Maske/JLC: Gibbs Hints Redskins Might Trade Up

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91

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!

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

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

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.

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.

[100% PURE WHOOP ASS]

Originally Posted by RobH4413

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.

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SkinsFanSince91

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.

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, exchanging the role of one wideout for another is the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to increase that ceiling. 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 already 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. And if the best player of the group is not getting as many catches as he reasonably can, you are hurting your offensive potential.

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.

[GMScud]

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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, exchanging the role of one wideout for another is the WORST POSSIBLE WAY to increase that ceiling. 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 already 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. And if the best player of the group is not getting as many catches as he reasonably can, you are hurting your offensive potential.

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

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 should be 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 receivers are evalutated in all the wrong ways. 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.

[vaoutlaws2006]

one word on this one...ummmm NO

[freddyg12]

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.

[skinsfanthru&thru]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 should be 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 receivers are evalutated in all the wrong ways. 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.

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.

[skinsfan242]

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.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by skinsfan242

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.

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?

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru

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.

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.

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by skinsfan242

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.

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.