CJ vs. Adams/Anderson = Reggie Bush vs. Mario

[jivelikenice]

This is 100% NOT a fair comparison. Houston had their choise of Mario . Bush at THEIR OWN draft slot. That debate would be valid if it came down to Calvin Johnson v. Jamal Anderson at #6 but that's not tha case. We would have to trade up to get CJ so your comparison is invalid.

A more valid comparion if you want to use the Texans would be:

Would you trade Mario Williams PLUS this year's 1st rounder (#8)

for Reggie Bush

Considering Adrian Peterson might be on the board I'm guessing no.

Even if you wanted to use this I think most people didn't argue with the Texans taking Mario, but the fact that they didn't trade down to take Mario so the Texans just aren't an apples to apples comparison.

[redcayman]

While I woud be happy with either scenario. I just want to remind everyone that GW doesn't really play rookies till the midway point of the season. I think if your looking at instant impact you would have to look at CJ.

[BLEED-B&G]

I put this in the other thread. It may not be as bad as you think to give up next year's #1.

"Actually, some of us in here are saying we give away too many draft picks, but under Gibbs I, we didn't use the number 1 pick either and built 3 SB teams. The only years we had a #1 pick under Gibbs was 1981 (Grimm), 1983 (Green), 1991 (Bobby Wilson) and 1992 (Howard). So, it can be done again. As another person in here mentioned, that George Allen hated rookies. He didn't trust them. He not only gave away the 1st round picks, but usually through the first 3 to 4 rounds. In 1972, we didn't make our first pick until round 8, and in 1974 and 1978, round 6."

This is another apples to oranges comparison...

The Gibbs 1 era was another time, there was no salary cap and a coach could actually keep a team together from one season to the next....

There wasn't as much pressure on draft picks because Gibbs could bury a player on IR, roll with his numerous vets, and if that player eventually proved himself in practice or by way of injury then so be it....if not he was gone without much fanfare because no one really was focusing on him anyway....

Nowadays 1st round draft picks are expected to come in and make an impact....period.

It's easy to run a team without the draft in 1982, you aren't losing your star players every 3-5 years....however in Gibbs II the philosophy has to change in order to be succesfull.

That treand is obvious with the successes of todays NFL, Colts, Pats, Bears all built through the draft

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

the texans made the right call by taking williams over bush. bush is tiny, cant carry a load, and is pretty much a gimmick player at best. hes extremely overrated becuase he sells a lot of t-shirts, and hes pretty much a second rate brian westbrook. either way, id rather have a huge DE like williams than bush, and the texans made the right move. besides, with their o-line, bush would be dead by now.

the reason teams stay competitive is because of their defenses. look at the jaguars, who drafted two beast DTs, a pro bowl CB, and other good defensive players, and once those were solidified, then they started drafting the skill position guys (jones/williams/jones-drew). building your line is the most important part of football. thats why the jets spent 2 1st round picks on o-line, and it will most likely pay dividends to the extreme.

[MoeRedskins]

I believe that in the earlier first round, the top ten specifically, you always take the best player available. Exceptions occur here and there, but when flat out talent is available, you can't pass it up.

[MoeRedskins]

This is another apples to oranges comparison...

The Gibbs 1 era was another time, there was no salary cap and a coach could actually keep a team together from one season to the next....

There wasn't as much pressure on draft picks because Gibbs could bury a player on IR, roll with his numerous vets, and if that player eventually proved himself in practice or by way of injury then so be it....if not he was gone without much fanfare because no one really was focusing on him anyway....

Nowadays 1st round draft picks are expected to come in and make an impact....period.

It's easy to run a team without the draft in 1982, you aren't losing your star players every 3-5 years....however in Gibbs II the philosophy has to change in order to be succesfull.

That treand is obvious with the successes of todays NFL, Colts, Pats, Bears all built through the draft

Also, vets are way more expensive now then back then. If you plan on trading away your first round pick for a proven vetern, then you are going to pay them a high price. That is the state of the NFL right now. You need rookies and young guys to keep your salary cap in order.

[BLEED-B&G]

If this is true, then why are so many teams transforming into a 2 running back offense? Maybe Brees was a better quarterback and led his team to the NFC Championship game because of Reggie Bush's presence making their offense unpredictable. Also, their defense was not the best, but was good enough to get them as far as they did because their offense was so effective, and gave the defense more rest.

The Colts won the Super Bowl this year, and their run defense entering the playoffs was almost as bad as ours. Sometimes, your defense gets better because of a better offense alone. Flame away, but I think getting CJ, no matter how, will make the offense good enough to take pressure off the defense and make them more effective in the process.

That is a given, Brees was undoubtedly a better quarterback because Bush was on the field. However Bush was not the only RB on the field Brees was the only quarterback on the field. The saints could have gotten as far without Bush but they couldn't have gotten as far without Brees if, Aaron Brooks is still the QB in NO we are not having this conversation, you plug and RB that can catch in for Bush and the Saints are just as good. And teams are switching to two back systems because that's what works in the game today, it gives you more options and increases the durability of your backs.

The Colts defense was horrible during regular season, they did however step their game up and play like it was 2005 once the playoffs started had they not they would not be holding the trophy right now.

This is not rocket science, you can not win it all with a 1-Dimensional team. The Eagles have proved it every year...You need to have the run AND the pass. Everyone knows.....stop the pass and you beat the eagles.

The same can be said for Offense and Defense. You cannot have one without the other. There are going to be days where the O gets shut down no matter how good it is, if you have no D to stand on it's over.

[[[ghost]]]

I think this argument would work well, in that like the Saints and Texans, the highlight reel player was playing a position that we had already filled. CJ plays WR, and we have plenty of those. Bush played RB, and the Texans had Domonick Davis, while the Saints had McAllister.

The only difference is, Bush was picked because there was no doubt he would be able to incorporate his athletic ability into the NFL. What that means is, his outstanding agility and speed would come of some use to SOME position. There was NO guarantee that he would do well at RB or WR. Whereas CJ is not that type of player. If CJ fails to make it at the WR position, he's a bust, because thats all he can do. Bush essentially was a flanker. You could use him at any point, and it was his athletic ability that made him successful.

The RB position and WR are vastly different, which is where the distinction between Bush and Johnson is.

[JoshiePoo85]

I think there is a little bit of contradicting going on with the people who are terribly against Calvin Johnson. The general argument is that we would be giving up on our future and trying to make an instant splash. I totally understand and respect the argument, but my idea is that unless we think a DE will win us a superbowl this year, we are sacrificing the future by not taking CJ. There are no DL players that are once in a decade players in this year's draft (as far as anyone knows). CJ could be a great Redskin for a VERY long time. Any DL we draft would have a hard time starting this upcoming season because we have coaches that always choose the veterans first. CJ is the only player polished enough to start immediately. My point is, if we take CJ this year, then we have next year to look for lineman via FA or the draft. If we take a DL this year, we don't know how good he will be or if he will last or if he will even start and next year there will most likely be no CJ. :2cents:

[Siven]

I think there is a little bit of contradicting going on with the people who are terribly against Calvin Johnson. The general argument is that we would be giving up on our future and trying to make an instant splash. I totally understand and respect the argument, but my idea is that unless we think a DE will win us a superbowl this year, we are sacrificing the future by not taking CJ. There are no DL players that are once in a decade players in this year's draft (as far as anyone knows). CJ could be a great Redskin for a VERY long time. Any DL we draft would have a hard time starting this upcoming season because we have coaches that always choose the veterans first. CJ is the only player polished enough to start immediately. My point is, if we take CJ this year, then we have next year to look for lineman via FA or the draft. If we take a DL this year, we don't know how good he will be or if he will last or if he will even start and next year there will most likely be no CJ. :2cents:

no, you're wrong. we are sacrificing the future by giving up 4 potential starters for one guy. The 99 Saints buried themselves by giving up all those picks for Ricky Williams. Granted it was a lot more picks, this is a little bit crazy, 4 starters, 2 would be first round talent, and we will need them cause the oline is old, corner is old, we have no real strong safety, we need even more dline, and linebacker is old. Build a team based on youth and you will enjoy the playoffs every year.

[SkinsManNJ]

The difference is we don't have a choice of CJ or Anderson/Adams; the Redskins aren't picking at #1. As the Houston Texas didn't even choose Bush given the choice, I doubt they would have traded draft picks to move up into a position to do so.

The 31st ranked defense in the league with the 32nd ranked pass rush (which isn't affected significantly -- if at all -- by FA acquisitions of Fletcher and Smoot) isn't going to improve until the 2nd Day of the Draft if we select CJ. I understand the draw of him as a player, as he is a truly special talent, but unless you plan on lining him up at Defensive End I just don't see how he pushes us towards a perennial champion. We could be the #1 offense in the league next year and still lose 9 games with our pass rush (or lack thereof).

Could you please show me 1 team who had a #1 offense have 9 losses. A #1 offense can help a defense. i. e. Indy. Their offense cleary helped that pourus defense. When was the last time you seen a rook DL make such a huge impact that it took the defense from worst to first or even middle pack. Point is we have 1 pick on day 1 and who ever we get has to be an immediate impact. Ill put my money on CJ being a bigger impact than a DL. If we go DL he might not start if he does either way our DL is still old. Noway around that. But for me either way we go in the draft I'm goona be satisfied with as long as we get don't trade away our #6. I just don't see any of these DL as being worth all that money or going to make our DL that much better. Non of them are remotely close being a Julius Peppers.

[Skin Patrol]

I think there is a little bit of contradicting going on with the people who are terribly against Calvin Johnson. The general argument is that we would be giving up on our future and trying to make an instant splash. I totally understand and respect the argument, but my idea is that unless we think a DE will win us a superbowl this year, we are sacrificing the future by not taking CJ. There are no DL players that are once in a decade players in this year's draft (as far as anyone knows). CJ could be a great Redskin for a VERY long time.

I'm not married to the argument that "CJ is a win-now move that ignores future needs" though I think it has merit.

You're implying that Calvin Johnson will win us a Superbowl next year (hence why "unless we think a DE will win us a superbowl...") and I don't think that's the case. I think most of us agree that we're more than a year away from a SB and CJ isn't the missing piece; our defense was bad enough in '06 that whatever CJ does on offense, 13 touchdowns and 1500 yards, we still could easily lose 9 games.

Any DL we draft would have a hard time starting this upcoming season because we have coaches that always choose the veterans first.

I just don't know how born out by the facts that is. Rocky McIntosh is the only person that comes to mind, yet he was a 2nd round pick and not the 6th guy in the draft. Sean Taylor and Carlos Rogers (both comparable 1st rounders) started in their first seasons. Even 6th round pick Kedric Golston started games for the Redskins in '06, and 5th round pick Anthony Montgomery got some time. In other words, I think a #6 pick (or any 1st round DE for instance) could see significant time.

CJ is the only player polished enough to start immediately. My point is, if we take CJ this year, then we have next year to look for lineman via FA or the draft. If we take a DL this year, we don't know how good he will be or if he will last or if he will even start and next year there will most likely be no CJ. :2cents:

Given the age of our line (Big Joe, Daniels, and Griffin are all at or around 30 years old) I don't think we have time to wait until next year. As you said, a rookie takes a year to really get in their groove, meaning if we wait until '08 to draft a quality D-Linemen, than we will have to wait until '09 for them to be productive.

Also, remember that drafting CJ involves attendent costs as well. We would have to trade either personnel or '08 picks (which would prevent us from upgrading the Line) or both to get him. That would make sense if we didn't already have a fairly decent receiving unit -- and not such a bad offense either; we finished last season ranked 14th while installing a new offensive scheme and changing QBs -- but I believe with the regression of the defense in '06, it's necessary to focus our draft on that side of the ball, if only to stop the bleeding.

[BAFGA]

I agree to a point, but I am in the CJ or DL at #6. I don't want to trade up to get him. If he isn't there, then so be it.

Agreed. We need to keep the draft picks intact for next season and rebuild this team from the ground up.

[BLEED-B&G]

Could you please show me 1 team who had a #1 offense have 9 losses. A #1 offense can help a defense. i. e. Indy. Their offense cleary helped that pourus defense. When was the last time you seen a rook DL make such a huge impact that it took the defense from worst to first or even middle pack. Point is we have 1 pick on day 1 and who ever we get has to be an immediate impact. Ill put my money on CJ being a bigger impact than a DL. If we go DL he might not start if he does either way our DL is still old. Noway around that. But for me either way we go in the draft I'm goona be satisfied with as long as we get don't trade away our #6. I just don't see any of these DL as being worth all that money or going to make our DL that much better. Non of them are remotely close being a Julius Peppers.

This statement makes more sense to me than any of the other...GO CJ posts.

You are right...there isn't a single DL prospect that is going to have the impact that CJ could have on the offense. I give up to you, you are right on that. We need several picks on the defensive side of the ball to get where we need to be.

The only problem is to get CJ we are going to have to give up some of those possible picks next year, and that to me is a bad move.

So based on your point....if we can get CJ at 6 I say go for it, if not trade down and hopefully get two impact players on defense (at least). I'm hoping for a pick in teens and a 2nd rounder. (possible trade with Carolina)

However, I would offer my best case scenario would be a trade with Miami, move to 8, still get one of the top DL prospects and take thier #2. This works only if Quinn is available at 6. (I know this was not the point of the thread but once I started I could not stop).

[#21Taylor4Ever]

If our Skins get Johnson, 10 years from now(and 5 SB wins...lol) we will all be talking about how smart it was to draft CJ over a DE.

I know some of you guys dont buy it, but we have some young DEs in the fold right now, BUT we have no WRs that can impact a game the way Johnson will. What would you rather do, draft Johnson and know you have the best player in the draft, or take a DE and hope one of our WRs emerge as the clear cut #2?

I say draft Johnson.

[Skin Patrol]

Could you please show me 1 team who had a #1 offense have 9 losses. A #1 offense can help a defense. i. e. Indy. Their offense cleary helped that pourus defense. When was the last time you seen a rook DL make such a huge impact that it took the defense from worst to first or even middle pack. Point is we have 1 pick on day 1 and who ever we get has to be an immediate impact. Ill put my money on CJ being a bigger impact than a DL. If we go DL he might not start if he does either way our DL is still old. Noway around that. But for me either way we go in the draft I'm goona be satisfied with as long as we get don't trade away our #6. I just don't see any of these DL as being worth all that money or going to make our DL that much better. Non of them are remotely close being a Julius Peppers.

Actually there's a great example. In 2004 Kansas City had the #1 offense in the league. Their record? 7-9. To make the analogy stranger, they finished with the 31st ranked defense, the same as the Redskins in '06. Stranger still, they had the same offensive coordinator as us.

This would seem to be the counterexample to your whole "offense helps defense" theory. At a minimum it means your argument isn't always right.

Regarding "impact", there's no question that CJ is a better player than any of the defensive guys available, but impact is relative. A great Wide Receiver who is playing behind Santana Moss won't be as productive as a DE who starts. More importantly, even if CJ makes us the #1 offense in the league, we'd still only be 13 spots better than we were on '06. A DE only has to make us the 17th ranked D in the league to match that relative improvement.

[Dick Edds]

there is no guarantee that there will be DE's/DT's as talented and versatile a group as their is in this year's draft, the next year and so on. It's all a gamble.

If CJ falls to us at #6 we have to take him, but we should not trade up and give away the future to make this happen. We have already mortgaged our future on the players we have now. If anything, we have to go one year without investing more than is absolutely neccessary in our offense. We have legitmate threats at every position and, you cannot say the same on defense. There is not one defensive player that scares any opposing offense except for Taylor, and if he is the only threat cvhances are you already got a first down. Sure we could get lucky and have a better year defensivley with what we have, which I do think is possible, but competition brings out the best in people and perosnally this would be a bigger risk, to not adress the defense in some way, to get a luxury player, a freak of nature who may be stifled in this run and shoot, screen and zip pass oriented offense.

Defense is the only logical choice unless a miracle happens and any of the top 5 rated players fall to us #6, then we would get a good deal financially and could work out another deal with someone else. CJ is not an automatic NFL starter, at least for a team with a 700 page playbook that uses all kinds of screens and misdirection. CJ is the type of guy you send on a go route, our offesne isn't setup to improvise like that, it is setup to have different options, and regardless of CJ's talent, just as some say that Adams wouldn't fit in our defense, CJ's potential would not be maixmized in our offense.

[pjfootballer]

This is another apples to oranges comparison...

The Gibbs 1 era was another time, there was no salary cap and a coach could actually keep a team together from one season to the next....

There wasn't as much pressure on draft picks because Gibbs could bury a player on IR, roll with his numerous vets, and if that player eventually proved himself in practice or by way of injury then so be it....if not he was gone without much fanfare because no one really was focusing on him anyway....

Nowadays 1st round draft picks are expected to come in and make an impact....period.

It's easy to run a team without the draft in 1982, you aren't losing your star players every 3-5 years....however in Gibbs II the philosophy has to change in order to be succesfull.

That treand is obvious with the successes of todays NFL, Colts, Pats, Bears all built through the draft

You're absolutely right. I was just letting everyone know that the history of the team and Gibbs is to not put a high value on the #1 pick. The argument could be made that if we move up to get CJ, then we stiff ourselves out of a #1 pick. So instead of having two #1 picks on the roster, we only have 1. I'm not an advocte of getting CJ. Look at the bottom of my sig. I'm just saying it might not be the big disaster that everyone says, if CJ puts up 1300 yards and 10 tds or if the 08 draft is weak.

[gorebd82]

My OP is being viewed wrong by a lot of people. In the first paragraph, I recognize that we would have to trade up to get CJ. But you have to look at it from the perspective of would it be worth it. Would I trade next year's first round pick to land a player like Bush. Yes. We seemed to think trading a future first rounder was worth moving up to get JC.

For the apples vs. oranges arguement, I agree. But when are you ever going to have an example that is the exact same circumstance? I'm saying that our position as far as evaluating if we would benefit more from CJ or a DL is a somewhat a combination of the situations of the Texans and Saints. For the conservative fans on here, I'm saying that the Texans made the prudent move and as a result, got a solid player with potential, but missed out on an elite playmaker. The results of the Saints season is why I advocate for drafting CJ. Our team situation is similar to theirs last year, but our team is actually starting in a better position because as crappy as our defense was, we today still have better personnel than they do. And we have more offensive talent than they had at this point last year.

And for the arguement that Brees was the reason for success, I absolutely agree. As was the performance of Deuce and Colston. But Bush changed the way defenses played and that opened opportunities. I know everyone has seem film break down of Bush going in motion or lining up in the slot and the entire defensive play call has to adjust. A player that can command attention can create opportunity for teammates. Who are you going to give safety help on? Moss or CJ? Play a deep cover two to account for that and Cooley will be open on the seam or Portis will have open running lanes. Players like CJ and Bush make defenses play honest. You can't afford to have as many complex blitzes and coverages because those usually require someone to cheat. If you cheat against that lineup, you'll get burned every time. People don't have enough athletes to match up. Plus don't forget that Bush did have a good season and almost had 100 receptions.

[Skin Patrol]

Could you please show me 1 team who had a #1 offense have 9 losses.

I'm getting carried away.

San Diego Chargers 1985 were the #1 offense but had 8 losses.

1990 Houston Oilers had 7 losses.

1988 Cardinals were #2 with 9 losses

1981 Lions were #2 with 8 losses

1983 Packers were #1 with 8 losses

2002 Vikings were #1 with 10 losses

1973 Eagles were #3 with 8 losses

1997 Seahawks were #3 with 8 losses

Last years Rams were #4 with 8 losses

Even the 1988 Redskins, with the 6th ranked offense, finished with 9 losses

Food for thought.

[SkinsManNJ]

no, you're wrong. we are sacrificing the future by giving up 4 potential starters for one guy. The 99 Saints buried themselves by giving up all those picks for Ricky Williams. Granted it was a lot more picks, this is a little bit crazy, 4 starters, 2 would be first round talent, and we will need them cause the oline is old, corner is old, we have no real strong safety, we need even more dline, and linebacker is old. Build a team based on youth and you will enjoy the playoffs every year.

I take it that you feel we are going to give up 3 players and next years pick or next years 1st picks. Highly doubt that. We only have one old corner. Safety should be fine with Prielou Fox and Doughty. We really wouldn't be giving our whole future for CJ. You can't say we will be giving up 4 players when we don't even know what will give up. I'm sure we will address DL and OL in this draft. CJ is less risky then a DL based on the fact none of the DL really stand out anyway.

[SnyderMustGo]

This Adams/Anderson thing is silly.

Anderson is no where near Adams on the draft board.

Adams is the clear #1 lineman.

Anderson is not the clear #2 lineman. And there is a drop-off after Adams.

[Siven]

This Adams/Anderson thing is silly.

Anderson is no where near Adams on the draft board.

Adams is the clear #1 lineman.

Anderson is not the clear #2 lineman. And there is a drop-off after Adams.

I don't see how. I've watched tape on Anderson. Against better talent, and there is a big level of talent difference between the SEC and ACC, Anderson was a monster. Ok.... Gaines Adams has some nice moves and a fast 40, well, he's slow in the short shuttle and drills that do matter. He is small, and gets trucked in the run game time and time again. The truck stick in madden could be called the "Own Gaines Adam in the run cause hes too small" stick once he hits the league. Jamaal Anderson is ferocious, he has a mean bull rush and he does have finesse moves, on top of that, after only 2 years of playing DE, he is only going to get better.

[Siven]

I take it that you feel we are going to give up 3 players and next years pick or next years 1st picks. Highly doubt that. We only have one old corner. Safety should be fine with Prielou Fox and Doughty. We really wouldn't be giving our whole future for CJ. You can't say we will be giving up 4 players when we don't even know what will give up. I'm sure we will address DL and OL in this draft. CJ is less risky then a DL based on the fact none of the DL really stand out anyway.

Browns or detroit, We'd probably give up our 1st this year, 1st 2nd AT LEAST, and then maybe 3rd next year. 3 starters, and good talent can be found in the 2nd and third. CJ is way less risky then a DL, but in an age where more and more players come to the NFL ready to play their first year, it is hard to justify 3 contributors vs one, and a WR at that, who is lucky to touch the ball 100 times a season.

[SkinsManNJ]

Browns or detroit, We'd probably give up our 1st this year, 1st 2nd AT LEAST, and then maybe 3rd next year. 3 starters, and good talent can be found in the 2nd and third. CJ is way less risky then a DL, but in an age where more and more players come to the NFL ready to play their first year, it is hard to justify 3 contributors vs one, and a WR at that, who is lucky to touch the ball 100 times a season.

I really don't think we would even give up that much not even close. If we do then we really have the dumbest FO in the league. I also don't believe Detroit or Cleveland would ask for that much. Even they know that's to steep a asking price. If they are asking that then we really are the only team who is talking to them because everyone else would have definately dropped out by now. Unless you know something the rest of us don't. I think we would give up #6 Springs and maybe later round pick from next year.