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

[SouperMeister]

If we're going to offer a 1st and a 3rd, I would prefer that the offer be made to KC first for franchised Jared Allen, then use our 2nd rounder to address WR. Chad's good, but is he Randy Moss or TO (when their heads are on straight)? I don't think so.

[SKINSnCANES]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Actually I think the deal that was offered was very fair for both sides. CJ is a guy who routinely puts up 90+ catches and 1300-1400 yards. You're not going to get a guy like that for a 4th round pick, this isn't Maddens we're talking about.

I love Madden

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

I love Madden

LOL me too

[Vulta121]

Smootsmack
"We're trading away one pick ONE PICK in the 2008 draft for one of the best wide receivers in the game, a position we need. We'll still have 8 more picks. Plus who's to say we can't trade back into the 3rd round next year if need be? Not to mention a couple more comp picks will probably come our way from the Reche and Macklin signings (at least one).

I think that people just aren't thinking here. They just have it ingrained in their minds that because of failed maneuvers like Lloyd and Duckett. Yet we tend to forget failed draft maneuevers like Taylor Jacobs."

Smoot you are 100% right. Talk about hitting the nail on the head. We don't have a top five pick this year so give it up who cares. We can get a guy with HOF potential (I stress the word potential). We are not selling our souls for a 1 and next years third. We can only get better with him and we become legitimate. If we get Chad, then we really are one or two guys away from the Superbowl (the Giants probably thought they were one or two away to before the season started last year, look how that turned out). Chad is 30 that is not old for receivers these days (Owens 35, Moss 31). So there is even an upside of about 4-7 years of high level play from him. If we get a guy like Manningham or anyone that falls to 21, he won't play as well as Chad. And here is the kicker he might not even be around the redskins 4-7 years. So we save in development time and get a top three receiver. Danny should go get him and up the offer if possible. What about Betts, the 1st, and the next years 2 (guaranteed)?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

If we're going to offer a 1st and a 3rd, I would prefer that the offer be made to KC first for franchised Jared Allen, then use our 2nd rounder to address WR. Chad's good, but is he Randy Moss or TO (when their heads are on straight)? I don't think so.

I do. Look at his numbers. He hasn't missed a start since '03, and in the last 5 seasons he has more yards, catches, and 1st downs than any player in league, never having less than 87 catches, 1274 yards, and 7TDs over that span. He's amazing.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Chad Johnson in my opinion is better than TO. Yes TO is more physical but Chad's hands are better and people it is not like we are giving up the 3rd-10th overall pick, it is 21 for goodness sake. please stop acting like if this trade goes down that all hope is lost forever.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

I love Madden

It is a great game!

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if you look at the history of WR's in general I bet your wrong. You listed 7 WR's and there are how many that have played the game in that time span? I could go in and pick a ton in that span who's # that dropped off after 30. Its a crap shot and you think he is good for another 4 to 5 years (which I think he is) you just don't know when the body is going to turn on a player. I'm not saying your wrong I just don't think history is on your side in this situation.

go ahead and back it up with proof then. dominant WRs only though, not crap players that bounced around the league.

galloway is ancient and still had 1k seasons beyond 30 (at 36 i think).

it's not a crap shoot, WRs don't take much abuse, and he just showed that history is on his side. I mean, i understand not wanting to be wrong, but come on.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Ah! That being said, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Don't quote me on those conditions though. Still trying to verify and Mort's too busy to talk to me today...sigh

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I do. Look at his numbers. He hasn't missed a start since '03, and in the last 5 seasons he has more yards, catches, and 1st downs than any player in league, never having less than 87 catches, 1274 yards, and 7TDs over that span. He's amazing.

You can put his numbers up there with just about anyone.

CJ is a big time WR. Anyone who says anything to the contrary just doesn't know what he's talking about.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

the key word there is POTENTIAL starters, you dont know what your going to get with the draft, CJ is a proven player

So are Chris Cooley and Laron Laundry. One's a probowler and one is a future pro bowler and both are home grown.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yes and no. It won't "blow" our draft, but it will hurt it since the traded pick will be our highest. Also, of the remaining 8 picks, 3 are 7th rounders. 7th rounders are definitely a crap shoot.

Are you more upset that it's a trade for Chad Johnson or a trade of the pick?

I'm in between. I think this proposed trade would hurt and help at the same time. It's not going to ruin the franchise by any means, but it will certainly be odd given the way we lowballed DJ Hackett, didn't even give Bryan Johnson a sniff, and have been preaching restraint and building through the draft.

What Cerrato had said from the start was that they didn't expect to be big players in free agency this year (which we weren't) but that he is always looking for ways to improve the team and would entertain trade possibilities if he feels it would improve the team.

As great as CJ is, it's still trading multiple picks for a very expensive 30 year old with a huge mouth and a penchant for whining when his team underperforms.

It ain't braggin' if you can back it up

I'm still baffled the way we let Hackett get away. He's 4 years younger than Chad, waaaaay cheaper, big, very fast, and played for a few years with Zorn. Granted he's not the player CJ is, but he would have helped a lot at a smallish price and we wouldn't have had to give up a single draft pick.

I've said this before but I'll say it again. Why don't we even remotely consider that Zorn is very familiar with Hackett, and that's why we didn't sign him. That maybe, jussssst maybe, Zorn said "Hey, this guy has potential and can contribute but I've been around him every day for the past several years and keep this, this, that, and that in mind. And this is how I see him fitting in and this is what he's worth." (and it's not as much as the fans think)

[RobH4413]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

You can put his numbers up there with just about anyone.

CJ is a big time WR. Anyone who says anything to the contrary just doesn't know what he's talking about.

100% on the money right there.


Smart offer by the Skins... they want to bait us into offering more, and I hope we don't. I like this offer, but anything substantially more seems unpractical.

I also like the conditional picks. Subtle differences from our past, but differences none the less.

Wish Cinci pulled the trigger on this one, who knows... it may happen before draft day.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We're trading away one pick ONE PICK in the 2008 draft for one of the best wide receivers in the game, a position we need. We'll still have 8 more picks. Plus who's to say we can't trade back into the 3rd round next year if need be? Not to mention a couple more comp picks will probably come our way from the Reche and Macklin signings (at least one).

I think that people just aren't thinking here. They just have it ingrained in their minds that because of failed maneuvers like Lloyd and Duckett. Yet we tend to forget failed draft maneuevers like Taylor Jacobs.

Why would we give up two picks when we're a team that's in transition with many holes to fill? Does anyone remember the Seattle game last year?? Does anyone remember our o-line not being able to protect the QB or get a 1/2 yard in crucial 4th and short situations?? Or not being able to get the ball to Santana cause Collins was getting killed?? DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THAT?? It doesn't matter if we get CJ cause if the QB is on his backside then what good is it? Plus he's going to want a new deal. I just lost all faith in our FO. There just going back to their band-aid tactics.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We're trading away one pick ONE PICK in the 2008 draft for one of the best wide receivers in the game, a position we need. We'll still have 8 more picks. Plus who's to say we can't trade back into the 3rd round next year if need be? Not to mention a couple more comp picks will probably come our way from the Reche and Macklin signings (at least one).

I think that people just aren't thinking here. They just have it ingrained in their minds that because of failed maneuvers like Lloyd and Duckett. Yet we tend to forget failed draft maneuevers like Taylor Jacobs.

Dealing two early round picks for Chad Johnson would not doom our franchise and, at least in the short run, it would likely dramatically improve our offense. Chad is simply a dominant player who could really open things up for Cooley, Portis, Moss, and ARE. But, at 30 years of age, Chad Johnson wouldn't help us find a solution to problems that we are going to have to face pretty soon....youth and depth.

We and projected to field one of the oldest starting lineups in the league. We are likely to lose key starters at several positions within the next 2 years. Aside from QB and RB, I think we have depth issues at every position. It is becoming increasingly difficult to fill holes and build depth via free agency. So, in my opinion, we need to acquire more depth and youth via: (1) the draft; and/or (2) trades. Trading for Chad isn't making a trade for a younger, proven player and it costs us the opportunity to draft young, cheap talent.

So, IMO, while the world wouldn't end if we did make the trade, there are certainly legitimate reasons to think it might cause problems for us down the line.