What will your reaction be to: "With the 6th Selection, The Redskins pick...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

CJ would be a bit of a waste (Well, he'd point out how stupid the skins were to invest 76mill$ in patten, lloyd, and el), but he's by far the safest pick and the biggest first year impact player.

imagine randy moss or TO, in their prime, only team-first, no ego, no backtalk, and a hellish blocker (for a WR, of course). I mean, the only bad thing about him was that he had reggie ball throwing him passes (talk about a waste).

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

I agree that there is always a chance of a WR being a bust, no matter how good he looks to scouts. But that is true of every position (See Robert Gallery, the former "can't-miss" prospect). As for CJ not being different from those other wideouts, I don't ever recall seeing a wideout with his speed, size, hands, work-ethics, and character.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

But, on the other hand, all of this could mean that the league is due for a phenom wideout in the draft.

QB/WR chemistry is so hard to come by... that's why the Colts opted to keep Reggie Wayne instead of Edge. Campbell has to have some consistency with his wideouts. If Lloyd hasn't gotten on the same page by the 4th or 5th game of the season -- assuming Campbell is the real deal -- then Lloyd's gone. Throwing Calvin Johnson into the mix probably won't pay dividends for a few seasons, so you'd have to pass especially given the gaping holes we have on defense.

Oh, and for all of the Golston-lovers, settle down. The guy is in the #3 rotation spot, and to expect anything more out of him would be a serious overestimation of his abilities.

Griffin and Salave'a are all but done. Draft Alan Branch.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't see what makes Calvin Johnson different from Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Andre Johnson, Charles Rogers, even Mike Williams in 2004, or any other of the receivers who were destined to "revolutionize" the game. Scouts salivated immensely over all these prospects. Two of those picks were complete busts, one the jury is still out on, and the two perennial probowlers havent won jack in this league.

Who can blame them? They are receivers--which means their outcome on a game is minimal. Not a good way to build an offense.

So why would taking Calvin Johnson in the top 10 be smart? If he fufills his potential, he helps his team marginally. If he doesn't then he is a completely wasted pick. The risk vs reward phenomenon begs teams to not take a WR in the top 10.

What's it about CJ that is so special that this league has never seen before?

by stats, you'd never take a WR in the first round. or a running back. but look at LT, look at how productive randy moss was for minnesota. some players are better than good. fitz wasn't nearly as highly regarded, though he was a safe pick. mike williams is a joke, he ran a 4.6 and he's extremely lazy. should i show you the list of busts at DL? 50% of DEs in the top 10 are busts, so what makes that any safer? would they not be a "marginal" improvement over what we have in the same way as CJ would be a "marginal" improvement over lloyd or randle el?

their outcome on a game is minimal? should teams ONLY draft QBs in the first round then? come on.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

by stats, you'd never take a WR in the first round. or a running back. but look at LT, look at how productive randy moss was for minnesota. some players are better than good. fitz wasn't nearly as highly regarded, though he was a safe pick. mike williams is a joke, he ran a 4.6 and he's extremely lazy. should i show you the list of busts at DL? 50% of DEs in the top 10 are busts, so what makes that any safer? would they not be a "marginal" improvement over what we have in the same way as CJ would be a "marginal" improvement over lloyd or randle el?

their outcome on a game is minimal? should teams ONLY draft QBs in the first round then? come on.

I never said anything about "making the safe pick". I was talking purely about positional value. For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Calvin Johnson is (presumably) a far better receiver than Randle El or Lloyd. But are we a better offense with Johnson starting instead of Randle El. Yes, but only by a very very slim margin. There just isn't much significance in the position.

Conversely, if we were to replace Saleve'a with Branch (assuming of course that Branch will be a dominant player just as we presumed Johnson would be), the defense will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger vs the run. The team would be much better off.

That's positional value. I don't think any position is "safer" than another position. I think that (4 year starting) seniors are always safer picks than underclassmen, simply because there is so much film on them. If a senior has bust potential, surely there will be red flags that scouts will find. If an underclassman has bust potential, there might not be adequate film on him, and some red flags may sneak beneath the scouts observations. I don't think Larry Fitzgerald was a safe pick though. He came out of school early, and thats never a "safe" thing. I remember him being regarded as the "best player in college football," and he was the 3rd pick--so don't say he wasn't highly regarded.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Supposing that Calvin Johnson is the next Jerry Rice, would you still stand by the above statements? There's no doubt a DT is worth more to OUR team than a WR, but that's not going to be true for a team with a good D-line and a poor WR-corps.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I don't think you can make the above statement in good-faith. Supposing that Calvin Johnson is the next Jerry Rice, would you still stand by the above statements?

There's no doubt a DT is worth more to OUR team than a WR, but that's not going to be true for a team with a good D-line and a poor WR-corps. Take San Diego as an example. If they had to choose between a DT, DE, or WR with a top 5 pick, they'd be crazy not to spend it on the WR of CJ's caliber.

If Calvin Johnson was the next Jerry Rice, it would justify a top 5 selection. If he ends up being the next Joey Galloway, a very real possibility, it becomes a wasted selection.

My point is that the next Jerry Rice is not nearly as valuable as the next Reggie White, Joe Montana, LaDainian Tomlinson, Bruce Matthews, Walter Jones, or Darrell Green. Assuming that each player has an equal chance to become the greatest ever at his position, it would be better to take a shot on either line or in either backfield than at the WR position.

As far as teams drafting for need...one would think that every team in the league as a need more pressing than WR. Any team that picks Johnson in the top 10 is taking a big risk knowing that the possible return on their investment will not be as great as another position. His selectior must realize that he must be everything his scouting report promises to justify his selection. I don't believe this is true with any other position.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If Calvin Johnson was the next Jerry Rice, it would justify a top 5 selection. If he ends up being the next Joey Galloway, a very real possibility, it becomes a wasted selection.

My point is that the next Jerry Rice is not nearly as valuable as the next Reggie White, Joe Montana, LaDainian Tomlinson, Bruce Matthews, Walter Jones, or Darrell Green. Assuming that each player has an equal chance to become the greatest ever at his position, it would be better to take a shot on either line or in either backfield than at the WR position.

As far as teams drafting for need...one would think that every team in the league as a need more pressing than WR. Any team that picks Johnson in the top 10 is taking a big risk knowing that the possible return on their investment will not be as great as another position. His selectior must realize that he must be everything his scouting report promises to justify his selection. I don't believe this is true with any other position.

again, you have any "proof" of this, or are you just making it up? a great QB always excedes everything else, but after that, it really depends on the situation. if you have a solid CB core and no WRs, rice is going to improve your team a lot more than darrell green might. such blanket statements are really pretty silly.

I mean, look how well minnesota did with no WRs. but they had a good OL and defense, so i guess it didn't matter, right? and you saw how much donte stallworth or TO improved the eagles offense when they were in the game. #1 WRs absolutely DO matter. the depth isn't really as important.

[offiss]

Sorry boy's but if CJ somehow falls to us we have to take him, we deal all the great WR's we aquired last year teams should be lineing up for them.

Branch looked out of shape at the combine, which would coincide with his lazyness, I wonder if he will be any more motivated after he becomes a millionair?

I really haven't any seen any film on Adams, or Anderson, but rest assured none of them will be near the player that CJ will be.

It's nice Adams want's to be a Skin, he must have heard the Texans were gearing up to draft him.

I think the only player that really makes sense on the defensive line may be Anderson, he has the size to stop the strong side run and can get after the QB, Adams should be a RT end, we cannot put Carter on the strong side he can't hold his ground, and Branch looks like he may be the second coming of BIG DADDY WILK.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by offiss

Sorry boy's but if CJ somehow falls to us we have to take him, we deal all the great WR's we aquired last year teams should be lineing up for them.

Branch looked out of shape at the combine, which would coincide with his lazyness, I wonder if he will be any more motivated after he becomes a millionair?

I really haven't any seen any film on Adams, or Anderson, but rest assured none of them will be near the player that CJ will be.

It's nice Adams want's to be a Skin, he must have heard the Texans were gearing up to draft him.

I think the only player that really makes sense on the defensive line may be Anderson, he has the size to stop the strong side run and can get after the QB, Adams should be a RT end, we cannot put Carter on the strong side he can't hold his ground, and Branch looks like he may be the second coming of BIG DADDY WILK.

I agree here. If CJ is available, we have to take him. We have to. You can't let this guy go.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I never said anything about "making the safe pick". I was talking purely about positional value. For wide receivers, there is NO benefit to taking one in the top 10 as opposed to between 11-20. None. On top of this, the positional value of a WR is lower than any other player on the offense, and arguably all of the defense also. It's the only position on the field that will be a realtive non factor on more than 1/3 of offensive plays.

Calvin Johnson is (presumably) a far better receiver than Randle El or Lloyd. But are we a better offense with Johnson starting instead of Randle El. Yes, but only by a very very slim margin. There just isn't much significance in the position.

Conversely, if we were to replace Saleve'a with Branch (assuming of course that Branch will be a dominant player just as we presumed Johnson would be), the defense will be SIGNIFICANTLY stronger vs the run. The team would be much better off.

That's positional value. I don't think any position is "safer" than another position. I think that (4 year starting) seniors are always safer picks than underclassmen, simply because there is so much film on them. If a senior has bust potential, surely there will be red flags that scouts will find. If an underclassman has bust potential, there might not be adequate film on him, and some red flags may sneak beneath the scouts observations. I don't think Larry Fitzgerald was a safe pick though. He came out of school early, and thats never a "safe" thing. I remember him being regarded as the "best player in college football," and he was the 3rd pick--so don't say he wasn't highly regarded.

first, adding 800 more yards in passing offense, and another 100 running offense (cause he blocks much better than any WR we have) is a huge improvement. Maybe as much so as the couple hundred fewer yards branch would prevent. Just cause you think you can arbitrarily assign positional values on complete unknowns doesn't make it fact :P

and there is benefit in taking a WR in the top 10 if he'd be gone by pick 12 or 13 and ends up in the HoF. so saying there's no benefit is just crap. fitz was a fairly safe pick, and i didn't say he wasn't highly regarded, i said he wasn't as highly regarded as CJ on draft day.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

first, adding 800 more yards in passing offense, and another 100 running offense (cause he blocks much better than any WR we have) is a huge improvement. Maybe as much so as the couple hundred fewer yards branch would prevent. Just cause you think you can arbitrarily assign positional values on complete unknowns doesn't make it fact :P

and there is benefit in taking a WR in the top 10 if he'd be gone by pick 12 or 13 and ends up in the HoF. so saying there's no benefit is just crap. fitz was a fairly safe pick, and i didn't say he wasn't highly regarded, i said he wasn't as highly regarded as CJ on draft day.

Those 800/100 figures seem pretty arbitrary. The 2nd receiver got thrown at about 45 times this year. I highly doubt that CJ or anyone else can change 45 passes (about 40 receptions if he's really good) into 800 yards (~20 yards/reception). That's pretty preposterous. Realistically he might add another 75-125 yards to the passing offense over the ARE/Lloyd combo over the course of an entire season. Marginal.

Randle El had 32 receptions for 351 yards (11 yards/reception). Are you saying that Calvin Johnson could have gone for 1150 yards in a similar amount of oppertunities?

Maybe he creates a few more yards than Randle El does in the running game...but 100? Is he some sort of lineman out there who takes multiple players out of every play? Randle El isn't a crappy blocker and already does a good job taking the corner out on front side plays. But you honestly think that CJ would create 100 more rushing yards (Not to mention that ARE had over 100 yards rushing last year)?

Originally Posted by That Guy

again, you have any "proof" of this, or are you just making it up? a great QB always excedes everything else, but after that, it really depends on the situation. if you have a solid CB core and no WRs, rice is going to improve your team a lot more than darrell green might. such blanket statements are really pretty silly.

I mean, look how well minnesota did with no WRs. but they had a good OL and defense, so i guess it didn't matter, right? and you saw how much donte stallworth or TO improved the eagles offense when they were in the game. #1 WRs absolutely DO matter. the depth isn't really as important.

Minnesota's offense sucked because Brad Johnson had a horrible year, and because Chester Taylor didn't come through when they needed it (no running game+no passing game despite the quality of the O Line which had an underachieving right side). Phili and NE have skimped on the WRs for years and have made top 10 offenses. Look what KC had done for many years.

Having a Santana Moss is a big deal. The guy can turn a simple screen into a 80 yard touchdown. That's a rare ability, and most top WRs in this league don't have that ability.

I think you are misunderstanding my point though. If a team has a great CB core and a weak WR core, they probably shouldn't be drafting someone in the hopes of being the next Darrell Green. However, they probably have much bigger needs than WR. Maybe they should be looking for the next Orlando Pace or Warren Sapp as opposed to the next Rice.

Common sense says that the 9 players who have the biggest effect on the offense are the guys closest to the football. If they all do their jobs to ultimate perfection, playing WR in this league is going to be pretty damn easy :P

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Those 800/100 figures seem pretty arbitrary. The 2nd receiver got thrown at about 45 times this year. I highly doubt that CJ or anyone else can change 45 passes (about 40 receptions if he's really good) into 800 yards (~20 yards/reception). That's pretty preposterous. Realistically he might add another 75-125 yards to the passing offense over the ARE/Lloyd combo over the course of an entire season. Marginal.

Randle El had 32 receptions for 351 yards (11 yards/reception). Are you saying that Calvin Johnson could have gone for 1150 yards in a similar amount of oppertunities?

Maybe he creates a few more yards than Randle El does in the running game...but 100? Is he some sort of lineman out there who takes multiple players out of every play? Randle El isn't a crappy blocker and already does a good job taking the corner out on front side plays. But you honestly think that CJ would create 100 more rushing yards (Not to mention that ARE had over 100 yards rushing last year)?

Minnesota's offense sucked because Brad Johnson had a horrible year, and because Chester Taylor didn't come through when they needed it (no running game+no passing game despite the quality of the O Line which had an underachieving right side). Phili and NE have skimped on the WRs for years and have made top 10 offenses. Look what KC had done for many years.

Having a Santana Moss is a big deal. The guy can turn a simple screen into a 80 yard touchdown. That's a rare ability, and most top WRs in this league don't have that ability.

I think you are misunderstanding my point though. If a team has a great CB core and a weak WR core, they probably shouldn't be drafting someone in the hopes of being the next Darrell Green. However, they probably have much bigger needs than WR. Maybe they should be looking for the next Orlando Pace or Warren Sapp as opposed to the next Rice.

Common sense says that the 9 players who have the biggest effect on the offense are the guys closest to the football. If they all do their jobs to ultimate perfection, playing WR in this league is going to be pretty damn easy :P

a few points:
-el IS a crappy blocker, his size hurts him a lot there.
-my numbers are no more arbitrary than yours. looks at the colts or the cardinals, or the panthers when they had moose. if you have 2 #1 WRs, they can both get 1000+ yards easily. maybe he's a lot better than randle el, so he'd have more chances to make plays than him. that, again, would NOT be marginal.

-third, you totally missed the point - look at the effect TO or stallworth had on games with mcnabb compared to when he didn't have a #1 WR. look at the pats with deion branch compared to last year. it makes a huge difference, and helped them both get to super bowls.

-minnesota may have sucked a lot less if they had someone for johnson to throw the ball to also. It's nice that you can totally discount that, but without a crystal ball, your guess isn't any better than mine.

-if the WR is really good, it makes the QB, RB, OL, etc job easier. the guards and TEs on the colts aren't nearly as good or have nearly the impact that their WRs have. seriously. and saying they aren't involved on every play is like saying a CB is only involved on 1/3rd of all plays. just cause they aren't scoring TDs doesn't mean they're not blocking or running decoy to take guys away from the play.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

-if the WR is really good, it makes the QB, RB, OL, etc job easier. the guards and TEs on the colts aren't nearly as good or have nearly the impact that their WRs have. seriously. and saying they aren't involved on every play is like saying a CB is only involved on 1/3rd of all plays. just cause they aren't scoring TDs doesn't mean they're not blocking or running decoy to take guys away from the play.

How does a good wide receiver make a lineman's job any easier? How does he make a running backs job any easier? Most of what wide receivers do requires the QB to do his job. So yes, theroretically a great wide receiver will improve the amount of error a QB has room for. Still, completing the pass is a lot more in control of the QB than the WR. A lot. He has to 1) read the defense, 2) identify the coverage consider the amount of time he has with the rush, 3) know all the routes (not just the one hes throwing at), 4)and deliver the ball on time AND relatively accurately. Conversely, the receiver on most plays has to first get into position to make the play (by adjusting his route if necessary), and then catch the ball. Incompletions are usually due to something that happened at the LOS (obvious exception to the drops/misread by the receiver). Most NFL caliber receivers are realtively similar in the way they do their job before the catch. Put all the names of WRs in the NFL into a hat and pick one out and I'm certain you'll get a guy who can do the above.

That's why I say that a receiver gets his value from after the catch ability. A receiver's ability to run with the ball after the catch seperates him from other receivers. In the case of Calvin Johnson, I haven't noticed a guy who is anything special after the case. I'm sure his skills are adequate, but if I'm taking a WR with my first pick in a draft, I would hope that he would be a threat to take it to the house on every reception. Santana Moss-style.

You want a receiver who is a good blocker of course, but consider what the job asks one to do. Take a corner out of a running play. Most receivers in the league can do this a good percentage of the time already. While some WRs (like Lloyd) are crappy blockers, most NFL receivers can block adequately. This ability does not make Johnson a special player.