| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Which do you think are the key positions we need? |
| OG |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| DT |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| CB |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| S |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| WR |
|
23% |
[ 8 ] |
| DE |
|
44% |
[ 15 ] |
| OT |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
| Author |
Message |
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| GSPODS wrote: | Rather than tossing inaccurate and false personal accusations, how about refuting the argument that the Redskins should inquire about making this deal? Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. Name another receiver who had a 1300+ yard receiving "off-year" in between two 1400+ yard receiving seasons.
Name a Redskin who caught 93 passes. Name a Redskins wide receiver over 6'0". Stop using useless emoticons and personal insults and answer the question. |
Whatever, dude. I've used facts and the coaches own words to establish a position. Cincy doesn't want to trade him and the Skins have no desire to acquire him. Trying to use Chad Johnson as so-called "evidence" that the Skins have no intentions on adding a receiver is a joke. There are far more reasons why the Skins would look elsewhere for a receiver rather than trading away the house for a 30 year old diva that isn't even on the trading block.
Edit: Are you seriously of the opinion that the Skins are set at WR and have no desire to add anyone??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsFreak wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | Rather than tossing inaccurate and false personal accusations, how about refuting the argument that the Redskins should inquire about making this deal? Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. Name another receiver who had a 1300+ yard receiving "off-year" in between two 1400+ yard receiving seasons.
Name a Redskin who caught 93 passes. Name a Redskins wide receiver over 6'0". Stop using useless emoticons and personal insults and answer the question. |
Whatever, dude. I've used facts and the coaches own words to establish a position. Cincy doesn't want to trade him and the Skins have no desire to acquire him. Trying to use Chad Johnson as so-called "evidence" that the Skins have no intentions on adding a receiver is a joke. There are far more reasons why the Skins would look elsewhere for a receiver rather than trading away the house for a 30 year old diva that isn't even on the trading block. |
I'm not "dude". The facts you have used are the public statements teams make to the media. We all know those are always truthful and accurate. Chad Johnson doesn't want to be in Cincy. They may have no option but to trade him. I never said the non-pursuit of Chad Johnson was evidence the Redskins aren't pursuing a wide receiver. I said he would be a better one to pursue than D.J. Hackett or a draft choice. So would any number of other veteran wide receivers.
To use your own "facts", Cerrato says if there is someone out there who would make the team better, the Redskins would pursue a deal. Regardless of the loudmouth, prima donna label, Chad Johnson is one player who would make the team better immediately. One of many. The same cannot be said for any draft choice.
Let's forget Chad Johnson specifically. The point is that a trade for a proven wide receiver is a safer option and a more immediate improvement than a draft pick is. For every Art Monk drafted there are hundreds of Michael Westbrook's.
The Redskins have Moss, Randle El, Thrash, Mix, McMullen, Toler. Who is this receiving group supposed to intimidate? Even if you add a draft choice to this list, it doesn't even scare me so how is it supposed to scare anyone else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
PulpExposure
Pushing Paper
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 4461
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | Rather than tossing inaccurate and false personal accusations, how about refuting the argument that the Redskins should inquire about making this deal? Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. Name another receiver who had a 1300+ yard receiving "off-year" in between two 1400+ yard receiving seasons.
Name a Redskin who caught 93 passes. Name a Redskins wide receiver over 6'0". Stop using useless emoticons and personal insults and answer the question. |
Johnson is great, but also...name me the 2 time pro bowl quarterback throwing him the ball during that time 
Also...do you really want a guy who reportedly threw a punch at his head coach? |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PulpExposure wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | Rather than tossing inaccurate and false personal accusations, how about refuting the argument that the Redskins should inquire about making this deal? Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. Name another receiver who had a 1300+ yard receiving "off-year" in between two 1400+ yard receiving seasons.
Name a Redskin who caught 93 passes. Name a Redskins wide receiver over 6'0". Stop using useless emoticons and personal insults and answer the question. |
Johnson is great, but also...name me the 2 time pro bowl quarterback throwing him the ball during that time |
Ken Anderson? 
I think it would be fair to say that Johnson's stats are greatly assisted by the fact that he has that T.J. Houshmandzadeh on the other side. I also think it would be fair to say that Santana Moss would appreciate having a receiver of that caliber on the other side. It might assist his stats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | I'm still in the dark. |
We know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SkinsFreak wrote: | | GSPODS wrote: | | I'm still in the dark. |
We know. |
We are all still in the dark, regardless of what is being released to or printed by the media. We have no idea what order of roster position the Redskins will draft in. Just because the fans think the Redskins should draft a wide receiver first doesn't make it a given. Suppose the Redskins make no moves in free agency and only add to the current roster through the draft. Does anyone honestly believe the team will be competitive without making any trades? I don't. I think we'll be looking at another 5-11 season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | Just because the fans think the Redskins should draft a wide receiver first doesn't make it a given. |
Draft order is NOT what we are talking about. You said to offer any other proof besides the contract offered to Hackett that the Skins want another receiver. I did that. A trade is not the only way to add a receiver. It's great to talk about trading for a player, but if there isn't one on the trading block, it would be extremely difficult to facilitate a trade without overpaying. The Skins have traded away lots of draft picks in years past, only to be criticized for not building through the draft. Now you want them to trade away picks and ignore the draft. Brilliant. If you're so high on trading picks, then Cerrato would have to be your hero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm still in the dark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
BnGhog
Hog
Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 1552
Location: Danville VA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a problem with trading our 1st-5th picks, to add 2 or three vets that are quickly declining.
I don't have a problem getting a vet that is NOT on the decline and losing a first round.
1st WR pic in the draft = might be good.
Number 85 = we already know he's elite.
You might think it would be "overpaying". But It seems you are getting these feelings from our past "overpaying". Like Arch and Lloyd.
But in this case, I would not say that Lloyd is even in the same ball park as Chad. Lloyd might have made a difference and didn't. Chad we know is a difference maker, no question about it.
If he only had shown flashes of potential I'd agree with you on this or if he was on the decline I would too. But he's not.
If he were to come here and add his TD's, his yards, and his first downs, on top of what this team already can do, plus he will have the double coverage on him not Moss, or Cooley. There is no way I would call it "overspending". |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BnGhog wrote: | I have a problem with trading our 1st-5th picks, to add 2 or three vets that are quickly declining.
I don't have a problem getting a vet that is NOT on the decline and losing a first round.
1st WR pic in the draft = might be good.
Number 85 = we already know he's elite.
You might think it would be "overpaying". But It seems you are getting these feelings from our past "overpaying". Like Arch and Lloyd.
But in this case, I would not say that Lloyd is even in the same ball park as Chad. Lloyd might have made a difference and didn't. Chad we know is a difference maker, no question about it.
If he only had shown flashes of potential I'd agree with you on this or if he was on the decline I would too. But he's not.
If he were to come here and add his TD's, his yards, and his first downs, on top of what this team already can do, plus he will have the double coverage on him not Moss, or Cooley. There is no way I would call it "overspending". |
At last, a voice of reason. I think you expressed in one post what I've been trying to say for about 10 posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 6870
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. |
Reggie Wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
yupchagee
#14
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4110
Location: Louisville KY
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BnGhog wrote: | I have a problem with trading our 1st-5th picks, to add 2 or three vets that are quickly declining.
I don't have a problem getting a vet that is NOT on the decline and losing a first round.
1st WR pic in the draft = might be good.
Number 85 = we already know he's elite.
You might think it would be "overpaying". But It seems you are getting these feelings from our past "overpaying". Like Arch and Lloyd.
But in this case, I would not say that Lloyd is even in the same ball park as Chad. Lloyd might have made a difference and didn't. Chad we know is a difference maker, no question about it.
If he only had shown flashes of potential I'd agree with you on this or if he was on the decline I would too. But he's not.
If he were to come here and add his TD's, his yards, and his first downs, on top of what this team already can do, plus he will have the double coverage on him not Moss, or Cooley. There is no way I would call it "overspending". |
Doesn't that depemd on the price tag? He has some value, but not infinite value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CanesSkins26 wrote: | | Quote: | | Name me a #1 wide receiver with Johnson's stats that hasn't missed a game in four seasons. |
Reggie Wayne |
True, but there is less than a snowball's chance in hell of Reggie Wayne being available at any price. I suppose I should have qualified the question. I thought it was a given I was asking for players who could become Redskins by way of a trade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SkinsFreak
Fire in the Sky
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 4884
Location: Surfside
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | BnGhog wrote: | I have a problem with trading our 1st-5th picks, to add 2 or three vets that are quickly declining.
I don't have a problem getting a vet that is NOT on the decline and losing a first round.
1st WR pic in the draft = might be good.
Number 85 = we already know he's elite.
You might think it would be "overpaying". But It seems you are getting these feelings from our past "overpaying". Like Arch and Lloyd.
But in this case, I would not say that Lloyd is even in the same ball park as Chad. Lloyd might have made a difference and didn't. Chad we know is a difference maker, no question about it.
If he only had shown flashes of potential I'd agree with you on this or if he was on the decline I would too. But he's not.
If he were to come here and add his TD's, his yards, and his first downs, on top of what this team already can do, plus he will have the double coverage on him not Moss, or Cooley. There is no way I would call it "overspending". |
At last, a voice of reason. I think you expressed in one post what I've been trying to say for about 10 posts. |
First, you can't determine if it's a good deal or overspending until you know what the price tag is. But when a player isn't even up for a trade, it's not rocket science to realize that to facilitate that trade would require compensation beyond market value, especially when said player is still under contract and any trade would cost the team trading him financially.
It's fun to fantasize about trades until you understand the economics of it. Jason Campbell is due a new contract in another year. If you gave a bunch of picks to Cincy and a huge contract to Johnson, regardless of his production, where will the cap space be to re-sign our own guys in the next year or two. There are numerous others factors and restraints not even being considered here.
Sorry GSPODS, BnGhog's post does not support your argument in the least. No one here has argued that Chad's contributions wouldn't be beneficial if he was here, but that wasn't the argument. You were trying to argue that because the Skins haven't tried to bring in Johnson, or any other "quality" receiver via a trade, is evidence they have no intentions of adding one from another source, which is pretty ignorant, based on all signs from the organization.
Any half-wit can look at the Skins receiver core and conclude it could use an addition. Every football guru in the country has looked at our roster and identified WR as an area of need. You yourself, said our receiving core wouldn't scare anyone. Yet when the coach says he will look to the draft for a receiver, you try to say it's a smokescreen. Good detective work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am arguing that bringing in one player, D.J. Hackett, does not support Cerrato's statement about pursuing a difference maker. Pursuing Chad Johnson, should he become available, would support Cerrato's statement. Difference makers are top-tier players and are going to be expensive. The freaking Raiders are paying DeAngelo Hall $10 Million a year by all accounts. Difference maker pay. Are you trying to convince me that waiting until the draft is genuinely looking for a difference maker? Because Cerrato doesn't strike me as the type to get off his dead ass and do any of the leg work himself on available or possible trades. And simply drafting players is not going to improve this team. In fact, the team will regress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 4 of 6 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
