Ocho Cinco In B&G

I have been trying to find more information that will clarify the NFL rules regarding tampering.

I do beleive in the case with Briggs last year, both sides were open to trade possibilities, in the case of CJ Bengals management is maintaining they have no intention of trading him. I could be wrong, but I believe we're dealing with a different set of circumstances.

I believe the essential difference was that last year Briggs was a free agent, that the Bears applied the "franchise tag" to.

So once free agency begins all parties can have discussions and try to work out essentially a sign and trade. After all, that's tone of the main purposes of applying the "franchise tag", to make sure if you're going to lose a free agent you get something in return.

There's probably more to it...but I'm tired

This from Cincinnati.com THE ENQUIRER

REPORT: REDSKINS WANT CHAD

The latest Chad Johnson trade rumor involves another team, the Washington Redskins.

Redskins' owner Daniel Snyder is interested in trading with the Bengals for the disgruntled Johnson, according to a report published Tuesday in the Washington Post.

The newspaper reported that Drew Rosenhaus, Johnson's agent, is working quietly with the Bengals and Redskins to broker a trade. Johnson, a member of five consecutive AFC Pro Bowl teams, was the fourth highest paid wide-out in the NFL in 2007, according to NFL Players Association figures.

Reached Tuesday by the Enquirer, Rosenhaus didn't deny the report.

"I understand the reports," Rosenhaus said. "But I have no comment, other than to say again that whatever conversations I am having with the Bengals regarding Chad will remain private."

An obstacle to any trade of Johnson would be the salary cap hit the Bengals would suffer.

The Bengals would lose $8.03 million on the salary cap-money the club would not have to spend on other players-if it traded or released Johnson before June 1, said Marc Levin, Director of the Salary Cap and Agent Administration Department for the NFL Players Association.

"And there is nothing the Bengals can do about it," Levin said in an e-mail sent by the union to the Enquirer.

A trade or contract termination done June or after gives NFL teams another year to absorb the salary cap implication, in this case, 2008 and 2009. The salary cap for 2008 is $116 million, up from $109 million in 2007.

The Bengals had no comment Tuesday on the Johnson situation, team public relations Jack Brennan said.

NFL tampering rules could come into play. The Bengals could file a complaint with the league if the Washington Post report did originate with sources inside the Redskins organization.

"Any public or private statement of interest in another club's employee is a violation," the rule states.

Johnson remains under contract with the Bengals through 2011, the result of an extension he signed with the club in April 2006.

Citing unnamed "league sources," the Post reported that Snyder, coaching candidates and Redskin Executive Vice President Vinny Cerrato discussed Johnson specifically. And Johnson, two more league sources told the Post, wants a hefty new contract from the Redskins.

Clubs can give a player's agent permission to talk to other teams about a possible trade.

"Yes it is permissible, but if a club does give permission to an agent it is recommended that the permission given to the agent be spelled out in a written document to avoid a dispute about it in the future, "Greg Aiello, NFL Senior Vice President of Public Relations, wrote to The Enquirer in an e-mail Tuesday.

If the Bengals trade Johnson, they would be forced to accelerate what remains of the almost $21 million in up-front money paid Johnson in the contract extensions from November 2003 and April 2006.

"Acceleration of signing bonus after a player is released or traded has always been part of this system," Aiello wrote. "The point is that all money paid to a player will be accounted for under the cap."

The Bengals signed Johnson to what amounts to a six-year contract in 2006. He has been paid almost $16 million by the Bengals in the past two seasons.

Since early January, Johnson has used national media, primarily radio shows, including those with tables on "Radio Row" at the Super Bowl earlier this month, to voice his displeasure with the Bengals. He said if he is the Bengals problem, he should be dealt. Johnson has not talked to local media since mid-October.

The Bengals have the ninth overall pick in the 2008 draft and the Redskins the 21st in the first round.

Rosenhaus negotiated the 2006 extension for Johnson.

NE went out and spent money on FA's last year. Yeah they came up one game short but I wouldn't be too upset with 18 wins.

Matty, I agree that the Patriots did go out and sign Thomas to some big money and trade for Moss. They may have signed some other guys but I don't think they were huge names.

Anyway, I think that is how a team should use free agency: if they are 90% there and they need that extra 10% then they should go out and buy it.

Does anyone thing that the Redskins are 90% there? Have we built a solid enough team foundation to warrant going and getting those last two pieces to the puzzle?

When I look at this team I see some aging stars, overachieving younger guys, and a few stars in the prime of their career. To me, the Skins focus should be on building that solid foundation for the future - not continuing to trade our future away to bring in some hotshot receiver who I can guarantee right now, will not produce after he has signed the monster contract.

I agree that we should be building through the draft (and that we don't need Briggs) but at a position like WR, I really feel this is a trade worth making. I've been struggling with this lately and I keep coming back to the cowboys getting TO and the lions drafting flop after flop at the WR position. The cowboys took a huge gamble on bringing TO to town and it has put their offense over the top. Just look at them without him over the last few games of this season, they were an average offense at best and with him they are 2nd best offense the NFL.

We're mediocore as is on the offensive side of the ball and I really feel if we could have CJ open up the vertical game and take double teams off of Santana it would open up things for Moss, ARE in the slot and cooley over the middle (and of course the run game).

Depending on what we have to give up, I think this is a risk worth taking. Even if we were to draft a WR, that's a huge risk when we could draft a dependable linemen. This would obviously be an expensive trade for us but at least we know what we're getting in return (which we didn't really with B. Lloyd) , which is a bonafide game changing consistent WR for the next 5 years.

That's my vote. HAIL.

I think the reason we are mediocre on offense has more to do with continuity and the player's comfort in a system.

I think everyone would agree that once Collins stepped in last year and our line started to gel - then suddenly our offense started moving up and down the field.

Going out and getting a Chad Johnson isn't suddenly the magic solution to all our systemic problems - especially when in my opinion, if we want to point to a weakness, I would point to our offensive line last year after the key injuries.

Great teams are built from the lines out - there is no point in having a dynamic receiver in here if our QB is on his back and our RBs are getting stuffed at the line.

Let me ask this question: Would you rather have Chad Johnson at $8 million per year, or find a way to bring in a couple of solid O-line guys and maybe a D-line guy?

As long as we bring in young free agents in their prime to play key positions on the D-Line like Antwaan Odom and then use the remaing draft picks on offensive lineman then the Chad Johnson trade would be ok in my book.

Bring him in. But how long before he yells at JC on the sidelines if he misses a deep ball or something like that.

The one thing I always loved Gibbs for was the moral behavior of his teams on and off the field. He was a real winner in that area above all.

That is a concern I have against Chad Johnson coming here as well. Jason Campbell is not at the level of Carson Palmer or Jon Kitna when CJ is not getting enough throws his way or the Skins start on a losing skid Johnson might become a disruption.

If Gibbs was still here I do not think that would be the case but no one knows how Jim Zorn will handle problem players.

Matty, I agree that the Patriots did go out and sign Thomas to some big money and trade for Moss. They may have signed some other guys but I don't think they were huge names.

Anyway, I think that is how a team should use free agency: if they are 90% there and they need that extra 10% then they should go out and buy it.

Does anyone thing that the Redskins are 90% there? Have we built a solid enough team foundation to warrant going and getting those last two pieces to the puzzle?

When I look at this team I see some aging stars, overachieving younger guys, and a few stars in the prime of their career. To me, the Skins focus should be on building that solid foundation for the future - not continuing to trade our future away to bring in some hotshot receiver who I can guarantee right now, will not produce after he has signed the monster contract.

I do think we are 90% there I think a D-Lineman & WR are our weak points on this team. We lost several games by a TD or less. TB, GB, DAL, NYG, PHI that's five games we lost by and TD or less if you look at the Giants they aren't that much better than us other than the D-Line & QB. I disagree I don't think it's all about money with Chad true he is 30 but he wants to win and he feels the Bengals don't accept him for who he is that's a passionate player that's an entertainer what is wrong with that?

Let's go ahead and face reality, WE ARE NOT GETTING CHAD JOHNSON! BENGALS WOULD LOOSE TOO MUCH AND WE WON'T GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!

Lose. The most-often misspelled word on the internet.

Matty, I agree that the Patriots did go out and sign Thomas to some big money and trade for Moss. They may have signed some other guys but I don't think they were huge names.

Anyway, I think that is how a team should use free agency: if they are 90% there and they need that extra 10% then they should go out and buy it.

Does anyone thing that the Redskins are 90% there? Have we built a solid enough team foundation to warrant going and getting those last two pieces to the puzzle?

When I look at this team I see some aging stars, overachieving younger guys, and a few stars in the prime of their career. To me, the Skins focus should be on building that solid foundation for the future - not continuing to trade our future away to bring in some hotshot receiver who I can guarantee right now, will not produce after he has signed the monster contract.We were 90% there in 2005, so we used that philosophy to try to get over the hump in 2006, and it ended up backfiring.

The point is this: there are many ways to successfully build a team and there is never an oppertune time for a bad move. The 2.0 Gibbs-era defense was built through free agency and supplimented in the draft--and that worked out pretty well, 2006 aside.