Chad Tour

[HairOnFire]

If the Bengals truly want to make a Super Bowl run next season, the goal of the team right now should be supplementing Chad, not replacing him.

So Chad can't be traded because a rookie WR won't be able to contribute anytime soon, but those same unready rookie WR's are the key to propping Chad up next season?

[skyline]

If the Bengals truly want to make a Super Bowl run next season, the goal of the team right now should be supplementing Chad, not replacing him.

So Chad can't be traded because a rookie WR won't be able to contribute anytime soon, but those same unready rookie WR's are the key to propping Chad up next season?

I didn't say a rookie WR can't contribute. I simply don't believe they'd be capable of completely filling Chad's role on this team.

And even in the unlikely circumstance that they could replace Chad's production, then how can the rookie + Chad not be a better option than the rookie alone?

Of course, there's still the trade compensation you think we can get, but is it going to be a veteran receiver that can step right in, or are we talking about draft picks that will need more time to develop? Again, for the reasons I stated in my last post, I think Chad gives us the best value at this point.

[HairOnFire]

I didn't say a rookie WR can't contribute. I simply don't believe they'd be capable of completely filling Chad's role on this team.

I agree. In fact, it's a rant I've made often. That said, when an opposing team can take your best WR out of the passing game almost at will then it's fairly certain Chad Johnson himself is no longer capable of filling the 1# role he once had. Granted, he'll still be listed as a 1# WR, but as a player Chad typically makes far more noise on Wednesdays than he does on Sundays.

Furthermore, I admit without pause how I'm more interested than most in eliminating several other roles Chad fills for this team, including any and all leadership and media spokesperson roles. I'm tired of the greasepaint, floppy shoes, bright orange wig, and squirting flower that passes for leadership around here.

And even in the unlikely circumstance that they could replace Chad's production, then how can the rookie + Chad not be a better option than the rookie alone?

By using the trade return to upgrade other positions of need OR as a way to replace Chad himself.

Of course, there's still the trade compensation you think we can get, but is it going to be a veteran receiver that can step right in, or are we talking about draft picks that will need more time to develop?

Shouldn't it be both? After all, even with Chad in the fold many, if not most, are calling for multiple draftpicks to be used on yet another crop of wideouts AND the addition of a veteran FA. Would anyone expect LESS to be done if Chad were traded?

Again, for the reasons I stated in my last post, I think Chad gives us the best value at this point.

Fair enough. However, I still believe the matter of Chad being traded has to be considered for all of the reasons every team considers trading older players, and for all of the specific Chad-related reasons that I won't bother mentioning again, and for the simple reason that many of us wanted him traded the very first moment it was prudent to do so. And I think that means right now if you want anything worth mentioning in return.

[Ickey44]

I still believe the matter of Chad being traded has to be considered for all of the reasons every team considers trading older players, and for all of the specific Chad-related reasons that I won't bother mentioning again, and for the simple reason that many of us wanted him traded the very first moment it was prudent to do so. And I think that means right now if you want anything worth mentioning in return.

Of course it should be considered. Only an idiot would dismiss a trade offer without considering it first. But I'm with Skyline on this one. I think keeping Chad and getting someone on the other side of the field that's productive, whether that be another WR or a TE, would be the most beneficial to this team. If we end up drafting a WR, having Chad around to help learn the offense would be an added bonus as well.

Whether you like him or not (and I'm somewhere in the middle), his teammates love him. I don't think getting rid of him will be productive.

As to the fact that Chad can be taken out so easily, I think some scheming could be done to help with that, but that is apparently beyond Brat's grasp. Trying some different things like putting Chad in motion instead of Coles, or putting him in the slot. Move him around. Find creative ways to get him open and get him the ball.

[Walrus]

Chad isn't going anywhere, and he shouldn't. It would be stupid to start next season without the only receiver who was productive for us last year. Caldwell and Coles just don't get the job done. If you get rid of Chad, who do you get to replace him? Especially since it seems to take receivers at least a year to get fully comfortable in Brat's complex system.

I guess this is the aspect of this discussion I most take issue with. Chad is still a good receiver but the notion he's irreplacable is tough for me to buy into. Sure, you're not going to get someone who will 1-1 replace Chad in every way -- but there will be guys who can fill a #1 role. No, they don't grow on trees but they are out there to be had if our coaches/scouts can identify them. And I don't think Caldwell necessarily should be ruled out either, as he's coming up on his magical 3rd season as an NFL wr and we can expect a bump in his role/production. Like others have said, add some combination of a savvy veteran and raw talent through the draft and I think we can match/supercede whatever Chad will be able to bring in 2010. Plus it's an investment in the future -- because like it or not, the future is now.*

*the above rant is based on the hypothetical opportunity to trade Chad for some combination of picks/players/ipods. I do not advocate releasing him.

[gregstephens]

Chad isn't going anywhere, and he shouldn't. It would be stupid to start next season without the only receiver who was productive for us last year. Caldwell and Coles just don't get the job done. If you get rid of Chad, who do you get to replace him? Especially since it seems to take receivers at least a year to get fully comfortable in Brat's complex system.

I guess this is the aspect of this discussion I most take issue with. Chad is still a good receiver but the notion he's irreplacable is tough for me to buy into. Sure, you're not going to get someone who will 1-1 replace Chad in every way -- but there will be guys who can fill a #1 role. No, they don't grow on trees but they are out there to be had if our coaches/scouts can identify them. And I don't think Caldwell necessarily should be ruled out either, as he's coming up on his magical 3rd season as an NFL wr and we can expect a bump in his role/production. Like others have said, add some combination of a savvy veteran and raw talent through the draft and I think we can match/supercede whatever Chad will be able to bring in 2010. Plus it's an investment in the future -- because like it or not, the future is now.*

*the above rant is based on the hypothetical opportunity to trade Chad for some combination of picks/players/ipods. I do not advocate releasing him.

This entire post is demonstrative of the significance of Fredo's play in this year's offense. Wal has set the floor for trading Fredo as ipods. Last year, I was looking for ham sammiches.

[HairOnFire]

But I'm with Skyline on this one. I think keeping Chad and getting someone on the other side of the field that's productive, whether that be another WR or a TE, would be the most beneficial to this team.

In theory, maybe. On paper, absolutely. But in reality?

My personal reality says you don't rebuild a passing game from scratch around any fading player.

And while I admit how difficult it will be trying to replace even a lesser version of Chad....I'm fairly certain any further waiting will cost this team the very last chance it has of exploiting whatever might be left of Chad's trade value. Value that could be used to upgrade other weaknesses OR put immediately to use in attempts to replace Chad himself.

[HairOnFire]

This entire post is demonstrative of the significance of Fredo's play in this year's offense. Wal has set the floor for trading Fredo as ipods. Last year, I was looking for ham sammiches.

I'm good with that.....as long as the ham isn't too salty. Because when a ham is too salty it forces the eater to drink copius amouts of water, thereby dictating the eater get up repeatedly during the night to pee. And I'm the type of guy who only likes to pee when he wants to, not when he has to.

That said, I've got a question for those amongst us may not be in the mood for a nice slice of ham. Specifically, what trade return is reasonable for a now reformed Ocho?

[BengalByTheBay]

Since when is not having a legitimate replacement for a starter in a key role not reason enough to keep him?

Whenever the incumbent starter is a fading player unlikely to continue playing at past levels.

Whenever the player in question has enough trade value to be attractive.

Whenever an aging players trade value is still high...yet very likely to fall substantially very soon.

Whenever a team is rebuilding their passing game almost from scratch.

Whenever the player in question has no impact whatsoever in a playoff game.

Whenever the positive playing impact provided by the player can be consistently negated by opposing teams.

Whenever addition by subtraction comes into play.

Whenever it feels right.

Cold....Dead.....Heart.

You can repackage it a dozen more times if you want, but you're saying the same thing repeatedly. You think Chad has more trade value than I do and you think that his play will drop off precipitously. I submit that you're rationalizing the fact that you wrote him off when he "tanked" a season. That's fine and completely fair, but don't lose your objectivity completely and opt for the self-defeating strategy of trading him away without a plan that includes somebody that could be a #1 WR for this team next season.

From where I sit, his play rebounded dramatically last season and the attitude was nothing but positive. Again, you're saying he is irredeemable, but in saying that he should be traded because he's no good anymore you're ignoring the fact that he's still the best at his position that we have. What is step two after you trade him? Pick up a FA? Okay, whom? Draft somebody? Okay, whom, and why do you think he can be our #1 next year?

[Sea Ray]

*the above rant is based on the hypothetical opportunity to trade Chad for some combination of picks/players/ipods. I do not advocate releasing him.

You touch on a great point. We all agree that Chad is the best we currently have at a position of need on this team so none of us are willing to give him away. So I ask, what would you take for him?

That's right Hair, I'm bringing up another hypothetical...

I'm leery of trading Chad because I think it hurts the team in 2010 but I would trade him for the right package.

If we found an idiot like Jerry Jones to give us a Roy Williams deal I'd say sold!

But let's deal with more realistic scenarios. Let's say we can only get a Corey Dillon deal...we struggled to pry a 2nd rounder out of NE. Is Chad worth a #2? Is he worth drafting the next Madieu Williams? How 'bout a #3? How 'bout a #2 and a #5?

I think the Bengals may be offered a #2 or a #3 for Chad but no more. I'd think about accepting a #2 for him but nothing less.

What do you folks think?

[gregstephens]

This entire post is demonstrative of the significance of Fredo's play in this year's offense. Wal has set the floor for trading Fredo as ipods. Last year, I was looking for ham sammiches.

I'm good with that.....as long as the ham isn't too salty. Because when a ham is too salty it forces the eater to drink copius amouts of water, thereby dictating the eater get up repeatedly during the night to pee. And I'm the type of guy who only likes to pee when he wants to, not when he has to.

That said, I've got a question for those amongst us may not be in the mood for a nice slice of ham. Specifically, what trade return is reasonable for a now reformed Ocho?

Depends on who is asking. To a similarly situated team with no receivers to speak of (see St. Louis), I could easily entertain a 2 round, with perhaps a 4 tacked on. If someone is looking to pick him up as an aging second banana receiver (see Houston), I think they'd come in with a 4 offer, possibly coupled with a 5.

Me personally, if any lunkhead team in this league is willing to give us what Washington offered two years ago on an aging wideout, we'd be stupid to not consider it. I don't care what anyone's opinion is on here in terms of getting rid of Fredo as a generality. If you get that offer again, you can not turn it down.

IMO

[gregstephens]

*the above rant is based on the hypothetical opportunity to trade Chad for some combination of picks/players/ipods. I do not advocate releasing him.

You touch on a great point. We all agree that Chad is the best we currently have at a position of need on this team so none of us are willing to give him away. So I ask, what would you take for him?

That's right Hair, I'm bringing up another hypothetical...

I'm leery of trading Chad because I think it hurts the team in 2010 but I would trade him for the right package.

If we found an idiot like Jerry Jones to give us a Roy Williams deal I'd say sold!

But let's deal with more realistic scenarios. Let's say we can only get a Corey Dillon deal...we struggled to pry a 2nd rounder out of NE. Is Chad worth a #2? Is he worth drafting the next Madieu Williams? How 'bout a #3? How 'bout a #2 and a #5?

I think the Bengals may be offered a #2 or a #3 for Chad but no more. I'd think about accepting a #2 for him but nothing less.

What do you folks think?

I think I wouldn't take (the other) Roy Williams from Dallas if all Jones wanted from the Bengals was my ham sammich. That was possibly one of the worst trades in history due to the money and subsequent production, not based on what Dallas gave up, not that I care because I like seeing the Cowboys get it in the tailpipe.

[BengalByTheBay]

Depends on who is asking. To a similarly situated team with no receivers to speak of (see St. Louis), I could easily entertain a 2 round, with perhaps a 4 tacked on. If someone is looking to pick him up as an aging second banana receiver (see Houston), I think they'd come in with a 4 offer, possibly coupled with a 5.

Me personally, if any lunkhead team in this league is willing to give us what Washington offered two years ago on an aging wideout, we'd be stupid to not consider it. I don't care what anyone's opinion is on here in terms of getting rid of Fredo as a generality. If you get that offer again, you can not turn it down.

IMO

While I still think it would likely set the team back for a while next season, I'd certainly think trading Chad for anything in the first round would be a no-brainer. That said, are we talking about reality, because I don't think any team in the league is floating that deal at this point. If it was my decision I might even consider a 2nd rounder depending on where it would fall. What I think is true, however, is that these are unlikely to be the kinds of offers that the Bengals can get for Chad. If I'm wrong about that, of course, I'd be willing to reconsider. If I'm right, however, then it's a bad idea to trade him away for a late 2nd rounder or below because it's going to crater the receiving corps. for next year for no good reason. With the mileage on Palmer, I'm looking to build next year not start over.

[Pidge]

I think he meant in terms of the ridiculous draft picks jerrah! gave up to get the lanky string of piss from Detroit, Greg.

Although, my alcohol induced fugue might mean I misread you post, so apologies in advance if that's the case.

[HairOnFire]

Cold....Dead.....Heart.

Sure.

You think Chad has more trade value than I do and you think that his play will drop off precipitously.

How would I know what your opinion is when none of you Chad backers can even bring yourself to discuss the matter?

What is step two after you trade him? Pick up a FA? Okay, whom? Draft somebody? Okay, whom, and why do you think he can be our #1 next year?

Aren't you getting ahead of yourself? Shouldn't we debate what the Bengals could get in return for trading Chad before discussing what to do next?

Or if you prefer, if you're going to make me shop for groceries...shouldn't you tell me how much money I've got to spend?

[Sea Ray]

I think I wouldn't take (the other) Roy Williams from Dallas if all Jones wanted from the Bengals was my ham sammich. That was possibly one of the worst trades in history due to the money and subsequent production, not based on what Dallas gave up, not that I care because I like seeing the Cowboys get it in the tailpipe.

Just so we're clear, I meant the draftpicks the Lions received for Roy Williams. I'm not interested in trading Chad for Roy straight up'

As for the Washington deal, I doubt Chad's still worth that but if we could...sold!

[Pidge]

With the mileage on Palmer, I'm looking to build next year not start over.

I think everyone agrees with that sentiment. However, whether it's this offseason or next offseason - the situation with Chad will have to addressed one way or another. Hopefully they bag a good WR this April and get him ready for the future because no matter if Chad stays or goes this yr he's going. Sooner than some, it would appear, would like to admit.

[HairOnFire]

We all agree that Chad is the best we currently have at a position of need on this team so none of us are willing to give him away. So I ask, what would you take for him?

That's right Hair, I'm bringing up another hypothetical...

I'm not mad about it. In fact, I'm hoping other posters will answer the question now that someone other than myself has asked it.

Let's say we can only get a Corey Dillon deal...we struggled to pry a 2nd rounder out of NE. Is Chad worth a #2?

I actually think he's worth more than that, but why quibble?

[gregstephens]

I think he meant in terms of the ridiculous draft picks jerrah! gave up to get the lanky string of piss from Detroit, Greg.

Although, my alcohol induced fugue might mean I misread you post, so apologies in advance if that's the case.

Pidge, rereading that post, I concur. I misunderstood. So, in the words of that little old lady character Gilda Radner used to do on the SNL news shows with Chevy Chase...

Nevermind.

[gregstephens]

I think I wouldn't take (the other) Roy Williams from Dallas if all Jones wanted from the Bengals was my ham sammich. That was possibly one of the worst trades in history due to the money and subsequent production, not based on what Dallas gave up, not that I care because I like seeing the Cowboys get it in the tailpipe.

Just so we're clear, I meant the draftpicks the Lions received for Roy Williams. I'm not interested in trading Chad for Roy straight up'

As for the Washington deal, I doubt Chad's still worth that but if we could...sold!

Pidge opened my eyes on that one. Sorry about that.

Of course, now I don't have to worry about you being on your meds.

[Pidge]

I've already said, a 2nd and a mid-rnd pick would do me. But then I probably have a different opinion of how easily the once great, now just a memory, passing game will be remedied in the space of a single off-season to others. Fair enough I suppose, they did a decent job of fixing the abortion of an O-line in a single go (hopefully with further improvements to be made).

[HairOnFire]

...I'd certainly think trading Chad for anything in the first round would be a no-brainer.

So trading Chad for a single 1st round pick is a no-brainer.

That said, are we talking about reality, because I don't think any team in the league is floating that deal at this point.

Why not? Didn't Chad prove he hasn't lost a step....as rumored? And isn't he a reformed person now? So why shouldn't the Bengals expect the same type of better-than-projected trade packages they've gotten two years in a row? Weren't those trade offers made under fire sale conditions that no longer exist?

If I'm right, however, then it's a bad idea to trade him away for a late 2nd rounder or below because it's going to crater the receiving corps. for next year for no good reason.

Seriously? 3rd round value? For Chad?

How very Peter King that seems.

[BengalByTheBay]

Let's say we can only get a Corey Dillon deal...we struggled to pry a 2nd rounder out of NE. Is Chad worth a #2?

I actually think he's worth more than that, but why quibble?

So, you think that Chad is worth more than a 2nd rounder, heh? Question is, does anybody else in the league? I'm guessing .... no.

So, in shopping for the groceries, are you still happy to push the cart with a low 2nd rounder or below in it in exchange for Chad?

[Sea Ray]

I think some of you are overvaluing Chad but I hope I'm the one undervaluing him. I don't see 30+ year old WRs traded for much in this league. If you can get more than a 2nd rd for him great. I think I'd want a top ten 2nd rd pick for him at least. The Redskins offer was short lived and two long seasons ago. His value has dropped a great deal.

[BengalByTheBay]

If I'm right, however, then it's a bad idea to trade him away for a late 2nd rounder or below because it's going to crater the receiving corps. for next year for no good reason.

Seriously? 3rd round value? For Chad?

How very Peter King that seems.

Well it hardly seems sporting of you after demanding that I give you my opinion (which I already had BTW) that you call names after getting it. So, you think I'm a fat, coffee swilling jackass. Fair enough, where in the first round do you expect we will be offered a pick in exchange for Chad? And, more pertinently, which of us is smoking crack if that is what you really believe?