Johnson to Buffalo?

by Peoria Matt on Mar 3, 2008 6:41 AM CST Comment 26 comments

From eastcoastsportsnews.com:

"The Buffalo Bills reportedly reached a tentative contract agreement with Cardinals WR Bryant Johnson on Sunday night ...the contract agreement is expected to be finalized by the two parties sometime this morning and is considered to be a done deal unless Johnson has a change of heart."

Well, cross another one off the WR list. I'm very surprised over Angelo's lack of urgency regarding a WR free agent. I would think Johnson would be an upgrade, but what do I know.

Now, will Losman/Evans be dealt? Maybe to Detroit?

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

See why you overpay for your own?

Cuz ya never know...

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 7:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Bradley or bust!

Now we have no choice. This is going to throw everything off in the draft. You can't cover everything we need in the first three rounds, and that is where the quality is at. And oh by the way, what if some other team beats us to what we want in these rounds. St Clair? Beekman? Davis? Benson???!!! Right now that garbage is all we can count on. We needed to address WR, OL or RB in the FA so we could cover ourselves if something fell through in the draft. Now we're set up for disaster! You're not finding a #1 receiver in round three (and no Berrian wasn't a #1). So now Malcolm Kelly if he is there in the first round? Forget Flacco in the second because now we have to get a OT. Chad Henne in the third along with a RB. Geeze!

by rob in iraq on Mar 3, 2008 7:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

How do you define a No. 1 WR?

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 8:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There will still be cuts

I actually think Angelo is handling this masterfully. He just had Warrick Dunn fall into his lap, if he wants him. Im sure he is expecting something similar at wideout.

by Santos Sorrow on Mar 3, 2008 1:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's still early fellas

I am kind of freeking out a little bit too, but I am going to trust Jerry Angelo. The fact is that it is still early in free agency, and I have come to accept the fact that the bears NEVER make a big splash in free agency. I was hoping to get Bryant Johnson though. I am glad that they didn't go and try to overpay for Turner and Faneca though, but I hope that they do something. I personally would like to see a trade for Chad Johnson. I would even be happy to give up the first round pick for him, then take the best linemen available with the second round and adress the QB, and RB in the third round. I would be extremely happy if it happened that way (which I know that it won't), but it's always good to hope right????

"I have no comments at this time.....well, other than what I just posted."

by diehardbearfan on Mar 3, 2008 8:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

There's still a few okay names out there...

wouldn't mind adding DJ Hackett and then one of McCareins or Lloyd or a decent high draft pick myself.

Would have preferred to keep Berrian though for at least one more year.

more worried about the O-line plan, not even really a whisper so far at who they might be targeting...

Visit The NEW Cub Reporter (www.thecubreporter.com)

by thecubreporter on Mar 3, 2008 8:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the money

the Bills are offering is way up there, but from that standpoint the Bears are in more need of a receiver than the Bills. You'd think they might at least come in and see what we might offer.

Again, a receiver goes to a team with a questionable QB situation. So why are they all staying away from us?

by Adam T on Mar 3, 2008 8:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

How do you define a No.1 WR

Good question. Let me take a stab at it since I haven't seen it defined. Total yards - over a 1,000 at least, probably closer 1,200. 10 touchdowns or more. I wouldn't know about yards per catch, how about 10-15? I know Berrian wasn't anywhere close to that -

by rob in iraq on Mar 3, 2008 9:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Horrible definition.

By that, there's only 10-15 No. 1 WR's in the entire league. And that just doesn't make sense. It's dumb, dumb, dumb. Maybe that's the "ideal" No. 1, but it's not the reality No. 1. Why not just say 1500 yards and 15 TD's?

Oh, and Berrian was close to 1,000. It's not a stretch to think that if he had a competent QB, offense and offensive coordinator, he'd get your magical standards.

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 10:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you did the same thing yesterday in another thread

why did you ask the question if you were just gonna answer it yourself.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Mar 3, 2008 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Because I'm trying to figure out...

...if people even think before they type. Obviously, they do. They just think poorly. Sometimes people spout off ridiculous stuff w/o having thought about it. Other times, they have thought about it, but have just come to a bad conclusion. I ask because I'm interested to know which it is.

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 10:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Besides...

...these definitions aren't something set in stone. I strongly, strongly disagree with rob's definition of a No. 1, but if really does think only 10-15 WR's are No. 1's, then I know where he's coming from. But if he's just saying "Berrian isn't a No. 1" because he has seen him regularly and is disappointed he's going for big money w/ no real basis (which happens a LOT) then I also know where he's coming from.

He could have also said, "One of the 25 best WR's in the NFL" which would be subjective, but still acceptable criteria. Or he could have said "the best WR on his team" (which Berrian has been and will be).

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i said this in another blog

but man angelo should talk to drew rosehaus about a trade for chad johnson. I think the combo of him with olsen and rex could make this team really explosive. We start almost every drive on the 40 yard line, could you imagine running a play action with rex's arm, throwing to johnson, hester or olsen. That sounds like an offense capable of scoring a few touchdowns per game.

by rahulsriram on Mar 3, 2008 9:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

OK, what's your definition?

OK tyger1147, since my definition seem to upset you, what is your definition for a NO.1 receiver? First off, I'm far from dumb, and I really was just putting it out there since I haven't seen it defined. I would recommend you respect other people's opinions, especially since you requested it. But aside from that let's see your definition since you seem to be such a deep thinking expert on it.

by rob in iraq on Mar 3, 2008 11:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Real teams or fantasy teams?

I thought we were talking about real life where there are 32 NFL teams and not 10-15 teams.

I don't have a definition like yours. It's too arbitrary. As your list below shows, only a very few fit both your criteria.

Over 1,000 yards, closer to 1200, at least 10 TD's (YPC is meaningless)

Moss
Owens
Edwards
Wayne
Fitzgerald
Houshmandzadeh
Colston
maybe Burress (although he's "closer to" 1000 than 1200)

So there are only seven/eight "No. 1" WR by your original definition which you pulled out of thin air. That's an absurdly low number.

Why are these statistical definitions pointless? First off, you have two pairs of guys on the same team. Is Wes Welker a No. 1? Chad says he's a No. 3. What about Johnson and Housh? Secondly, as your list below shows, once you make a "definition", you immediately have to deviate from it. On your list that you think you came "so close" to, you have plenty of guys who fall short of one category or another.

Of course, anytime you take a single year look, you're leaving off guys like Steve Smith, Anquan Boldin, Donald Driver and Andre Johnson.

Personally, if I were forced/asked to make a definition, it'd be something more fluid. Like... one of the 30 best WR over the last 3 years. Or, the best WR on his team. Actually, I like that definition best, at least for what we're talking about. Minnesota paid Berrian "like a No. 1" because they knew he'd be the best WR on their team. Berrian has been the best WR on his team for two out of the four years he's been in the league. More than likely, he'll be the best WR on his next team for a good many years. Sounds like a "No. 1" to me.

Put another way: The Vikings were ranked 13th in offense in the NFL last year w/ their best WR being Bobby Wade w/ 647 yds and 3 TD's. If, w/ Berrian's presence, they become a Top 5-8 offense, how is that not a No. 1?

I think the problem is that people are too wrapped in fantasy and thus in stats.

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

that I would buy a 'best receiver on a team' definition. Hester is not a number 1, regardless of how we pay or where we put him.

I also don't think you can say it is based on depth chart. TJ could go to a number of teams and be their best receiver by far.

I do like the 'over 3 years' some consistency needs to be brought in.

Something like top 30 in these particular categories over 3 years makes you 'number 1 caliber' receiver.

by Adam T on Mar 3, 2008 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You also would

need to consider their situation. I don't now if I'd call Lee Evans a #1, but he has had a worse QB situation than us. If he was on a team with a competent QB, would his numbers be significantly better?

by Adam T on Mar 3, 2008 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Which is why I don't like using....

...the term in the first place. Can a team have two No. 1's? Everyone here got caught up in not wanting to pay Berrian "No. 1 money" because he's not as good as the 15 best receivers. Screw that. When you get caught up in not wanting to pay a guy based upon semantics, you land in the situation the Bears are in.

You pay the guy what he's worth to the team. End of story. Having a 26-year-old who had 951 yards receiving on the woeful offensive team the Bears had last year who was getting better every year was DEFINITELY worth what he was paid. If they get Johnson the blow won't be as bad, but a WR team of Berrian, Bradley, Hester, Olsen and Clark is young (not clark of course) and pretty promising. One with Bradley, Hester, Hass, Olsen and Clark might just be the worst in the entire league. You're hoping a hell of a lot at that point.

by tyger1147 on Mar 3, 2008 7:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You've got issues man

Tyger - you just bitch and moan about whateverr anybody types. I know you say that nobody does their research or people post garbage, but it's a fucking blog. If you're just going to whine about what people post or if you're going to continue to furiously bash people's comments then you shouldn't come to the god damn site. So if you're pissed off, go be pissed off somewhere elsee. I'm surprised WCG hasn't banned you. You make this site a lot worse than if you weren't here.

WCG - If I'm out of line here I apologize. This guy drives me fucking nuts.

"If God had wanted man to play soccer, He wouldn't have given us arms" - Ditka

by allhailmark on Mar 4, 2008 5:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Amen Brother!!

He looks down on people who don't know as much about this shit that he supposedly does. I thought it would be cool to talk football with a bunch of die hard Bears fans because I live in Maryland and don't know any other Bears fans, but this guy is an asshole and he makes me hesitate about posting on here. I love this site and appreciate WCG for all he does to provide everyone with this information but this guy spoils it sometimes.

GO BEARS!!!!!

by McRipper on Mar 4, 2008 8:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He's on the "Bears to Find #1 Receiver"

I had a run in with him yesterday as you can read; the guy is a Jackass!

by rob in iraq on Mar 4, 2008 8:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Am I really that far off?

Forgive me but my time is limited on a computer so I have to go with the first thing on the search. First look at the Top "Fantasy" receiver's numbers I would have to say I wasn't that far off. Now we could go on forever about whether these guys are "number ones" or not but again, without going through the calculating, I would say my first stab wasn't so "dumb, dumb, dumb".

Top Fantasy Wide Receivers 2007

WR
Rcptns
Rec Yards
TDs

Randy Moss 98 1493 23
Terrell Owens 81 1355 15
Braylon Edwards 80 1289 16
Reggie Wayne 104 1510 10
Larry Fitzgerald 100 1409 10
Chad Johnson 93 1440 8
T.J. Houshmandzadeh 112 1143 12
Marques Colston 98 1202 11
Brandon Marshall 102 1325 7
Plaxico Burress 70 1025 12
Wes Welker 112 1175 8
Greg Jennings 53 920 12
Torry Holt 93 1189 7
Bobby Engram 94 1147 6

by rob in iraq on Mar 3, 2008 12:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You could very easily

slightly alter your definition to be something like:

Two of the following must be true to be a number 1 receiver:

1000 yards or greater (this is much harder to do for a wide receiver, especially if your QB/O-line sucks ass, I would argue 900 yards is a better cut-off, and thus this would would actually include Berrian as a #1 receiver)
over 70 receptions
10 TDs or more (I would actually say 7 or 8, since there are only 11 players in the league with 10 TDs or more, one of which was Dallas Clark)

If you did it using 7 TDs and 900 yards, Santonio Holmes and Hines Ward are both "#1s". That also means Welker and Moss are as well. That includes about 30ish players.

Fact is, it doesn't really matter how it is defined, teams will pay for they think he brings to the table, and Berrian obviously had a body of work to sell himself with. The only thing missing from his game is the "threat to take it to the house every time he touches the ball". Which is a much more simple (subjective, of course) definition of a #1 receiver. The only time he scores is when he's hit in stride many feet from the defender or he's in the endzone already.

by mikebdot on Mar 4, 2008 8:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Right on Mark!

That guy is a tool! I guess he thinks he's the utmost expert when it comes to sports. Maybe he should get a job at ESPN or become the GM for the Bears with all of his knowledge.

by rob in iraq on Mar 4, 2008 7:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs