Stevie Johnson: stay or go

[jr1]

I'd like him as a #2 with a Mike Evans type as #1

[MClem06]

When I was at the last game I was sold on the fact that he is a loser. He gave up on a deep route that EJ had put up. At least run it out and make it look like you give a sheet. He's got skill but besides the one play to win the Baltimore game he blows important plays crucial to winning.

[The Big Cat]

I voted no, but if they could get decent trade value for him then I'd say take it. I would not flat out cut him though unless they had a plan to be able to upgrade his position with a inside receiver as they do not have one other than SJ13 now.

 

I had considered adding a third option 'only if they get the right value,' but I don't think many Bills fans would argue he's not worth a first or second round pick, so rather than dwell on the minutia, I opted to focus on the basic principle: whether or not the consideration ought even be made.

 

So far it's 2 to 1 on Stevie staying.

 

I'm actually pretty shocked by that. I know it's not an even split, but I didn't expect it to be so one-sided here in the early going. We'll see how it shapes out.

[Solomon Grundy]

Stay! Stevie is a " move the chains" guy. Stevie needs some maturation!! Maybe this type of scrutiny will help with that.

[1B4IDie]

Q: What is the opposite of "clutch"?

A: Stevie Johnson.

 

[BuffaloBillsForever]

Voted a definite NO.

 

We need to add around the core of Stevie, Goodwin and Woods. Where we cut ties is the depth below that core including Graham.

Edited December 13, 2013 by BuffaloBillsForever

[The Big Cat]

Stay! Stevie is a " move the chains" guy. Stevie needs some maturation!! Maybe this type of scrutiny will help with that.

 

That's fine, but this is a great opportunity to apply last year's universally agreed-upon Fitz principle. It was then we said: he's a great backup, but not for the price we're paying him. Well, if Stevie has proven himself the second coming of David Nelson, then everyone here should agree that he only stays if he agrees to significantly less money. Right?

[DanInUticaTampa]

They shouldn't cut him. At worst, trade him. He might not be a big time receiver, but he gets us good production to keep games alive. Hopefully woods can develop into a legit number one receiver, even if he isn't elite. It is better to have Stevie on the team, despite him being a good number 2. Having a good number 2 will only help our number 1 when and if we him. Stevie's contract is pretty reasonable. Isn't like he is preventing us from signing players or anything. People are way too hard on the guy that has helped this team way more than he hurt.

[The Big Cat]

They shouldn't cut him. At worst, trade him. He might not be a big time receiver, but he gets us good production to keep games alive. Hopefully woods can develop into a legit number one receiver, even if he isn't elite. It is better to have Stevie on the team, despite him being a good number 2. Having a good number 2 will only help our number 1 when and if we him. Stevie's contract is pretty reasonable. Isn't like he is preventing us from signing players or anything. People are way too hard on the guy that has helped this team way more than he hurt.

 

Again, I don't know why were were completely intolerant of paying Fitz money he didn't deserve, but that logic no longer applies to Stevie...

[KOKBILLS]

If the Bills had anything in-house I thought could possibly replace what Stevie brings I might consider the possibility of cutting him...But obviously that does not seem to be the case...So I'm pretty certain he's here for at least 2014...But we'll see...

[BuffaloBillsForever]

People are way too hard on the guy that has helped this team way more than he hurt.

 

Pretty much. To put it in context Stevie has been a more productive WR than Andre Reed (and look at the teams Reed played on compared to Stevie).

[LB3]

 

 

Again, I don't know why were were completely intolerant of paying Fitz money he didn't deserve, but that logic no longer applies to Stevie...

 

Probably because QB'S touch the ball nearly every snap. So he was too much of a liability for how important of a position he plays. Stevie messes up at some very bad times, that's inarguable, but not nearly as consistently as Fitzy did. Also, Fitzy refused the pay cut. We'll see what happens if they approach SJ about it.

[The Big Cat]

Pretty much. To put it in context Stevie has been a more productive WR than Andre Reed (and look at the teams Reed played on compared to Stevie).

 

Um...what?

 

Through 69 Games:

 

Stevie, 3828 yards, 28 TD's

Andre, 4,213 yards, 30 TD's

 

Probably because QB'S touch the ball nearly every snap. So he was too much of a liability for how important of a position he plays. Stevie messes up at some very bad times, that's inarguable, but not nearly as consistently as Fitzy did. Also, Fitzy refused the pay cut. We'll see what happens if they approach SJ about it.

 

I think that's a wildly inaccurate equation of their respective performances in the clutch. Especially given volume, especially how you prefaced your point.

[DanInUticaTampa]

Again, I don't know why were were completely intolerant of paying Fitz money he didn't deserve, but that logic no longer applies to Stevie...

 

 

Because Fitz obviously wasn't the long term answer at QB, and would never see the field unless the new starting QB got injured. Stevie wouldn't be a "backup." He would be a number 2, and still be playing a lot of snaps and still producing a lot. Comparing a number 2 receiver to a backup QB makes no sense to me. Completely different roles imo. Stevie might not be a top receiver, but an argument can be made that stevie is the 2nd best receiver in the AFCE after maybe Santonio Holmes. That might be a stretch since this season has been stevie's worst season since his rookie year. But the other years, that argument could be made.

 

Not sure how 2nd WR would equate to a backup QB though. Are 2nd WRs considered backups? I didn't think they were, but I could be wrong. He isn't getting paid a crazy amount. His contract is pretty modest. He is in like the top 25 as far as what he gets paid by the year, but every year he is going to get pushed down that list. Guy is a bargain for what we get out of him. Nothing like the mike Wallace contract.

[bmur66]

I would say SJ is on thin ice with the Coach right now. I think Marrone is going to make an example soon out of one of these losers and SJ may be the one.

[Campy]

Stevie is the Fitz of wide receivers: Inconsistent, wilts when needed most, and the embodiment of mediocrity.

 

Dump him and move on.

[The Big Cat]

Because Fitz obviously wasn't the long term answer at QB, and would never see the field unless the new starting QB got injured. Stevie wouldn't be a "backup." He would be a number 2, and still be playing a lot of snaps and still producing a lot. Comparing a number 2 receiver to a backup QB makes no sense to me. Completely different roles imo. Stevie might not be a top receiver, but an argument can be made that stevie is the 2nd best receiver in the AFCE after maybe Santonio Holmes. That might be a stretch since this season has been stevie's worst season since his rookie year. But the other years, that argument could be made.

 

Not sure how 2nd WR would equate to a backup QB though. Are 2nd WRs considered backups? I didn't think they were, but I could be wrong. He isn't getting paid a crazy amount. His contract is pretty modest. He is in like the top 25 as far as what he gets paid by the year, but every year he is going to get pushed down that list. Guy is a bargain for what we get out of him. Nothing like the mike Wallace contract.

 

And one could argue that Fitz would be the second best QB in the AFCE this year too. I understand your 'backup' argument. I just don't think it's that relevant considering he's paid like a top 20 wide receiver. So whether or not plays are designed for him, or whether or not his catch volume is diminished he's still paid to be a player he would not be.

[DanInUticaTampa]

And one could argue that Fitz would be the second best QB in the AFCE this year too. I understand your 'backup' argument. I just don't think it's that relevant considering he's paid like a top 20 wide receiver. So whether or not plays are designed for him, or whether or not his catch volume is diminished he's still paid to be a player he would not be.

 

Well, this year, yes. But next year he is probably going to fall out of the top 30. There are a few receivers that are going to eclipse him in free agency. If he stays on this current contract, he is only going be getting paid like the number 2 receivers.

 

By just cutting him, they aren't going to get a player that is better than him for the same amount of money. And trading him for something good seems like wishful thinking. Trades are difficult with it taking two to tango. I don't see how money should be the main factor. Like if he was taking 500,000 less a year, all of a sudden people would forgive him. Bills blow that much in QB camp fodder and then some. Stevie could be making just 5 mill a year, and it's not going to make much of a difference on this team. There are so many other things that need attention rather than "can we save a bit on stevie or get some 4th or 5th round draft pick for him?"

[The Big Cat]

Well, this year, yes. But next year he is probably going to fall out of the top 30. There are a few receivers that are going to eclipse him in free agency. If he stays on this current contract, he is only going be getting paid like the number 2 receivers.

 

By just cutting him, they aren't going to get a player that is better than him for the same amount of money. And trading him for something good seems like wishful thinking. Trades are difficult with it taking two to tango. I don't see how money should be the main factor. Like if he was taking 500,000 less a year, all of a sudden people would forgive him. Bills blow that much in QB camp fodder and then some. Stevie could be making just 5 mill a year, and it's not going to make much of a difference on this team. There are so many other things that need attention rather than "can we save a bit on stevie or get some 4th or 5th round draft pick for him?"

 

I think it's highly debatable whether or not he can be replaced. And I think his absences this season demonstrate that quite clearly.

 

I do, however, fully agree that he shouldn't be cut to save costs.

[DanInUticaTampa]

I think it's highly debatable whether or not he can be replaced. And I think his absences this season demonstrate that quite clearly.

 

I do, however, fully agree that he shouldn't be cut to save costs.

 

Well, talentwise, he is very replaceable. But getting someone as good as him would probably cost more. It all depends on the market. I think they have a better shot at getting someone less talented for less money, which I am not sure is a good thing. Besides talent though, I always felt he had a sense of loyalty to the team. And he is always angry after a loss which is nice. People rag on him for not trying hard enough, or goofing off too much, or his "antics." But I don't think any of that has anything to do with his performance. People use that as an excuse, truth is he has reached his limitations, and this is the best he can be, even if you take all the antics out.

 

But I think in a couple years, his contract is only going to look better. And when it rounds out, and it works for both sides, they can probably sign him again on a much cheaper contract and still get some good things out of him. Or they can let him walk if his play isn't what it used to be. And if they trade him, I would like at least 3rd. anything less would be disappointing. Especially with our receivers. ridding stevie would make graham the Vet there. And I don't think he has much time left on the team either