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

Dirtbag359

Johnson suitors lining up

Chad Johnson | Bengals | Interested: Redskins? Raiders? Eagles? Cowboys?
The Redskins' trade offer for Johnson (this year's first-round pick and a conditional third-rounder in 2009) could open the floodgates for more to come, writes James Walker.

The Bengals have been steadfast in saying they won't trade the disgruntled wide receiver, but expect more teams to follow Washington's lead and tempt Cincinnati to pull the trigger.
ESPN's Chris Mortensen reported that the Eagles and Cowboys have made brief inquires into Johnson's availability. Perhaps they will be the next in line to put together offers comparable or better than the one made by their division rival.

This seems very sketchy to me. No team wants CJ more then the Skins' and I doubt anyteam is willing to ante up as much as the Redskins are to get CJ. The Cowboys could do it, but as I pointed out before, Mike Brown turned down 3 first round picks, 1 second, 1 third, and other picks all so he could draft Akili Smith. The guys an idiot.

Rejecting Chad trade really no surprise | Chick Ludwig At Large

__________________
"Hello God it's me again, Dr. Frasier Crane."
- Frasier Crane

SC Skins Fan

Here, though, you mistake acquiring a 'big name' with acquiring a 'big talent'. The question posed by OTM was not what big splashes have the Redskins made in FA/Trades since 2000, those are well documented, but rather "what perennial Pro Bowler, Top Five at his position players have the acquired. In you're answer you are all over the board.

LaVar Arrington was a draft pick not a FA pick/trade so right there he does not fit the model (in fact, if you want to call him a failed move - which I might question - then it actually goes against your argument and suggests a proven player is better than the unknown quantity you get with even a top five draft pick). Nonetheless, until he got into the Gibbs/Williams doghouse he was an explosive player, fan favorite, and made multiple Pro Bowl appearances.

Smith, Carrier, George, and Sanders were all part of the 2000 binge and clearly not front line players any longer. Some had been Pro Bowl talent, but all were aging players - and despite the 'ageism' leveled against Johnson he clearly does not fit this mold.

Coles was a solid player, but clearly not at the level of Johnson. He did have a very good first year with the Skins and made a Pro Bowl appearance before this got ugly. We then traded him back to NYJ for Santana Moss and I don't know why Moss gets tossed in here with the others, I think he has been pretty successful in Washington quite frankly.

Chad Morton was a kick returner who the Skins overpaid for, but again you miss the point that OTM was making saying that the Skins have not acquired any players of Johnson's ilk through trade apart from Portis. That certainly includes Brandon Lloyd who many had reservations about even before he was brought in here ... to compare Johnson to Lloyd in terms of talent stretches the limits of credulity. Clearly you would agree, but that was precisely the point OTM (and others) have made. The people you reference (save Moss and Arrington who don't fit the model) were failures of talent evaluation. The fact that trades were involved was not the reason they were failures. They were failures because they were not elite NFL talents. Clearly Johnson does not fit that description.

And I'm not saying the Redskins NEED Chad Johnson. There are arguments against such a move (including the fact that the Bengals don't seem interested). At times you make reference to some of these reasons. But then at other times you get off on illogical tangents that confuse the issue rather than adding clarity.

__________________
"You don't know when it's good or bad. You really don't know. You guys don't look at the films. You don't know what happened. You really don't know. You may think you know, but you don't know. And you never will." ~ Jim Mora