James Anderson and Charles Johnson?

[NewFace15]

Don\'t these guys wreak of one year wonders? Anderson hasn\'t been good at all till last year and really neither has Johnson. Hardy seems like would step and be a beast if Johnson left. And we have conners or a free agent if Anderson left. I\'d just hate to spend big money on wither one and have them be average. (Chris Gamble)

 

[presidence99]

OYW? Anderson yes, Johnson no

 

[y2b]

Anderson seemed like he was often in the right place at the right time to make plays... but he made them. If we can upgrade there, he's awesome depth.

Darkness to me has progressively improved over the years IMO... he's a stud

 

[Thelt]

Charles Johnson was pretty good for a few years. His stats just shot up because he got more snaps with Peppers gone. I agree that Hardy looks like he is going to be good too. Johnson and Hardy would give us a good set of bookends at DE so I would like to see us keep both. Anderson is more of a question mark to me. I would like to keep him but it would not kill us if he left. It will probably come down to keeping either Anderson or Thomas Davis. Davis is better when healthy but will he ever be healthy for an entire season again?

 

[magnus]

even if Johnson had only had one year, I'd still consider giving him all I had. That one year was phenomenal for a first starting year. But, as a backup, he gave a lot of pressure per snap, and that's even with that weird shit in 2009 where he played at 290 and saw a lot of DT snaps.

I'd blame the team for misusing him, but you had Peppers on one side, Brayton had like 9 sacks total in 08-09 (with a career 5 sacks before that), and they pushed Brown onto the field.


Anderson I'm more wary of. He led the team in tackles, but wouldn't have with any number of things happening, most of which relate to Davis not being at WLB and Connor getting hurt (and the obvious Beason implications). I also don't think he'd have out tackled Harris - who we very well could have just put at WLB for all it fucking mattered.

 

[Collin]

Anderson actually stood out from watching games, though. His stats were not a mirage, he was consistently standing out. The reality is that we'd never given him a real shot, especially not at SLB. Meanwhile with Johnson my concern is not that he won't continue to be effective, but that I worry he won't be as effective as he was in 2010. If he plays at 80% of that over the next three seasons but we're paying him an assload of money, that's not good. Unfortunately DE is always so thin that it commands a premium contract. I'm not at all worried about either of those guys suddenly becoming bums, but I am concerned about overpaying.

 

[magnus]

I don't think we become a better team if we get Anderson for $1 million a year under market price and fail to keep Johnson for a mil per year extra, though. And point understood but Anderson doing nothing of interest before 2010 is a legitimate risk.

 

[Collin]

And point understood but Anderson doing nothing of interest before 2010 is a legitimate risk.

Actually he and Johnson are very similar in that respect. If you go back and look, Anderson was actually very active in the limited time he got during '09, specifically from 11/29 onward. That's when the team dumped Landon Johnson.

 

[buck nasty]

could be anderson's first stint, i think it was at mlb, where he got abused that has me cautious about him.

 

[presidence99]

could be anderson's first stint, i think it was at mlb, where he got abused that has me cautious about him.

Wasn't that only a half a game stint?