nfoligno Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 From PFT, Johnson also was on WSCR in Chicago, during which he said he'd make quarterbacks Rex Grossman or Kyle Orton into superstars. Johnson also said, "I've worked myself to a point to where I make the quarterback look good regardless of what he does or where he puts the ball." Not really that much to read into this as he has supposedly be pulling the same thing all over the place, trying to tie himself w/ any team that will listen. While I do not think this is actually a possibility, what do you all think about the idea. Frankly, it is similar to when there was talk of TO being moved. Trading for, or simply acquiring these prima dona WRs works out some of the time, but also blows up in the face of teams other times. Success: Moss in NE Failure: Moss in Oakland Success: TO in Phily (1st year) and TO in Dallas Failure: TO in Phily after 1st year. Success: Javon Walker in Denver (1st year) Failure: Javon Walker in Denver this past year I do not believe we can only look at choir boys, and actually do not mind a bit of attitude. Further, most of Chad Johnson's "antics" have been in the form of fun, like over-celebrating. At the same time, I think it take a certain make-up to appease players like these. We do not have a stable QB, or offense in general. I am not sure we can rely on Turner to create a game plan to make CJ happy. I think the biggest rule of thumb is, when things are going great, these WRs are happy. When they do not, these WRs not only become an issue, but can flat out tear a team apart. I am not confident, and not by a long shot, our offense would be a sure fire explosive one w/ CJ, and if not, I think it would not be long before CJ began complaining. While I think CJ is an awesome WR, I do not think we have a team fit to accomodate him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 If you want a superstar WR, you have to take the good with the bad. Although, I cannot recall hearing CJ complaining much the last two years, and the Bengals have had some dreadful problems with the team in the past 2 seasons. Lets also keep in mind that Chad Johnson isnt available unless the Bengals say he is available, no matter how much he complains Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted January 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 As I said, I am talking in general, as I said I do not see it happening. Yes, you take the good w/ the bad, but when you sign a WR like CJ, you expect the bad to be minimalized. I do not believe you sign these premier WRs expecting them to display their antics, but to "change". Like I said, I simply believe that while it is a good idea for some teams, I question it being a good idea for us. I think, even if we added a WR like him, we would struggle, and these WRs do not do well when their teams struggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I tend to agree. As much as it sounds really tasty on paper...there's something to these prima donna WR's that scare me. Although...if the tema were to get him, I sure wouldn't complain! ...at least yet! As I said, I am talking in general, as I said I do not see it happening. Yes, you take the good w/ the bad, but when you sign a WR like CJ, you expect the bad to be minimalized. I do not believe you sign these premier WRs expecting them to display their antics, but to "change". Like I said, I simply believe that while it is a good idea for some teams, I question it being a good idea for us. I think, even if we added a WR like him, we would struggle, and these WRs do not do well when their teams struggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 It's also worth asking whether or not he'd fit with the Bears' QB situation. A guy like 85, like Owens, Moss, etc., seems like he would try to be the dominant personality in almost any relationship with a QB at this stage in his career. He'd be the guy blowing up on the sidelines if his QB wasn't getting him the ball (picture Owens and McNabb). At some point in their career, a QB gets to a stage where they can tolerate this behavior, or the WR gets to a stage where he mellows some. Moss may want the ball more in NE sometimes, but he knows beyond any shadow of a doubt he's not in charge there. If the Bears' QB situation doesn't stabilize, then what's going to happen the first game where Johnson gets unhappy about not getting the ball? Can you see Kyle Orton, Joe Flacco, or Brian Griese having the balls to stand up to him and put him in his place? After last season, I think there's a chance Grossman might have finally reached that point based on how he finally seemed to settle in more before getting hurt, and that matchup might work, but I think that if you stick 85 with a rookie, or with Orton, or Griese...you're just asking for trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 He's been saying good stuff about a bunch of teams on different city radio stations. Obviously, if we would only have to give up Anderson/Brown, 2008 3rd rounder, 2009 2nd rounder, I'd do that in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZ54 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Why not tag Berrian and work out a trade involving him? That would certainly make it easier for the Bengals to make the deal. I'm sure we'd need to give up something else like one of the ten DTs we have on the roster and/or picks. I think it would be worth it to secure the #1 WR spot for a few years. For the first time Chad would be playing on a team that had a good defense where the offense didn't have to play great throughout the game to win. It might tone down some of his frustration. But let's be honest here, Moose hasn't been quiet throughout all the QB strife so if I have to put up with some of that crap I'd at least like it to come from a guy who can make a game changing play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Get Chad Johnson in Chicago right now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 Why not tag Berrian and work out a trade involving him? That would certainly make it easier for the Bengals to make the deal. I'm sure we'd need to give up something else like one of the ten DTs we have on the roster and/or picks. I think it would be worth it to secure the #1 WR spot for a few years. For the first time Chad would be playing on a team that had a good defense where the offense didn't have to play great throughout the game to win. It might tone down some of his frustration. But let's be honest here, Moose hasn't been quiet throughout all the QB strife so if I have to put up with some of that crap I'd at least like it to come from a guy who can make a game changing play. Why would the Bengals want to spend big money on Berrian in the first place? Especially if they're already paying Johnson basically the same kind of money Berrian will probably want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 2, 2008 Report Share Posted February 2, 2008 The Bengals have already said theyre not trading him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 The Bengals have already said theyre not trading him. Well, you know as well as the rest of us that them saying they're not trading him is not the same thing as not trading him. If he was really apt to force a trade he could easily do so with a holdout, he could push the team a lot harder, things could deteriorate over the next few months for whatever reason, the team could realize that pumping all their assets into offense hasn't worked for them and decide to do a trade for some defense anyway, who knows. Right now you're correct, and you're probably correct in the long run. But there's no guarantee things won't change at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Well, you know as well as the rest of us that them saying they're not trading him is not the same thing as not trading him. If he was really apt to force a trade he could easily do so with a holdout, he could push the team a lot harder, things could deteriorate over the next few months for whatever reason, the team could realize that pumping all their assets into offense hasn't worked for them and decide to do a trade for some defense anyway, who knows. Right now you're correct, and you're probably correct in the long run. But there's no guarantee things won't change at some point. Ya but a statement like that makes you think they are gonna want a lot for him. Its not gonna be like Moss and the Raiders where they just wanted to get rid of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 If you could get a receiver like Chad Johnson for a 2nd round pick and Alex Brown you do it. If you could get them for even less you do it. All I know is Chad Johnson is an impact WR. He's the type of player the Bears have never had at the WR position (in the history of the franchise). Financially the Bears have cap room and adding him probably allows you to let Berrian walk (or if you sign Berrian you clearly have a pretty lethal WR core with Johnson/Berrian). And to an extent I buy into what Johnson says because when you have an elite WR, you have a WR who can be a QB's comfort guy (plus Greg Olsen/Dez Clark) and it will make it easier for Grossman/Orton to have bail-out guys to go to. I'd be totally down with a Johnson, restructured Moose, Bradley, & Hester WR core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xvflutop Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Did anyone hear the stat that the majority of teams with a "superstar" receiver never make the playoffs? There were only 2 teams with a top 10 receiver in the playoffs this year. And apparently its a trend that has been coming up more often than not. I vote no go on 85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 If you could get a receiver like Chad Johnson for a 2nd round pick and Alex Brown you do it. If you could get them for even less you do it. All I know is Chad Johnson is an impact WR. He's the type of player the Bears have never had at the WR position (in the history of the franchise). Financially the Bears have cap room and adding him probably allows you to let Berrian walk (or if you sign Berrian you clearly have a pretty lethal WR core with Johnson/Berrian). And to an extent I buy into what Johnson says because when you have an elite WR, you have a WR who can be a QB's comfort guy (plus Greg Olsen/Dez Clark) and it will make it easier for Grossman/Orton to have bail-out guys to go to. I'd be totally down with a Johnson, restructured Moose, Bradley, & Hester WR core. No thanks... I'm not giving up one of our starting DEs for Johnson. It looks like we're already gonna lose Briggs so now you wanna deplete us even more and get rid of Brown? We don't need a Chad Johnson, WE NEED A CONSISTENT O LINE AND CONSISTENT QB. Chad Johnson doesn't do us any good if we can't get him the ball. By the way, what's he doing for Cinci besides giving his QB heartburn and his teammates a headache? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 No thanks... I'm not giving up one of our starting DEs for Johnson. It looks like we're already gonna lose Briggs so now you wanna deplete us even more and get rid of Brown? We don't need a Chad Johnson, WE NEED A CONSISTENT O LINE AND CONSISTENT QB. Chad Johnson doesn't do us any good if we can't get him the ball. By the way, what's he doing for Cinci besides giving his QB heartburn and his teammates a headache? Gee, I don't know- how about...catching TD's like it's going out of style, year in, year out. And we'll need to give up somebody good to get somebody good. Nobody said we have to get rid of Alex to get Johnson, I put a "/" after Brown b/c it could be Anderson, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Actually, the funny thing about Chad Johnson is that his teammates really seem to like him. I know Carson Palmer (or at least it seems like it from the games I've seen) really gets along with him. I'm sure they have there heated moments, but so do most great professional athletes at times (and both Carson/Chad are great football players) but they are also seen joking around an awful lot on the sidelines. I can't really think of Johnson ever throwing his QB under the bus. I'm sure he's said some things about the team having to play better, but he can't even be compared to a Moss or an Owens. Moss is a whiny prick who has had some off the field issues, while Owens is a guy that doesn't think before he opens his mouth (I'd compare him to Frank Thomas) but is actually a good person (ie, Owens hasn't ever had any sort of encounter with the law). Ocho Sinco is a guy who just loves to play the game (he plays hard every game and just likes to celebrate in good spirited nature when he scores). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Exactly, DABEARSDABOMB. Everyone here is acting like Chad is TO, a.k.a. a cancer in the locker room. He's not. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3228585 GO GET 'EM, JA!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyyle23 Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 Did anyone hear the stat that the majority of teams with a "superstar" receiver never make the playoffs? There were only 2 teams with a top 10 receiver in the playoffs this year. And apparently its a trend that has been coming up more often than not. I vote no go on 85 Ok, who is the Superstar and who is not? Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Donte Stallsworth, Plaxico Burress, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Chris Chambers, Terrell Owens, Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, Hines Ward, Bobby Engram While they may not all qualify for Superstar status by being in the top ten this year, this is not a pedestrian group of wide recievers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 3, 2008 Report Share Posted February 3, 2008 You don't even know how much better our offense could be if we had Chad Johnson as our number 1 receiver with Btwice lined up next to him. Plus factor in Devin Hester in his 2nd year as a WR, who's capable of being a Steve Smith with his abilities in the YAC area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 3. Can Chad Johnson talk his way out of Cincinnati? It's not likely because of the impact that losing Johnson would have on the Bengals' salary cap. If Cincinnati either trades or releases their talkative receiver, it will have to absorb a 2008 cap hit of slightly more than $8 million. While the salary cap rises another $7 million this season to $116 million, that's still a sizable chunk of dead money that would ensue from Johnson's departure. That's probably the No. 1 reason Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis has come out and shot down any notion Johnson will be on the trading block this offseason. Still, Johnson clearly hopes to follow in the recent footsteps of No. 1 receivers such as Terrell Owens and Randy Moss in prompting a trade, but odds are his uneasy marriage with the Bengals will continue this year unless complete insubordination is his exit strategy. That makes sense. That's one big cap hit for a team to take in order to just trade a guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Chads teammates seem to like him for the most part but Ive seen on numerous occasions Chad getting into Carsons face and he is one of the best qbs in the NFL. What do you think he will do with our situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 One point to make. PFT talked about it. While they would be charged w/ about $8m hit, I do not believe it would be quite as high as that. One, I don't believe the $8m factors money saved. By cutting him, they do not have to pay his base, which I thought I read to be maybe $3m. So the cap hit effectively drops to around $5m. Two, you can now cut a player prior to June 1st, and allocate the cap hit over two years. So this year could effectively be a wash, while they would have a $2.5 - $3m (or something like that) next year. That is far more doable. Also, what price do you place on getting rid of a player that is a total cancer, who does not want to play for you. I mean, he is going around telling everyone who wants to listen he would play for anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted February 14, 2008 Report Share Posted February 14, 2008 Marvin Lewis again insists that 85 isn't going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 Marvin Lewis again insists that 85 isn't going anywhere. Theyre not gonna take that cap hit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.