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

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by KB24

Pacman has NEVER taken responsibility for his actions. Maybe the Allen example wasn't the best one to use. My point is, if we really want to get rid of draft picks the way we are, we need to focus on the lines first -- a couple of our most glaring weaknesses -- then the skill positions. As I said before, having Chad won't matter if we can't keep Campbell upright or rush the passer consistently.

Actually, you're right - I just figured with 8 arrests in 19 months he would have had at least one apology.
The NFL can do without Pacman Jones | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by KB24

Pacman has NEVER taken responsibility for his actions. Maybe the Allen example wasn't the best one to use. My point is, if we really want to get rid of draft picks the way we are, we need to focus on the lines first -- a couple of our most glaring weaknesses -- then the skill positions. As I said before, having Chad won't matter if we can't keep Campbell upright or rush the passer consistently.

Why do you think that we can't address our line needs if we trade for Chad Johnson? You don't think we could get a DE in the 2nd round, two OLs in the 3rd?

[MTK]

Why does trading one pick this year mean we can't address our needs?

We will likely be drafting a WR anyway, and what rookie WR out there would be able to give us the kind of production that someone like Johnson could give us?

[onlydarksets]

Skill positions also reduce the workload of the O-line. If the D has to respect two receivers plus possibly another coming off the line (TE) and a fourth checkdown option, they can't stack the box every single play.

[Hog1]

Good point. It relieves the entire O in general to have another legit threat

[Skinny Tee]

It looks like we are going to have to wait until hell freezes over to have CJ/Bolden in a Skins uniform.


Until then here's a constructive question, who are we going to select with our first round pick and next year's third?...I'd like some O/D lineman.

[HOGTIMUS PRIME]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why does trading one pick this year mean we can't address our needs?

We will likely be drafting a WR anyway, and what rookie WR out there would be able to give us the kind of production that someone like Johnson could give us?

We here this same argument every time we decide to sign or trade for a WR, it's a never ending cycle. Moss and EL can no longer catch a ball so we need Chad? And Lloyd is gone, 3 WR's we had to have and now we need to get CJ, nobody ever stops to think that it could very well be the team concept and players around the skill players which inhibits their play, kind of ironic that Moss and El both started to get open as soon as Collins took over?

I will say this, Zorns new offensive approach better click with Campbell, if it does we wont need Chad, if it doesn't then all the Chads in the world ain't gonna help our offense. The west coast offense has had a ton of success without big name WR's, we have to many needs for this trade to make sense, we can turn that #1 pick into possibly 2 or 3 more picks by trading back into the second round, Chad Johnson is not the be all and end all when it comes to wide outs!

[KB24]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why does trading one pick this year mean we can't address our needs?

We will likely be drafting a WR anyway, and what rookie WR out there would be able to give us the kind of production that someone like Johnson could give us?

I'd rather see us use our picks to gain depth at key areas and build a foundation where we have guys ready to go should we lose a starter or two to injury. Right now, because we focus so much on names, when a guy goes down, there's hardly anyone on the roster to fill the position and we have to rely on the waiver wire.

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Skill positions also reduce the workload of the O-line. If the D has to respect two receivers plus possibly another coming off the line (TE) and a fourth checkdown option, they can't stack the box every single play.

But, if that o-line isn't blocking well to begin with, it would negate any effective running game and prevent JC from having time to even get to that fourth checkdown option. We need to groom our own talent instead of going after players in their '30s.

[Schneed10]

My problem with trading so much for Chad Johnson is the opportunity we're giving up to pay a 1st round pick only about $1.0 million per year. Players picked in the latter half of the first round make 1-2 million per season. We're rumored to be ready to pay Chad Johnson $21 million guaranteed. The guy's already 30, and I don't like the labor strife that appears to be bearing down on the league.

Right now, you have to say that there's a greater than 50% chance there will be a lockout/strike of some kind within the next few years, possibly involving the voiding of the current CBA, which would push the league into one last uncapped season. In that scenario, all signing bonus money would accelerate and hit your cap that season.

Given this likely scenario, I don't like the idea of adding a big bonus to the payroll. We'd be setting ourselves up for a total dismantling of the team should a last uncapped season come to fruition.

Given that we don't have tons of cap space the next few seasons, and a lot of bonus money is tied up in Cooley, Portis, and numerous others, I'd relish the opportunity to pay our 1st round pick only $1-2 million per season.

[MTK]

So again, how does losing one pick this year take away from our ability to fill needs? There would still be 8 picks on the board.

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by KB24

I'd rather see us use our picks to gain depth at key areas and build a foundation where we have guys ready to go should we lose a starter or two to injury. Right now, because we focus so much on names, when a guy goes down, there's hardly anyone on the roster to fill the position and we have to rely on the waiver wire.

A direct result of that this past season was that we were using Lorenzo Alexander as a pulling guard late in the season because he was the most effective pulling blocker we had on the roster.

Lorenzo Alexander is an undrafted rookie Defensive Tackle and we used him to fill a hole in our offense. The guy is an undrafted rookie that plays defense and he was the best product that we came up with to pull block on offense?

The depth on both sides of the ball is pathetic.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So again, how does losing one pick this year take away from our ability to fill needs? There would still be 8 picks on the board.

The picks wouldn't be the problem. The cap could be a disastrous problem if the labor strife continues. And that's not JLC playing Chicken Little with the cap numbers, that's one of your resident cap nerds saying that.

We should keep the pick and pay that 1st rounder his market value. Or trade down. We'd gain talent for the long haul and help keep ourselves out of cap trouble in a potential uncapped season.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

My problem with trading so much for Chad Johnson is the opportunity we're giving up to pay a 1st round pick only about $1.0 million per year. Players picked in the latter half of the first round make 1-2 million per season. We're rumored to be ready to pay Chad Johnson $21 million guaranteed. The guy's already 30, and I don't like the labor strife that appears to be bearing down on the league.

Right now, you have to say that there's a greater than 50% chance there will be a lockout/strike of some kind within the next few years, possibly involving the voiding of the current CBA, which would push the league into one last uncapped season. In that scenario, all signing bonus money would accelerate and hit your cap that season.

Given this likely scenario, I don't like the idea of adding a big bonus to the payroll. We'd be setting ourselves up for a total dismantling of the team should a last uncapped season come to fruition.

Given that we don't have tons of cap space the next few seasons, and a lot of bonus money is tied up in Cooley, Portis, and numerous others, I'd relish the opportunity to pay our 1st round pick only $1-2 million per season.

See, I can live with this logic. Good post.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

So again, how does losing one pick this year take away from our ability to fill needs? There would still be 8 picks on the board.

Well first of all it's our top pick and if CJ hits his normal numbers than it would be a top pick next year. Not worth it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Well first of all it's our top pick and if CJ hits his normal number than it would be a top pick next year. Not worth it.

We don't even know at this point what would escalate that 3rd rounder to a 1st. But it's safe to assume it would have to be some pretty significant triggers, so let's not act like two #1's would be a foregone conclusion.