What about Steve Johnson?

by Copious 1 on Feb 20, 2012 9:16 PM EST

I haven't heard much chatter on the blog about he idea of adding Steve Johnson as the deep threat #1 WR. I'm sure that some of that is due to the drama surrounding his big drop against the Jets and/or his TD celebrations, but I think that is a non-issue when compared to what he brings to the table (it's 3 incidents of nuckleheadom, and I think the team culture could help curtail that). Then there is this quote from an Associated Press via NFL Network:

A person familiar with the contract talks between the Buffalo Bills and Stevie Johnson said the two sides remain "far apart," and added that the receiver doesn't expect the team to use its franchise tag to retain him.

By the Numbers:

Stevie Johnson, Buffalo Bills

Age as of September 1st, 2012: 26

2011 Grade: +6.0

Key Stat: Lowered his dropped passes from 13 in 2010 to just 5 in 2011.

Behind the numbers: After just 10 yards receiving in 2009, Johnson made a name for himself with over 1,000 yards in both 2010 and 2011. For all the plays he did make, however, his season will likely be remembered for both a costly drop and penalty in the season finale against the New England Patriots.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/02/16/ranking-the-2012-free-agents-wide-receivers/

	REC	YDS	AVG	LNG	TD
2011 Regular Season	76	1,004	13.2	55	7

The guy can beat press coverage, which is a must, and produced his numbers last season by beating double teams at times (two things a #1 WR MUST do). I think the team would still need to draft a WR to bolster the receiving corp, but he would be a great piece in the rebuild compared to the current options on the roster minus the upside of Hankerson. Oh yeah, and he consistently beats Darrelle Revis. Thoughts?

Poll

Would you be happy with the addition of Steve Johnson?

Yes

252 votes

No

116 votes

368 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I voted yes.

He’s made some stupid mistakes but who hasn’t? He would be a legitimate deep threat. I’m interested to see what the Steelers do with Mike Wallace. I saw somewhere that they may not be able to afford to franchise him.

by Fred Dudley on Feb 20, 2012 9:49 PM EST reply actions

I think he's going to get franchised

or possible hit a long-term deal before FA

R.I.P JVP 1926-2012

by Tiller56 on Feb 21, 2012 7:23 AM EST up reply actions

I voted no.

he came out of nowhere (Lee Evans was the man in Buffalo), put a couple of highlight plays on ESPN and now he is a #1 WR. Does anyone remember “the Drop” which cost his team?

Is he a good WR, sure. But he is asking way tooo much $$$$$, and he most likely will never accomplish anything to justify that kind of salary, IMHO.

by jgibbsfan1 on Feb 20, 2012 10:07 PM EST reply actions

I voted NO as well for the same reasons.

HAIL 4 LIFE!!!!

by squigums on Feb 20, 2012 11:05 PM EST up reply actions

The price will be set by the market.

My main question is this…which WR(s) on the Redskins roster is better than him and under 28? If you can’t name 3, then he’s not a bad option (That goes for all FA WRs). I would settle for WR’s getting into the end-zone and dropping passes, as opposed to never seeing the end-zone and still dropping passes.

Redskins @RGIII - 2012

by Copious 1 on Feb 20, 2012 11:10 PM EST up reply actions

"If you can't name three, then he's not a bad option"

Well, if he cost too much, he would be a bad option. We could have somebody better in that slot for the same money.

by Donnio1234 on Feb 21, 2012 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

and how many WRs are better has nothing to do with how good he is...

this FA class of WRs may just be three, with a bunch of ordinary guys hopping on the train, garnering the benefits of the lack of available talent.

My point is – IF you sign him, sign him to a realistic contract, worthy of his average skills set.

by jgibbsfan1 on Feb 21, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions

i agree copious

i voted yes

by munson21502 on Feb 21, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

i voted yes

i dont thnk he’ll get the money he wants in free agncy he’ll probally be cheaper than d bowe and V jax but I would prefer we get colston

by taylor21 on Feb 20, 2012 10:14 PM EST reply actions

I voted yes

He has legitimate big play ability and can beat press coverage. We have plenty of money to spend and a need at the position.

Not sure why that doesn’t make sense, assuming the price tag isn’t other worldly.

by SCSkin21 on Feb 21, 2012 12:29 AM EST reply actions

I would rather have their QB, Fitzpatrick. I am sold on him as a eventual pro-bowler.

The Bills need a defense and a star RB.

by tw10 on Feb 21, 2012 1:19 AM EST reply actions

I think they have the running back thing covered...

Fred Jackson ran for 900 in 10 games….

"Honey Badger Don't Care"

by ptowny on Feb 21, 2012 6:38 AM EST up reply actions

Is that sarcasm regarding Fitzpatrick?

Redskins @RGIII - 2012

by Copious 1 on Feb 21, 2012 7:41 AM EST via Android app up reply actions

I was wondering the same thing

"If there's football in heaven I will be thinking of Sean Taylor every time it thunders."

by Ohio Redskins on Feb 21, 2012 1:51 PM EST up reply actions

The Bills are converting back from a 3/4 defense to a base 4/3 defense. They have two good DTs, good DBs

by Jefferson1935 on Feb 21, 2012 10:44 AM EST up reply actions

they were happy with Chad Rhinehart playing Guard

by terpsez11 on Feb 23, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

Fred Jackson is one of the best RBs in the league.

"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Feb 21, 2012 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

yeah and while i never would have drafted Spiller in the top 10, he did pretty damn well as Jackson's replacement

Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com

by Steve Shoup on Feb 21, 2012 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

Spiller's a very talented back, but one that needs some development and one that shouldn't have been a top pick. But once he gets it, he'll be a dangerous back

by StephanHart on Feb 22, 2012 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

He is a good player

abd would be ok bring him, but I would really like to see what Hank and Paul can do. If we bring in veteran WR, hank and pual will be 4th and 5th on the depth chart, unless we let go or some how trade gaffney and moss

When I was a kid, my father told me, "Never hit anyone in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it." -Russell Ziskey

by Redskin44 on Feb 21, 2012 11:31 AM EST reply actions

$$$$

"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins

by smutsboy1 on Feb 21, 2012 1:05 PM EST reply actions

Not enough bang for the buck

I voted no. Is he better than what we have? Yes. Is he worth the money that it will likely take to sign him? In all likelihood, no. That being said, we need a big time receiver that will go up and get the ball and right now, we don’t have that player on the roster. When was the last time you saw a Redskins receiver win a jump ball situation? Colston or Manningham are probably better values.

by Ilikesonny on Feb 21, 2012 1:49 PM EST reply actions

Agree about the not enough bang for the buck

I think you’re right, he probably will be asking for more money than he’s worth and I don’t believe in overpaying someone just becaue they’re better than what we have on the roster. He’s also not that jump ball type of receiver.

However, I agree Colston will be a better value, even though I think when it’s all done they’ll get close to the same amount of money. I just think Colston is a much better receiver. Yes, Brees made him look good, but he has the athletic ability and skills to be a #1 on any team pretty much.

I think Manningham will not command as much money as Colston or Johnson, I dont even think it will be close. I still think Manningham will be grossly overpaid because of his superbowl performance. I think he is a solid #3 on a good team and that would be his best role. I think he can be an average to below average #2 on a team with an elite #1, such as Fitzgerald or C. Johnson. But I think he will end up being overpaid this year.

by gskin53 on Feb 21, 2012 10:47 PM EST up reply actions

probably not...

The reason is because he thinks he is worth more $ than he actually is.

by skinsfan76 on Feb 21, 2012 4:12 PM EST via mobile reply actions

He's a bit of a headcase

And he will demand big money, but the guy is very talented. If we can get him without overpaying significantly, yes. The dude is a playmaker.

by BigOLinemen on Feb 21, 2012 4:21 PM EST reply actions

I’ve read that he’s actually asking for less than what it would cost the Bills to franchise him, but I would totally sign him. He falls into that young and hungry category Shanahan is looking for. I think he and Hankerson would be a good tandem for years to come if we could get him.

by ARSkinsFan on Feb 21, 2012 4:42 PM EST reply actions

At the right price

Would he complement Hankerson nicely? Yes
Is he a good receiver? Yes

It all depends on how much he wants and what other teams are willing to pay. I think he could fit in great on our team, despite his “diva” qualities, but it is all dependent on the price. At the right price, I think we should get him.

by gskin53 on Feb 21, 2012 10:49 PM EST up reply actions