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

[Hiro]

To sum it up, when you have a chance at a playmaker like Bush or CJ, you can't pass it up for a good defender. I don't want the Skins to look back at the end of the year and talk about how the FO blew a chance to get CJ like Houston blew their chance. If Bush could take the Saints from the second worst record in football to the NFC Championship Game, CJ has the potential to take an underperforming, but talented Skins team to the Bowl.

I'm in the same boat as you bro, I felt Houstan made the right choice by picking up Mario Williams. I really feel that he's going to be the next great defensive end, up there with Julius Peppers and Dwight Freeney. However, I gotta disagree with your assessment about how badly we need a playmaker like Calvin Johnson. Sure he wouldn't hurt our situation, but we have great playmakers in Portis, Betts, Moss, Cooley, and Randel El. The key to our offense's success next season doesn't lie on us getting CJ, but it's Jason Campbell's progession. If he can make strides this off season, then we're going to see the full potential of our WR corps and our running game.

As it's been said before, a great defense will almost always beat a great offense (See the Bears D vs the Saints O). Look at the Rams! They have one of the most potent offenses in the league, but why do they usually come up short? A crappy defense! Our defense is only a year or so removed from being a top defense, one that helped carry us to a playoff berth in 2005. All we need to do is inject some youth into that defensive line, and find a consistent starter at strong safety, and we should see a solid team that can contend for a championship.

Finally, I gotta disagree with your statment of Reggie Bush being the reason New Orleans went to the NFC championship, that was all Drew Brees and Sean Payton. Bush had an important role yes, but I actually believe they could've still gone far without Reggie Bush. I mean, could you imagine how they would've done had they kept Aaron Brooks at QB, or made a play for Daunte Culpepper? I honestly doubt they would've progessed as much, even with Reggie Bush.

[SkinsFanAnt]

Okoye will SMOKE Mario in 2-5 years.

[Veretax]

I think that is the Redskins thinking. If they're going to pick that early, they want the can't miss prospect, versus, the "Maybe" prospect.

The question is what do we give up. I think the team to worry about is Atlanta. Pick eight. Have another first, and two second round picks.

Yeah I'd agree with that, I'd rather have the best prospect for long term, figuring its going to take 3 years to get the Defense where it should be.

Bush and CJ aren't equivalent.

Bush is far more of a game breaker. He can rush the ball, he can catch it out of the backfield, he can line up in the slot, and he can return punts.

CJ just plays receiver.

That being said, I think that CJ will be far more valuable than Adams/Anderson or even Mario Williams.

Your right they aren't Bush was used in more capacities then CJ likely would be and but Bush also had to split time with Mcalister at RB. While CJ might be in a similar situation with Lloyd, I think CJ beats him out by seasons end.

You also have to remember that CJ, being a WR, will only touch the ball around 10 times a game on his BEST games. A 100 catch season is phenomenal. Meanwhile, Bush will get 20+ touches a game, and see over 300 touches a season. Thats 3 times the chances a good WR will have to make plays happen.

You are so wrong there. This is not just about how many times he touches. Its about the attention he draws on the field. Thats attention not paid to Moss, Cooley, our Rbs, or one of our other WRs ARE, Lloyd or Espy for example.

Great players make the players around them greater, and I think CJ does that by being an attention grabber. that makes Santana worth WAY more then what we are paying him because now he won't draw the double coverage as much.

For all those saying CJ will only touch the 10 times a game if lucky and a 100 times a season if lucky. Its not just about him touching the ball, its about him getting the ball and opening the field for Santana the Great Ohhhh! So he would be able to make Saunders offense the best its ever been under him. Youthful guys with his plays, just imagine my fellow Skins fans. Our defense will be mid pack if not better I believe if we get CJ our offense by wk 6 will be beautiful to watch. Think about it. We demoralize the oppsing D and our D feeds off that and we will have a team to rekon with.

Amen to that, And because of that attention, it would take some pressure of Campbell because he now has another socket to slide that ball into.

[Skin Patrol]

Some show me a #1 offense who ever lost 9 games. Even with a bad defense. Offense helps defense more than defense helps offense. So CJ would better serve us than Anderson Adams or Branch. They all could help out fine but they wouldn't even make our defense that much better. Remember we only have 1 first day pick. They would help but they won't be the one to get our DL over the hump. At least CJ gives the DL a chance at gettin more rest for the old men, so they can keep the motor going a little longer

I understand the reasoning behind this argument, however it is not supported by evidence. I can cite many instances of very good offenses with very bad defenses. I already showed you a #1 offense that lost 9 games, as recently as 2 years ago.

[D-Day]

Does anyone know Al Davis's email, I really want to start begging him to take CJ. It is not like I don't want CJ but not at a cost of our draft next year. We need help in the Trenches and we will lose two - 4 potential future starters in the Trenches if we trade up for CJ. If he does fall to two Tampa has more to offer anyways.

[Siven]

Does anyone know Al Davis's email, I really want to start begging him to take CJ. It is not like I don't want CJ but not at a cost of our draft next year. We need help in the Trenches and we will lose two - 4 potential future starters in the Trenches if we trade up for CJ. If he does fall to two Tampa has more to offer anyways.

exactly, especially if say we traded down and got a 2nd and 3rd in addition to our 1st. That is 3 starters this year, or at least 2 starters and a role player, and then 2 more starters and a role player. Then if the role players develop into serviceable/solid contributors ala starting, then that is 6 positions.

6 picks

get DE DT S CB LB Offensive line.

Huge injection of youth

and if we traded down some next year, and got an extra 2nd or w.e

I'd rather have a team that is solid-pretty good at almost every position than one that is Superstar at a couple and shmuck at others.

[Skin Patrol]

Pretty good odds for a top offense. Im assuming you looked at all the teams from 1973 on who have had offenses in the top 4 in the NFL. That means out of 132 teams over that period, only 9 have failed to win more than 9 games. Pretty good.

Though on the record, I dont want to draft CJ, I want to draft a DE. Those few teams who were so good on offense yet still didnt win were not like that because they had a bad defense, it was because they had a horrendous defense. Our defense last year fit that bill. No matter which way you cut it, least turnovers in NFL history, least sacks in Redskins history, ranked at the bottom of the NFL means you HAVE to address the defense in the offseason.

Peregrine,

What you have to understand is that the vast majority of #1-4 offenses didn't have the #31st ranked defense. This isn't because "Offense helps defense" but rather just because it's statistically unlikely for a team to have the #1 offense and the #31st-32nd defense. This is for a number of reasons, though I'll mention one. Teams that draft, scout, and coach well enough create a top offense in the league typically won't produce really bad defensive products. If you want to measure the claim I was trying to make (that it wouldn't matter how good our offense is; if the Redskins don't improve their pass rush they won't win many games) than you need to compare teams with good offenses and bad defenses. One of the best examples of that were the 2004 Kansas City Chiefs; they lost 9 games. There aren't many counterexamples, though the Bills of the early 90s were the only example I could track down. Let me say, having quickly reviewed the Defensive/Offensive historical records for all the teams, having a very bad defense is a pretty good indicator for failure.

[Skin Patrol]

Hey Skins Patrol. Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't know it was even that recent or that it was the Chiefs. Wow good research. But sad to say I still feel CJ could help us overall more then any of DL in the draft. The only problem with KC was they didn't have any impact WR like we do now and if CJ was in the mix Wow. But if we do go DL I will perfectly fine with that. Very good example though thank you.

If KC doesn't work you could insert the 2002 Minnesota Vikings instead. They had the #1 offense in the league but finished 6-10. I would consider Randy Moss an "impact WR".

Let's make this analogy better -- though the Vikings had the 26th ranked Defense that year, they were 29th in Sacks and 31st in Opposing QB Rating, both indicators of a failed pass rush. The Redskins finished 32nd and 32nd in those same categories in '06 and have done little in the offseason to change that (Fletcher and Smoot are not pass rushers).

Just food for thought.

[SkinsManNJ]

I understand the reasoning behind this argument, however it is not supported by evidence. I can cite many instances of very good offenses with very bad defenses. I already showed you a #1 offense that lost 9 games, as recently as 2 years ago.

Yes you did show me examples earlier but your good rersearch also says that its favorable to the offense. 9 out of 132 had 9 loss seasons. The odds are in the favor of a #1 offense also. So your research in a way supports both arguments.

[Skin Patrol]

Yes you did show me examples earlier but your good rersearch also says that its favorable to the offense. 9 out of 132 had 9 loss seasons. The odds are in the favor of a #1 offense also. So your research in a way supports both arguments.

I don't know what the 132 number is from, but I don't think it's fair to say "#1 offenses succeed, 123 out of 132 times, therefore CJ will help us" since #1 offenses EDIT: WITH HORRIBLE DEFENSES hardly ever succeed. All things equal, having the #1 offense helps you, but all things aren't equal.

[gorebd82]

You are so wrong there. This is not just about how many times he touches. Its about the attention he draws on the field. Thats attention not paid to Moss, Cooley, our Rbs, or one of our other WRs ARE, Lloyd or Espy for example.

Great players make the players around them greater, and I think CJ does that by being an attention grabber. that makes Santana worth WAY more then what we are paying him because now he won't draw the double coverage as much.

This is the point of my OP. People keep saying that CJ is not the difference maker that Bush is. I am saying that you have to account for them at all times and adjust your defense because you simply don't have one athlete that can match them.

With the Saints, Brees made a huge difference, but Bush always keeps a defensive coordinator on their toes. When Brees was in San Diego with LT and a much better defense, they missed the playoffs. In New Orleans, he had multiple weapons and Bush made all of those weapons into bigger threats. CJ's presence alone will make Cooley, Portis, and Moss into better producers. That's the same reason we signed ARE. His versatility keeps defenses honest. Combine all of those and a defense never knows what is coming at them.

And for the guy that suggested we trade back and draft a WR like Jarrett or Ginn, I gotta disagree. I'm a big CJ advocate, not WR advocate. I don't think we just need a WR, we just can't afford to overlook an opportunity to get CJ. If we were talking about a chance of getting Bush, I would tell Betts to kick rocks. But since CJ plays WR, I'm telling Lloyd to kick rocks. I'm focused on CJ as a playmaker, not his position. It just happens to be that our WR position is unsettled with overpaid, unreliable players.

[SkinsManNJ]

Does everybody honestly expect our defense to be anywhere near as bad as it was last year? If our defense was this bad last year and we didn't have the injuries we had and the coaches weren't being childish, then I would be in the same boat as many of you all on the DL boat. But I just don't see our D being anywhere near as bad as last season. So I'm in the boat of I'm happy with any pick we make but I would be far from upset if we get CJ before DL

[Flycoach]

Last year, I thought the Texans did the wise thing by trying to build their defense with a cornerstone DE. I'm a big fan of defense. As good as Bush was, I felt HOU already had a RB (prior to learning about Dominick's injury) and some other offensive talent, but the defense needed a dominant force to put pressure on Peyton and Leftwich.

A year later and people are still laughing at me for saying that. I don't think that anyone would argue that the Texans blew it by not going for Bush. Now I think the Skins are in a similar situation. I know it's slightly different because we have to make the decision to move up or stand pat, but essentially, the choice is how important is CJ versus a DL.

No DL is as talented a prospect as Mario was last year. CJ is as talented as Bush and really has less question marks. People questioned how strong Bush was and his durability. CJ is nearly as fast as Bush (Combine time) and way bigger.

For anyone that says we are set at receiver cannot truly argue that we have a better situation than the Texans did at that time. Dominick was Rookie of the Year, had posted consecutive 1000 yard seasons, was their most consistent offensive threat, and had just signed a contract extension. On the other side of the coin, the Saints were set at RB as well and we see how Bush's presence opened up their offense. The logical pick for their situation would have been AJ Hawk (who was also considered a better defensive prospect than any of this year's DL) The Saints going into last season looked a lot less talented than the Skins and they ended up going to the NFC Championship Game with a less talented defense than what we currently have.

To sum it up, when you have a chance at a playmaker like Bush or CJ, you can't pass it up for a good defender. I don't want the Skins to look back at the end of the year and talk about how the FO blew a chance to get CJ like Houston blew their chance. If Bush could take the Saints from the second worst record in football to the NFC Championship Game, CJ has the potential to take an underperforming, but talented Skins team to the Bowl.

Well said!

[Flycoach]

This is the point of my OP. People keep saying that CJ is not the difference maker that Bush is. I am saying that you have to account for them at all times and adjust your defense because you simply don't have one athlete that can match them.

With the Saints, Brees made a huge difference, but Bush always keeps a defensive coordinator on their toes. When Brees was in San Diego with LT and a much better defense, they missed the playoffs. In New Orleans, he had multiple weapons and Bush made all of those weapons into bigger threats. CJ's presence alone will make Cooley, Portis, and Moss into better producers. That's the same reason we signed ARE. His versatility keeps defenses honest. Combine all of those and a defense never knows what is coming at them.

And for the guy that suggested we trade back and draft a WR like Jarrett or Ginn, I gotta disagree. I'm a big CJ advocate, not WR advocate. I don't think we just need a WR, we just can't afford to overlook an opportunity to get CJ. If we were talking about a chance of getting Bush, I would tell Betts to kick rocks. But since CJ plays WR, I'm telling Lloyd to kick rocks. I'm focused on CJ as a playmaker, not his position. It just happens to be that our WR position is unsettled with overpaid, unreliable players.

I agree - CJ is too great a talent to pass up if we get the chance to draft him but not giving up next years 1 &2 along with this years #1.

[SkinsManNJ]

I don't know what the 132 number is from, but I don't think it's fair to say "#1 offenses succeed, 123 out of 132 times, therefore CJ will help us" since #1 offenses EDIT: WITH HORRIBLE DEFENSES hardly ever succeed. All things equal, having the #1 offense helps you, but all things aren't equal.

How equal would it be if our Offense can't move the chains on 3rd down and in the redzone? Defense will get worn out and then we will see what we saw last year again. I don't see any of these DL making our pass rush that much better or stopping the run. If we have an offense that moves the ball and D that is at least top 15 we will be fine.

[gorebd82]

I agree - CJ is too great a talent to pass up if we get the chance to draft him but not giving up next years 1 &2 along with this years #1.

I know it's gonna hurt everyone's feelings to say, but if there is any FO that will give up future picks to get the player they want (whether for veterans or to move up in the draft), it's the Redskins.

And when you look at it, we've done ok with that philosophy. We may have some missteps (Brunell, Lloyd), but without that philosophy we wouldn't have JC, Cooley, or Portis.

[squatch66]

That might be right on considering Mario WIlliams was more heavily toutted than Jamaal Anderson....

I really think LaRon Landry or Reggie Nelson will have the biggst DB impact and we could use another awesome free safety.

The thing is, we could trade down and still get Landry and a second round pick for possibly a guard.

Jarvis Moss at DE also looks great.

if we want landry we will need to pick him at 6. atlanta is the front runner for picking him and with them moving up to 8 if we move down then he will be gone.

[SkinsManNJ]

exactly, especially if say we traded down and got a 2nd and 3rd in addition to our 1st. That is 3 starters this year, or at least 2 starters and a role player, and then 2 more starters and a role player. Then if the role players develop into serviceable/solid contributors ala starting, then that is 6 positions.

6 picks

get DE DT S CB LB Offensive line.

Huge injection of youth

and if we traded down some next year, and got an extra 2nd or w.e

I'd rather have a team that is solid-pretty good at almost every position than one that is Superstar at a couple and shmuck at others.

I was in the trade down boat also. But after seeing that it would be harder to trade down then up or stay, just don't see that happening. It would be great if we could do that. Not many teams want to move up that high unless Quinn Russel Peterson or Thomas fall that far to us. Other than that no teams seem to really wanna move up.

[Skin Patrol]

How equal would it be if our Offense can't move the chains on 3rd down and in the redzone? Defense will get worn out and then we will see what we saw last year again. I don't see any of these DL making our pass rush that much better or stopping the run. If we have an offense that moves the ball and D that is at least top 15 we will be fine.

I think a dismal outlook for our defense is more warranted for one than our offense, since we finished 31st last year in the former and 14th in the latter. That we finished 14th offensively is a little mini-miracle in and of itself, as we went half the season without our starting RB, played in an entirely new offensive scheme, and suffered a QB transition. Given those things, I can predict a top 10 offensive product in '07 without feeling ridiculous.

Arguing that our defense will magically rebound from '06 is wishful thinking. Clearly the missing link defensively was our pass rush, as we finished last in sacks and last in opposing QB rating. That meant no turnovers, too much time for the opposing QB to pass, etc. 3 of 4 of our D-Linemen are either at 30 years or older, and their best years are behind them.

Do I think a young Defensive End can get into the game and make an instant impact? Absolutely. Mario Williams did it. Tamba Hali did it last year. Even 6th round pick Kedric Golston (DT) did it for us last year. I don't know what you're basing your insistence that "I don't see any of these DL making our pass rush that much better or stopping the run" on. Of course it would. At a minimum, letting Phillip Daniels and Cornelius Griffin age one more year isn't going to improve our line; more than likely it will get worse.

Thinking long term as well, we have three young WRs who are serviceable in the immediate future. Our Defensive Line needs to be replaced yesterday and waiting an additional year to do so could very easily lead to disaster on that front. 19 sacks in 2006 was the dead canary. It's time to get the hell out of the mine shaft -- PRONTO.

[squatch66]

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:

i agree 100%. one defensive rookie is not going to put us over the hump anyways. as much as some will not like to hear this, this is not our year. we should look to the '08 draft when we have all our picks minus the fourth from the duckett trade and whatever we give up for cj. and dont say we are giving up our entire draft. we will probably package a player with the pick(s) to try to move up.

[Veretax]

Does anyone know Al Davis's email, I really want to start begging him to take CJ. It is not like I don't want CJ but not at a cost of our draft next year. We need help in the Trenches and we will lose two - 4 potential future starters in the Trenches if we trade up for CJ. If he does fall to two Tampa has more to offer anyways.

try this one

vcerrato@redskins.com

Does everybody honestly expect our defense to be anywhere near as bad as it was last year? If our defense was this bad last year and we didn't have the injuries we had and the coaches weren't being childish, then I would be in the same boat as many of you all on the DL boat. But I just don't see our D being anywhere near as bad as last season. So I'm in the boat of I'm happy with any pick we make but I would be far from upset if we get CJ before DL

Yes they do they think the sky has fallen our offense is fine, and the defense won't be able to field folks if we draft CJ.

How equal would it be if our Offense can't move the chains on 3rd down and in the redzone? Defense will get worn out and then we will see what we saw last year again. I don't see any of these DL making our pass rush that much better or stopping the run. If we have an offense that moves the ball and D that is at least top 15 we will be fine.

Exactly my point, We need to fis our problems with 3rd downs and goal line situations. Then we are set at offense.

Arguing that our defense will magically rebound from '06 is wishful thinking. Clearly the missing link defensively was our pass rush, as we finished last in sacks and last in opposing QB rating. That meant no turnovers, too much time for the opposing QB to pass, etc. 3 of 4 of our D-Linemen are either at 30 years or older, and their best years are behind them.

Okay I can play that game. Our offense was rated 13th I believe last year where our starting QB (Brunnel) was injured and taken out after 9 games, Portis was injured and may never be the same back. We have betts, but Campbell is so inexperienced we may have more ups and downs. Jansen and Samuels are always injured and getting old, we lost dockery and wade is a poor replacement. Campbell is inexperienced and not a leader, Lloyd can't catch half the balls thrown at him and we don't use ARE much because we want him rested for punt returns. Cooley has one year left and may be gone next year!. Because of all that there is no way we improve past 13th in the league. We've got to stop this cave in before it happens!

See I can be pessemistic too

[Skin Patrol]

Okay I can play that game. Our offense was rated 13th I believe last year where our starting QB (Brunnel) was injured and taken out after 9 games, Portis was injured and may never be the same back. We have betts, but Campbell is so inexperienced we may have more ups and downs. Jansen and Samuels are always injured and getting old, we lost dockery and wade is a poor replacement. Campbell is inexperienced and not a leader, Lloyd can't catch half the balls thrown at him and we don't use ARE much because we want him rested for punt returns. Cooley has one year left and may be gone next year!. Because of all that there is no way we improve past 13th in the league. We've got to stop this cave in before it happens!

See I can be pessemistic too

Veratax, let me preface by saying this isn't a "game". I think we all like the Redskins and are arguing towards whatever end we think is best for the franchise. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Now, to your points...

Our offense finished 2006 finished 14th in the league. That's above average. 31st is not above average.

While it might be true that Portis "is never the same" I find the suggestiong baseless. If you have reason to doubt Portis' production than present it. He did return from his shoulder injury last year and wasn't slowe down against Jacksonville (112 yards and a touchdown). His 4.1 yards per carry in '06 were actually better than they were in '04. His Touchdown every 18 carries was also a best as a Redskin. I think he demonstrated last year that he can overcome injury, so presuming he won't do it next year is unsupported conjecture.

Even if he is permanently damaged our backup RB proved capable enough to carry the team. He's young and is not an injury concern. Though I find your insinuation about Portis untenable, even if I grant it the offense is still in good shape.

Campbell will be more experienced in '07 than he was in '06. With less experience we finished 14th in the league. It stands to reason that with more experience...

Jansen and Samuels are injury risks? News to me. Chris Samuels has missed four games in his entire pro career and has not missed time since 2003. He is currently under 30; the same is not true of Daniels or Griffin.

Jon Jansen has missed one game in the past year. Prior to sitting out in 2004, he had not missed a single game in five years. And although Jansen is old at 31, Offensive Linemen can play longer into their careers than D-Linemen. For the record, I support drafting an Offensive Linemen for precisely this reason; our O-Line is getting old.

Even if we grant that Todd Wade is a poor replacement to Derrick Dockery, how does any of this equate to "Calvin Johnson is a good pick"? Is he going to fix our offensive line, also? Shall we line him up on D-Line, O-Line, and WR at the same time? Give him a headset?

That said, I don't think it's fair to "grant" that Todd Wade is a poor replacement for Dockery. Guard is a relatively fungible position and Doc was by no means a Pro Bowler. Mike Pucillo will get an honest chance to challenge for that spot as well. I don't think we're in too much trouble at O-Line, though you're welcome to disagree.

Even with Lloyd's butterfingers, this offense still finished 14th last year, right?

Even with us "not using ARE that much" we still finished 14th last year, right?

Regarding Cooley and him being gone last year, please choose which one of the two is more likely:

1. The team has enough money to sign Chris Cooley in spite of the fact they either gave a #6 draft pick #6 money or else traded down.

2. The team has enough money to sign Chris Cooley in spite of the fact they paid Calvin Johnson #1 or #2 pick money.

"Because of all that there is no way we improve past 13th in the league. We've got to stop this cave in before it happens!"

There is no shame in finishing 2007 with the 13th ranked Offense. The Chicago Bears, one game away from being Super Bowl Champions, were 16th last year. Coincedentally that's the exact same Offensive ranking the Pittsburgh Steelers had in 2005 when they won the Super Bowl. In 2003 the World Champion Patriots finished 18th. The 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs finished 24th, offensively. The 2001 Patriots were 19th... Baltimore Ravens of 2000 were 16th... 1999 Titans team that lost to the Rams in Super Bowl XXXIV were 15th...

[Whiskey2x]

As long as Detroit (Matt Millen) and Arizona (Bill Bidwell and the GM of the week) are in the National Football League, the Redskins front office will only be 3rd worst.:dallasuck

[Morneblade]

Last year, I thought the Texans did the wise thing by trying to build their defense with a cornerstone DE. I'm a big fan of defense. As good as Bush was, I felt HOU already had a RB (prior to learning about Dominick's injury) and some other offensive talent, but the defense needed a dominant force to put pressure on Peyton and Leftwich.

A year later and people are still laughing at me for saying that. I don't think that anyone would argue that the Texans blew it by not going for Bush. Now I think the Skins are in a similar situation. I know it's slightly different because we have to make the decision to move up or stand pat, but essentially, the choice is how important is CJ versus a DL.

No DL is as talented a prospect as Mario was last year. CJ is as talented as Bush and really has less question marks. People questioned how strong Bush was and his durability. CJ is nearly as fast as Bush (Combine time) and way bigger.

For anyone that says we are set at receiver cannot truly argue that we have a better situation than the Texans did at that time. Dominick was Rookie of the Year, had posted consecutive 1000 yard seasons, was their most consistent offensive threat, and had just signed a contract extension. On the other side of the coin, the Saints were set at RB as well and we see how Bush's presence opened up their offense. The logical pick for their situation would have been AJ Hawk (who was also considered a better defensive prospect than any of this year's DL) The Saints going into last season looked a lot less talented than the Skins and they ended up going to the NFC Championship Game with a less talented defense than what we currently have.

To sum it up, when you have a chance at a playmaker like Bush or CJ, you can't pass it up for a good defender. I don't want the Skins to look back at the end of the year and talk about how the FO blew a chance to get CJ like Houston blew their chance. If Bush could take the Saints from the second worst record in football to the NFC Championship Game, CJ has the potential to take an underperforming, but talented Skins team to the Bowl.

Here's the thing. The Saint had 2 other factors infolved in their '05 season. First, they didnt play a home game.

Second (and most important) they got some All Pro QB named Drew Brees in FA. HE is what make such a difference, not Bush. Bush had marginal rushing numbers and did most of his damage out of the backfield in the passing game. But, if Bush had to carry the load instead of being the #3 option, he would a have been a marginal.

The Skins as of right now have lots of holes, and not all that much talent on defense. Especially the most important part of the defense, the defensive line. What they do have is alot of age and injury issues. CJ does nothing for that, and I have a feeling with a little help on the D-line, Mario Williams has a pretty good season, and you see the win totals for the Texans go up.

[SkinsManNJ]

I think a dismal outlook for our defense is more warranted for one than our offense, since we finished 31st last year in the former and 14th in the latter. That we finished 14th offensively is a little mini-miracle in and of itself, as we went half the season without our starting RB, played in an entirely new offensive scheme, and suffered a QB transition. Given those things, I can predict a top 10 offensive product in '07 without feeling ridiculous.

Arguing that our defense will magically rebound from '06 is wishful thinking. Clearly the missing link defensively was our pass rush, as we finished last in sacks and last in opposing QB rating. That meant no turnovers, too much time for the opposing QB to pass, etc. 3 of 4 of our D-Linemen are either at 30 years or older, and their best years are behind them.

Do I think a young Defensive End can get into the game and make an instant impact? Absolutely. Mario Williams did it. Tamba Hali did it last year. Even 6th round pick Kedric Golston (DT) did it for us last year. I don't know what you're basing your insistence that "I don't see any of these DL making our pass rush that much better or stopping the run" on. Of course it would. At a minimum, letting Phillip Daniels and Cornelius Griffin age one more year isn't going to improve our line; more than likely it will get worse.

Thinking long term as well, we have three young WRs who are serviceable in the immediate future. Our Defensive Line needs to be replaced yesterday and waiting an additional year to do so could very easily lead to disaster on that front. 19 sacks in 2006 was the dead canary. It's time to get the hell out of the mine shaft -- PRONTO.

You made a good example with Golston. He did show promise last year and he was a late rounder. I just don't think that they want to pick up a DL that early in the draft. Even if we don't get CJ I still don't think we go DL at 6. Probably will end up going with Landry or hopefully trade down and get Okoye and Meriweather in the 2nd. I just don't see a DL worth a #6. Our offense finished 14th cause of the running game more than anything. Passing the ball was still not that effective. The D will bounce back with or without a DL picked at #6.