Chad Johnson

OP
OP
P

pack_in_black

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado Springs
To better explain my line of thinking:

I consider Chad to be in the upper echelon of football players. If I made a Top 25 Playmakers list, guys like Chad Johnson, Randy Moss, Adrian Peterson, Roy Williams (DET WR), Ed Reed, Champ Bailey would be on it.

My opinion is that any time you have the opportunity to add a dynamic playmaker, a guy who opponents build their weekly gameplan around, it's a good thing. I believe that Chad will immediately elevate the offensive capability of whatever team he ends up with, much more than any offensive player that's available where we will be picking would do.

With all that said, I'm fine without Mr. Johnson, too. I think we have a good offense and I'm excited about what they're gonna do this season.
 

Cal2GreenBay

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
468
Reaction score
1
Packers_Finland said:
Chad is the best NFL Reciever near the sidelines. He's one of the best recievers period. And I don't think he'll be a cancer or a negative effect or anything, if he joined the Packers. He's just comical, and does nice endzone celebrations, what's wrong with those? Anyway, the only reason we shouldn't go for him is we don't need him. We already have one of the best WR corps.

He hates going across the middle.
He is not able to get off of press coverage very well. Easily overpowered.

The West Coast offense is based on underneath routes where the receiver can do something after the catch.

Chad is not an after the catch kind of receiver.
HE's a long ball receiver who likes to sprint.

To be an elite receiver you have to be able to run after the catch and run across the middle. To be a complete receiver you have to be able to block.

Chad Johnson by this definition is neither elite nor complete as a receiver.
He's a premier down the field receiver is what he is.
 

bozz_2006

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
283
Location
Grand Forks, ND
this is a great thread. you guys are all offering such compelling arguments. MassPackersfan, Cal2Greenbay, pack_in_black, arrowgargantuan, zombieslayer. great stuff guys.
 

BryanAschenbrenner

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
322
Reaction score
0
Does anyone even know what Chad Johnson is unhappy about? Does Chad Johnson even know what Chad Johnson is unhappy about? I know he wants a trade, but why? He never clearly states what it is that he doesn't like, making it extremely grinding to listen to the man TRY to talk in a way that sounds intelligent. Every time I see him on ESPN he says something along the lines of not wanting to get into details with it anymore; that he's been through it so many times and enough is enough. WHAT WAS THE THING THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET INTO!?

I am tired of listening to unintelligent athletes complaining, thinking they are making sense, but are really just just sounding ridiculous.
 

bigfog

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
242
Reaction score
0
Location
East Grand Forks
I think besides Johnson helping on the field, his love for the media, might actually help keep some pressure off from Rodgers, by occuping the media some.

I see it in an opposite way. I think if Johnson made it here, he'd would probably play lights out for a while, but then would grouse about not getting the ball enough and things would spiral from there.

The receivers that Green Bay has now make this an unnecessary deal. Johnson for Green Bay is a luxury that's not needed. I think Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones and (to steal a line from Gilligan's Island), "the rest" are more than adequate to fulfill the receiver bunch on this squad.

Now, maybe if Johnson played TE or Safety, sure, think about it. But for a receiver, when Green Bay already has one of the best in the NFL (remember, YAC!), and what it would mean to get him - giving up much valued picks and as a result, having to get rid of a receiver to make room for him, is just too much.
 

MassPackersFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
831
Reaction score
2
I'm all for Thompson's draft building strategy, but that doesn't mean I don't want a "luxury" FA when he would make a significant difference. I think the only real issue is if it would cause any problems with the other receivers when he signs a big contract.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top