterback. Why not let them grow together?

If you want to tear that unit up then fine, but it's hard to listen then when you turn right around and talk about how we have no patience as a front office, and we need to develop our players and so forth. (and when I say "you" I'm addressing the universal "you")[/quote] cause outside of moss and cooley,.........they suck!!!!!!!!!!!! brandon lloyd was a bust, was benched in the middle of the season, and randle el is a 3rd at best, hell in pittsburg he was the third option!!!!!!! hell i package el, lloyd, 6pick and next year 1st rounder on this kid,.........he is a cant miss!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=holmester]Im actually loving all of this. Last year we get Lloyd, Randel el, Archuleta and Carter and everyone is raving oh my god the FO office is great and jumps on their d**k. Then the season comes, we blow, everyone jumps off, and the bitching and moaning begins. This year I hope they do the one thing that everyone hates the most which looks like getting Briggs or CJ. Then we kick a** this year, make the playoffs, and everybody climbs back on Mr.Winky.[/quote]

[quote=RobH4413;292382]So you're enjoying the comedy as much as I am?

People are retarded, football, politics, whatever it may be... one of the great truths of life is just that. We're all retarded.[/quote]

In my book, these two posts deserve consideration for post of the year. Not to mention they were back to back. :goodjob:

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=Mattyk72;292350]I'm not advocating the deal I'm just saying the market has been set for LBs and $20M guaranteed is not out of line for a player of Briggs' caliber. The guaranteed money for corners is now even higher thanks to Clements.

I'd like to see the DL addressed as well, but the offseason is far from over so I'm not going to get too crazy just yet.[/quote]

Hopefully all these rumors are smokescreens and the team addresses DL and depth across the board. I do think though that a lot of the salaries escalated out of control this offseason and hopefully it was caused more by the availability of cap space than "salary inflation".

The one thing that everyone must take into consideration is that if we do stay at the 6th slot we are basically are on the hook of paying around $15 million in guranteed money to that player. Accroding to Sportstalk 980 today Vernon Davis who was picked 6th last year got about $14.5 million in guranteed money and Pac Man Jones the year before was not too far off this amount as well. To me if we can somehow pull off a trade down and pick up multiple picks it would not only bolster our chances at building depth but vastly help with the salary cap.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=dmek25;292307]gmanc, good post. no matter who says what, there is no such thing as a sure thing. and this is the first time i can ever remember the redskins playing the draft game the right way. letting all the other teams think that they want everyone. does anyone, other then the skins front office, have a clue to who they really want?[/quote]

I'm not quite sure the FO even knows? That's whats scarry.
If they do this is a GRAMMY PERFORMANCE.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=100% PURE WHOOP ASS;292453]cause outside of moss and cooley,.........they suck!!!!!!!!!!!! brandon lloyd was a bust, was benched in the middle of the season, and randle el is a 3rd at best, hell in pittsburg he was the third option!!!!!!! hell i package el, lloyd, 6pick and next year 1st rounder on this kid,.........he is a cant miss![/quote]
100%PURE SETTLE THE HELL DOWN

I wouldn't mind getting rid of Lloyd, seeing as how I hate his soul, but I think we're a pretty run-heavy team in the first place so we won't be relying on our 3rd string receiver anyways.

With that being said, I definitely wouldn't ditch ARE, he's a damn good punt returner, a gadget guy, and he brings versatility no-matter what he's doing, not to mention he's a quality guy in the locker room.


I think getting Calvin Johnson would be like swatting a bunch of gnats with a shot-gun, seems like some over-kill. We'll rely on Portis and Betts in this offense. Remember, run the ball and stop the run.

When the safeties start to cheat up, Mr. Campbell's divine arm will pass to Moss/Cooley/ARE/Betts/Portis/ who cares... We've got weapons, we don't need any more on offense.

Why don't we instead worry about what has plagued us, and will almost definitely plague us next year. Defensive line. I think we've said it enough, but you dreamers out there keep on dreamin'.

Just say no to Calvin Johnson. It makes zero sense.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

The most recently rumored to deal, according to Washington Post Live show, is to Cleveland to leap from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to get C Johnson.

The deal includes the 6th overall, Ladell Betts, and our recently acquired 6th round pick for the 3rd overall and a 3rd round pick. Cleveland needs a RB, so the BEtts addition would help them out.

I dont think its a bad deal. WE get a stellar athlete with great upside and work ethic, and we get a 3rd round pick in the deal to draft a DT/DE/RB.

Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell. The 3rd round pick is up for grabs too.

If this went down I'd always think that we should go with what we need, but taking a player like Calvin Johnson, I would not be mad at that!

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=SkinsFanSince91;292532]The most recently rumored to deal, according to Washington Post Live show, is to Cleveland to leap from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to get C Johnson.

The deal includes the 6th overall, Ladell Betts, and our recently acquired 6th round pick for the 3rd overall and a 3rd round pick. Cleveland needs a RB, so the BEtts addition would help them out.

I dont think its a bad deal. WE get a stellar athlete with great upside and work ethic, and we get a 3rd round pick in the deal to draft a DT/DE/RB.

Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell. The 3rd round pick is up for grabs too.

If this went down I'd always think that we should go with what we need, but taking a player like Calvin Johnson, I would not be mad at that![/quote]


uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh no dont get rid of betts at all and why trade up i thought the point was to acquire more picks not lose them

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=RobH4413;292487]100%PURE SETTLE THE HELL DOWN

I wouldn't mind getting rid of Lloyd, seeing as how I hate his soul, but I think we're a pretty run-heavy team in the first place so we won't be relying on our 3rd string receiver anyways.

With that being said, I definitely wouldn't ditch ARE, he's a damn good punt returner, a gadget guy, and he brings versatility no-matter what he's doing, not to mention he's a quality guy in the locker room.


I think getting Calvin Johnson would be like swatting a bunch of gnats with a shot-gun, seems like some over-kill. We'll rely on Portis and Betts in this offense. Remember, run the ball and stop the run.

When the safeties start to cheat up, Mr. Campbell's divine arm will pass to Moss/Cooley/ARE/Betts/Portis/ who cares... We've got weapons, we don't need any more on offense.

Why don't we instead worry about what has plagued us, and will almost definitely plague us next year. Defensive line. I think we've said it enough, but you dreamers out there keep on dreamin'.

Just say no to Calvin Johnson. It makes zero sense.[/quote]

Well said. Run the ball and stop the run. We don't need flashy names at every position. We were 4th in the league rushing last year with Portis either dinged up or out the entire time. The passing game will only get better. We've signed some depth to the Oline. NOW WE NEED TO STOP THE FRIGGIN RUN!! We've made an effort to bolster the Dbacks and LBs, to me at this point the only logical place to go is the defensive line.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=RobH4413;292487]100%PURE SETTLE THE HELL DOWN

I wouldn't mind getting rid of Lloyd, seeing as how I hate his soul, but I think we're a pretty run-heavy team in the first place so we won't be relying on our 3rd string receiver anyways.

With that being said, I definitely wouldn't ditch ARE, he's a damn good punt returner, a gadget guy, and he brings versatility no-matter what he's doing, not to mention he's a quality guy in the locker room.


I think getting Calvin Johnson would be like swatting a bunch of gnats with a shot-gun, seems like some over-kill. We'll rely on Portis and Betts in this offense. Remember, run the ball and stop the run.

When the safeties start to cheat up, Mr. Campbell's divine arm will pass to Moss/Cooley/ARE/Betts/Portis/ who cares... We've got weapons, we don't need any more on offense.

Why don't we instead worry about what has plagued us, and will almost definitely plague us next year. Defensive line. I think we've said it enough, but you dreamers out there keep on dreamin'.

Just say no to Calvin Johnson. It makes zero sense.[/quote]

gotcha big man! im sorry i just get so excited thinking about, how much we screwed up in FA and giving away drafts, but i settle down, your wish big baby? uh huh?

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=SkinsFanSince91;292532]Just imagine Calvin Johnson to one side, Santana Moss to the other, and Antwaan Ranldle El working the slot. This move could accelerate the growth of Jason Campbell.[/quote]Wait, what?!

First of all, I have no freaking clue how putting the BMOC from Georgia Tech on the LOS 5 yards from the sideline will improve how quickly Jason Campbell learns makes the correct reads at all. Seems to the ORP (ordinary reasonable person) that the only people who affect how Campbell makes his decisions are Campbell and the dudes blocking for Campbell. Order of football operations, man! The blockers have to do their jobs so that the passer can do his job so that the receivers can do their job. Every action of a foward pass since 1930 has occured in that order.

Playing with 3 scrubs for wideouts, Campbell would mature at exactly the same rate he would with Moss, Johnson, and Cooley. The Skins wouldn't score as many points, but that doesn't mean Campbell wouldn't be learning.

Secondly, that's a 3 WR set. I'm assuming you'd also have Cooley and Portis in the game. Well, you don't have a blocker at TE or FB, so the running potential is compromised.

I firmly believe that every passing offense has a ceiling based on it's 11 players. By theory of order of football operations, [B]exchanging the role of one wideout for another is the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to increase that ceiling[/B]. Going to a 3 WR set with Johnson in decreases the average amount of time the protection will hold because theres one less guy there. So right off the bat, you are worse off. On top of that, your passing potential with Moss, Cooley and El is near maximum potential already. After all, you have ONE ball to go around. Moss and Cooley [B][U]already[/U][/B] don't get enough touches as is. Both have more value after the catch than Johnson. So in theory, taking catches away from those guys compromises your offensive potential.

So what's the only way to improve offensive potential? Split Randle El's and Lloyd's catches evenly among Johnson, Moss, and Cooley. So now, you've either orchestrated a trade up costing us Ladell Betts for a guy who (best case scenario) will be thrown to somewhere between 16-24 times next year. If he's some sort of god, he will catch 80% of those passes (No receiver caught more than 75% [T. Gonzales] of the passes thrown in their direction this year) and end up with 16-18 catches. Most likely he's just a very good college receiver, will catch around 63%, or 10 to 12 passes as a rookie.

He'd be labeled a bust. And that's giving Lloyd and El ZERO catches next year. So now you have a "bust" (who is actually just under utilized), and two VERY unhappy players behind him.

And that's a best case scenario. More than likely, bringing in Calvin Johnson will HURT our offense because he will steal catches from Moss and Cooley, both of whom are going to be better players at this point in their career. So the most likely outcome is that bringing in Calvin Johnson will hurt our offense next year.

Did I mention that while hurting our offense, we still have done nothing to bring ANY help to our pathetic defensive line?

The whole philosophy having multpile skilled targets in the passing game is that they will ALL be underutilized equally. Basically, spread the ball around and make it harder for the defense to defend us. But no matter how much you pass, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of the skilled targets to earn what he is making. There's just not enough chances to do so. [SIZE=3][U][B]And if the best player of the group is not getting as many catches as he reasonably can, you are hurting your offensive potential.[/B][/U][/SIZE]

Moss and Cooley are both underutilized as is. Bringing in Calvin Johnson makes this underutilization more prevalant while costing us Ladell Betts and any chance to get D Line help.

Such a trade would be an unmittigated disaster. Randle El and Lloyd only make up a very small percentage of the offense. Using a top 10 pick to reassign that responsibility is an utter waste at best, grounds for firing all involved at worst.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

What would we give up?? Other than Ladell Betts, I don't see where we have the type of quality depth to make a move like this, unless we mortgaged off MORE draft picks, which is just a horror to think of. And to get rid of Betts after his performance last year and Portis' injuries, would I'm sad to say, fit right into the type of lunacy I'm used to from this FO. Blech.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

all these rumors help the team get trade leverage. I really wouldn't mind CJ, but giving up your first born to get him might not be the greatest idea ever.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=GTripp0012;292559]Wait, what?!

First of all, I have no freaking clue how putting the BMOC from Georgia Tech on the LOS 5 yards from the sideline will improve how quickly Jason Campbell learns makes the correct reads at all. Seems to the ORP (ordinary reasonable person) that the only people who affect how Campbell makes his decisions are Campbell and the dudes blocking for Campbell. Order of football operations, man! The blockers have to do their jobs so that the passer can do his job so that the receivers can do their job. Every action of a foward pass since 1930 has occured in that order.

Playing with 3 scrubs for wideouts, Campbell would mature at exactly the same rate he would with Moss, Johnson, and Cooley. The Skins wouldn't score as many points, but that doesn't mean Campbell wouldn't be learning.

Secondly, that's a 3 WR set. I'm assuming you'd also have Cooley and Portis in the game. Well, you don't have a blocker at TE or FB, so the running potential is compromised.

I firmly believe that every passing offense has a ceiling based on it's 11 players. By theory of order of football operations, [B]exchanging the role of one wideout for another is the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to increase that ceiling[/B]. Going to a 3 WR set with Johnson in decreases the average amount of time the protection will hold because theres one less guy there. So right off the bat, you are worse off. On top of that, your passing potential with Moss, Cooley and El is near maximum potential already. After all, you have ONE ball to go around. Moss and Cooley [B][U]already[/U][/B] don't get enough touches as is. Both have more value after the catch than Johnson. So in theory, taking catches away from those guys compromises your offensive potential.

So what's the only way to improve offensive potential? Split Randle El's and Lloyd's catches evenly among Johnson, Moss, and Cooley. So now, you've either orchestrated a trade up costing us Ladell Betts for a guy who (best case scenario) will be thrown to somewhere between 16-24 times next year. If he's some sort of god, he will catch 80% of those passes (No receiver caught more than 75% [T. Gonzales] of the passes thrown in their direction this year) and end up with 16-18 catches. Most likely he's just a very good college receiver, will catch around 63%, or 10 to 12 passes as a rookie.

He'd be labeled a bust. And that's giving Lloyd and El ZERO catches next year. So now you have a "bust" (who is actually just under utilized), and two VERY unhappy players behind him.

And that's a best case scenario. More than likely, bringing in Calvin Johnson will HURT our offense because he will steal catches from Moss and Cooley, both of whom are going to be better players at this point in their career. So the most likely outcome is that bringing in Calvin Johnson will hurt our offense next year.

Did I mention that while hurting our offense, we still have done nothing to bring ANY help to our pathetic defensive line?

The whole philosophy having multpile skilled targets in the passing game is that they will ALL be underutilized equally. Basically, spread the ball around and make it harder for the defense to defend us. But no matter how much you pass, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for ANY of the skilled targets to earn what he is making. There's just not enough chances to do so. [SIZE=3][U][B]And if the best player of the group is not getting as many catches as he reasonably can, you are hurting your offensive potential.[/B][/U][/SIZE]

Moss and Cooley are both underutilized as is. Bringing in Calvin Johnson makes this underutilization more prevalant while costing us Ladell Betts and any chance to get D Line help.

Such a trade would be an unmittigated disaster. Randle El and Lloyd only make up a very small percentage of the offense. Using a top 10 pick to reassign that responsibility is an utter waste at best, grounds for firing all involved at worst.[/quote]


there's like, a million fallacies in logic here. maybe lloyd and el didn't get a whole ton of catches, cause, you know, they're not very good. It could speed up campbell's learning in some ways in that he'd have confidence his WRs could go up and get the ball for him, which means less worrying about job security or a guy dropping balls.

going 3WR doesn't translate to automatically being worse off. it's harder to cover and can keep more guys back on defenses and open up running lanes. west coast/quick release plays (like all slants) can be used if the D goes blitz heavy on you.

as for limited opportunity... if you're guys are making plays, you'll stay on the field longer and give yourself more chances to make plays. the colts don't seem to have any problems with this, and the skins even had 3 WRs with 1,000yards in the same season. arguing that you CAN have too many weapons is pretty weak at best. arguing about relative needs is a better case, but you really can't say our #2 WR spot is sown up, regardless of the money spent there.


it's like you think WRs are all worthless and interchangeable. I personally wouldn't trade up for CJ unless the deal was amazing (like our 1st and our 5th to move up :P ) obviously i don't see that happening. this may just be smokescreen though.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=That Guy;292572]there's like, a million fallacies in logic here. maybe lloyd and el didn't get a whole ton of catches, cause, you know, they're not very good. It could speed up campbell's learning in some ways in that he'd have confidence his WRs could go up and get the ball for him, which means less worrying about job security or a guy dropping balls.

going 3WR doesn't translate to automatically being worse off. it's harder to cover and can keep more guys back on defenses and open up running lanes. west coast/quick release plays (like all slants) can be used if the D goes blitz heavy on you.

as for limited opportunity... if you're guys are making plays, you'll stay on the field longer and give yourself more chances to make plays. the colts don't seem to have any problems with this, and the skins even had 3 WRs with 1,000yards in the same season. arguing that you CAN have too many weapons is pretty weak at best. arguing about relative needs is a better case, but you really can't say our #2 WR spot is sown up, regardless of the money spent there.


it's like you think WRs are all worthless and interchangeable. I personally wouldn't trade up for CJ unless the deal was amazing (like our 1st and our 5th to move up :P ) obviously i don't see that happening. this may just be smokescreen though.[/quote]Ultimately, whether you believe I explained it well or not, it's hard to dispute the point that only playing with one football reduces the value of any teams 3rd or 4th target. In any sports league, the name of the game is quality. With a waiver wire of a million possible replacement players, quality is the only thing that matters.

Taking Calvin Johnson in the top 5 only makes sense if your team has no receiving options better than Johnson. We have two. Regardless of whether or not you think highly of Johnson, you'd have to admit he'd be hard pressed to meet his lofty expectations. What guarentees do we have that he would ever be a better receiver than Santana Moss, who is just unbelieveable after the catch.

As a rookie, the only thing we could expect him to do would be to replace Randle El in the starting lineup.

I'm not arguing that having extra weapons is bad. Obviously it's not. I'm arguing that taking oppertunities away from the receivers with the best ability after the catch is never a good idea. The whole hurting the offense thing assumes that having the big name Calvin Johnson would cost Cooley and Moss some looks. They get the ball less, our passing game won't do as well. That's just simple logic.

On the contrary, we could easily improve the passing game by treating Johnson exactly like what he would be in this offense, a glorified 3rd target (at least as a rookie). Now some the balls that went to Randle El and Lloyd, who aren't very good receivers, go to Calvin Johnson (a significantly better receiver even as a rook), and thats a significant upgrade in talent. But it's not a great deal of total chances for Calvin Johnson. Moss and Cooley still would be carrying most of the load.

If Calvin Johnson gets the ball 2-3 times a game in a run heavy offense, how can that justify the 6th pick, much less trading up for him?

The truth is that the sheer lack of looks that our No. 2 WR [I]should be[/I] getting hides most talent deficiencies. This also means, obviously, that the sheer lack of looks would mask the talent of a player like Calvin Johnson. I wouldn't expect this number to be any higher than it was last year, regardless of who the 2nd target will be.

It's not that I think all receviers are fungible. Obviously the position value isn't great due to the lack of consistent touches, but my main contention is that [B]receivers are evalutated in all the wrong ways[/B]. Calvin Johnson is a big man who runs 4.3 and has soft hands. Great, nothing wrong with that at all. But again, if I'm scouting talent, those attributes grab my attention, but do nothing to sell me on the player. Can he block (In Johnson's case, probably)? Can he turn the 10 yard dig into a big play with consistency (who knows)? Does he understand route running from multiple perspectives? Those are the important questions, and for a top 10 pick, Johnson's college career leaves them somewhat unanswered (Thank you Reggie Ball).

4.3 and big with soft hands is nice and everything, but this ain't a beauty contest. Give me Moss and Cooley anyday. You can have CJ.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

one word on this one...ummmm NO

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

Between the blog & the actual article in the washpost this got a lot clearer. The article just said Gibbs has talked to 3 teams, 2 of which were about moving up. Not such a big deal.

so Gibbs said he likes CJ, of course he does. In 04 Gibbs' first pick was Sean Taylor, which says something about his objectivity for what the team needs. He's an offensive coach, but he wants to win & will make the right decision.

I'm not saying that he won't pick CJ, but it'll have to be the right deal. I do believe the org. has wised up in that regard. Let's hope they continue to anyway.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;292580]Ultimately, whether you believe I explained it well or not, it's hard to dispute the point that only playing with one football reduces the value of any teams 3rd or 4th target. In any sports league, the name of the game is quality. With a waiver wire of a million possible replacement players, quality is the only thing that matters.

Taking Calvin Johnson in the top 5 only makes sense if your team has no receiving options better than Johnson. We have two. Regardless of whether or not you think highly of Johnson, you'd have to admit he'd be hard pressed to meet his lofty expectations. What guarentees do we have that he would ever be a better receiver than Santana Moss, who is just unbelieveable after the catch.

As a rookie, the only thing we could expect him to do would be to replace Randle El in the starting lineup.

I'm not arguing that having extra weapons is bad. Obviously it's not. I'm arguing that taking oppertunities away from the receivers with the best ability after the catch is never a good idea. The whole hurting the offense thing assumes that having the big name Calvin Johnson would cost Cooley and Moss some looks. They get the ball less, our passing game won't do as well. That's just simple logic.

On the contrary, we could easily improve the passing game by treating Johnson exactly like what he would be in this offense, a glorified 3rd target (at least as a rookie). Now some the balls that went to Randle El and Lloyd, who aren't very good receivers, go to Calvin Johnson (a significantly better receiver even as a rook), and thats a significant upgrade in talent. But it's not a great deal of total chances for Calvin Johnson. Moss and Cooley still would be carrying most of the load.

If Calvin Johnson gets the ball 2-3 times a game in a run heavy offense, how can that justify the 6th pick, much less trading up for him?

The truth is that the sheer lack of looks that our No. 2 WR [I]should be[/I] getting hides most talent deficiencies. This also means, obviously, that the sheer lack of looks would mask the talent of a player like Calvin Johnson. I wouldn't expect this number to be any higher than it was last year, regardless of who the 2nd target will be.

It's not that I think all receviers are fungible. Obviously the position value isn't great due to the lack of consistent touches, but my main contention is that [B]receivers are evalutated in all the wrong ways[/B]. Calvin Johnson is a big man who runs 4.3 and has soft hands. Great, nothing wrong with that at all. But again, if I'm scouting talent, those attributes grab my attention, but do nothing to sell me on the player. Can he block (In Johnson's case, probably)? Can he turn the 10 yard dig into a big play with consistency (who knows)? Does he understand route running from multiple perspectives? Those are the important questions, and for a top 10 pick, Johnson's college career leaves them somewhat unanswered (Thank you Reggie Ball).

4.3 and big with soft hands is nice and everything, but this ain't a beauty contest. Give me Moss and Cooley anyday. You can have CJ.[/QUOTE]

He's actually a pretty darn good blocker in the running game and I love Cooley, but he's not the same type of recieving threat as CJ.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

Can we please get some perspective on this whole thing? Here is what i think is going on. We don't want to stay at the 6th pick period. We haven't found anyone we like there. We like C.J. and he won't be there. So we discussed possibilities with teams because that is what you do. Gibbs has said he has discussed with three teams, two moving up, 1 moving down. They have also discussed the Briggs deal. What does all this tell you. NOTHING. Gibbs said he like a couple players high in the draft, not because he really does, but because he wants to leave the impression they don't just like C.J. He said he has offers so other teams will sweeten their offers. Although they actually offered the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, is it really a bad deal? You have to pay the 6th pick alot of money and he doesn't think anyone there is worth that money. So why not get a 26 year old proven commodity, at a position of weakness. Whether you like it or not, teams know to run to that side because our LB over there stinks, they don't run at Washington, and when Lavar was there they couldn't run there either. Our Dline is a year removed from being really good. At the 31st pick, we are saying we can get a DE in which the drop-off may not be that bad. Plus he will have something to prove.
In my opinion i like what they are doing.
I also like the trade we proposed, if we were to get anything less it would be bad. Would you Rather have Briggs AND Crowder or T. Tyler, or just Amobi.
On a side note, NO WAY IN THE WORLD BETTS IS TRADED, if there is one thing Gibbs loves, it is running the Football, and he knows what Portis and Betts can do togeather.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=skinsfan242;292640]Can we please get some perspective on this whole thing? Here is what i think is going on. We don't want to stay at the 6th pick period. We haven't found anyone we like there. We like C.J. and he won't be there. So we discussed possibilities with teams because that is what you do. Gibbs has said he has discussed with three teams, two moving up, 1 moving down. They have also discussed the Briggs deal. What does all this tell you. NOTHING. Gibbs said he like a couple players high in the draft, not because he really does, but because he wants to leave the impression they don't just like C.J. He said he has offers so other teams will sweeten their offers. Although they actually offered the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, is it really a bad deal? You have to pay the 6th pick alot of money and he doesn't think anyone there is worth that money. So why not get a 26 year old proven commodity, at a position of weakness. Whether you like it or not, teams know to run to that side because our LB over there stinks, they don't run at Washington, and when Lavar was there they couldn't run there either. Our Dline is a year removed from being really good. At the 31st pick, we are saying we can get a DE in which the drop-off may not be that bad. Plus he will have something to prove.
In my opinion i like what they are doing.
I also like the trade we proposed, if we were to get anything less it would be bad. Would you Rather have Briggs AND Crowder or T. Tyler, or just Amobi.
On a side note, NO WAY IN THE WORLD BETTS IS TRADED, if there is one thing Gibbs loves, it is running the Football, and he knows what Portis and Betts can do togeather.[/quote]

good post. we skins fans have gotten to be a hyper sensitive bunch in the offseason! At least now our fans (at least on this site) are fed up w/winning the spring super bowl.
I agree w/your points about the Briggs trade, just don't want to see him paid $20mil guaranteed. Paying a rookie at #6 will be high too, but if I'm correct the salary cap has to be structured w/an allotment for rookie salaries, so it may be easier on the cap to sign the #6 than Briggs.

CC or other capologists have any info to opine on that?

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru;292630]He's actually a pretty darn good blocker in the running game and I love Cooley, but he's not the same type of recieving threat as CJ.[/QUOTE]

Alot of people said that about Mike Williams and Charels Rogers too, and about 100 other recivers I dont wanna take the time to think about. Cooley is proven, CJ is not. I'm not against CJ, but if were going to take a risk, why not take it to fufill a position we actually need help at.

Re: Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up
 

[quote=skinsfan242;292640]Can we please get some perspective on this whole thing? Here is what i think is going on. We don't want to stay at the 6th pick period. We haven't found anyone we like there. We like C.J. and he won't be there. So we discussed possibilities with teams because that is what you do. Gibbs has said he has discussed with three teams, two moving up, 1 moving down. They have also discussed the Briggs deal. What does all this tell you. NOTHING. Gibbs said he like a couple players high in the draft, not because he really does, but because he wants to leave the impression they don't just like C.J. He said he has offers so other teams will sweeten their offers. Although they actually offered the 6th for Briggs and the 31st, is it really a bad deal? You have to pay the 6th pick alot of money and he doesn't think anyone there is worth that money. So why not get a 26 year old proven commodity, at a position of weakness. Whether you like it or not, teams know to run to that side because our LB over there stinks, they don't run at Washington, and when Lavar was there they couldn't run there either. Our Dline is a year removed from being really good. At the 31st pick, we are saying we can get a DE in which the drop-off may not be that bad. Plus he will have something to prove.
In my opinion i like what they are doing.
I also like the trade we proposed, if we were to get anything less it would be bad. Would you Rather have Briggs AND Crowder or T. Tyler, or just Amobi.
On a side note, NO WAY IN THE WORLD BETTS IS TRADED, if there is one thing Gibbs loves, it is running the Football, and he knows what Portis and Betts can do togeather.[/quote]
Paragraph indentations are a wonderful thing my friend. I suggest you look into them.

As far as G-Tripps first long post goes... I really tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying. Granted, your making several assumptions... (That guy pointed to the colts as a retort)... But I think in this style of offense your thinking is on the right track.


Essentially here is what I understood what you were basically saying: In any run based offense where you don't have an MVP at QB, maxamizing your options won't necessarily maximize your success, especially when it comes from neglecting greater needs.

Here is a case where we failed to grasp an immense play-book last season, and all signs probably point to a simplified version this year. Why add more, when if we execute the basic run-first oriented offense, the receivers will be open.

The last thing we need is 3-4 receiver sets where we give ourselves away to the pass. Remember how well the play actions started working last year? It will be finesse once Saunders and Co. begin to master the simple timing of there simple offense, ... once this happens, the final 650 pages begin to unfold and the gadgetry will work. Here's to justified optimism in 07.

Practically same OL, same running backs, same QB, same receivers, same coaches... let's draft a damn d-lineman and forget about our offense for the time being.