Michael Johnson- Scheme vs. Talent

[happyrid]

I definitely believe that:

1. Johnson is at a minimum an above average starting DE. He is a good player.

2. Our defensive scheme under Zimmer (and the presence of Geno) has made every DE we have put on the field the last few years look good. Remember when Frostee Rucker got $20M from the Browns and then sucked? And when Fanene signed for $12M with the Pats and didn't make it a year? Remember how Wallace Gilberry was just a random journeyman who had been cut before the Bengals signed him for the minimum and he started playing really well?


So here is what I am not sure of...


Is Michael Johnson just a good player who has been made to look great by a defense that seems to make every DE look really good? Or is he a great player that will excel wherever he ends up (unlike Rucker, Fanene, Gilberry, etc.) and who will be really hard to replace if he leaves?

I think you could make a pretty strong argument for MJ as an impact player (he is universally rated as one of the top 5 FAs this offseason). If that is the case, he will be almost impossible to replace.

But I also think you could make a pretty strong case that whoever has been in that DE spot the last 5 years has produced and that he is just a good player who has been made to look great due to a great defensive scheme. If that is the case, he should be pretty easy to replace.


To me, answering those questions is the main key in figuring out how hard the Bengals should pursue MJ in free agency over the next week...

[|Lucid|]

I definitely believe that:

1. Johnson is at a minimum an above average starting DE. He is a good player.

2. Our defensive scheme under Zimmer (and the presence of Geno) has made every DE we have put on the field the last few years look good. Remember when Frostee Rucker got $20M from the Browns and then sucked? And when Fanene signed for $12M with the Pats and didn't make it a year? Remember how Wallace Gilberry was just a random journeyman who had been cut before the Bengals signed him for the minimum and he started playing really well?


So here is what I am not sure of...


Is Michael Johnson just a good player who has been made to look great by a defense that seems to make every DE look really good? Or is he a great player that will excel wherever he ends up (unlike Rucker, Fanene, Gilberry, etc.) and who will be really hard to replace if he leaves?

I think you could make a pretty strong argument for MJ as an impact player (he is universally rated as one of the top 5 FAs this offseason). If that is the case, he will be almost impossible to replace.

But I also think you could make a pretty strong case that whoever has been in that DE spot the last 5 years has produced and that he is just a good player who has been made to look great due to a great defensive scheme. If that is the case, he should be pretty easy to replace.


To me, answering those questions is the main key in figuring out how hard the Bengals should pursue MJ in free agency over the next week...

 

I agree with this and it's a good question. For the record, the Bengals sure didn't seem to be confused about the answer and acted accordingly when it came to those guys you mentioned.  They spoke just as plainly when they applied the franchise tag to Johnson last year, and are making it known they consider him a priority in this free agency.

 

They could be wrong of course, being humans. But they are in the best position to know the answer given their proximity to the guts of the matter, and knowledge of what was asked and accomplished within the scheme. And the track record of late would seem to point towards their favor.

[mt-bengal]

Nail on the head! Great post i have been preaching this to friends this whole off season. He's a good DE but besides his abilty to knock balls down we won't miss much if he leaves IMHO. What I do like is hes a great person and good for the locker room but I wouldn't give him the kind of cash he's asking for.

[|Dr Tarzan|]

I think he was a little hamstrung by the scheme, as well.   The Zimmer way of mush rush required him to take on OTs face to face much of the time.  I understand the concept and don't disagree with it as we played alot of QB's last year who excel at scrambling/making plays out of pocket. 

 

So, therefore, I also think that if he were "unleased" and not made to stay in a zone/lane, just get the QB however you can, his sack numbers would have been markedly different.

[B.A.B.]

He's better than he gets credit for here. Next to Justin Smith it for his next team

[Khatmandude]

I think he was a little hamstrung by the scheme, as well.   The Zimmer way of mush rush required him to take on OTs face to face much of the time.  I understand the concept and don't disagree with it as we played alot of QB's last year who excel at scrambling/making plays out of pocket. 

 

So, therefore, I also think that if he were "unleased" and not made to stay in a zone/lane, just get the QB however you can, his sack numbers would have been markedly different.

 

I agree with this and I believe Zimmer's said as much.....that because of the scheme, the DEs don't get the sack numbers they could potentially get if they had no responsibilities other than to sack the QB.  "meet me at the QB". 

[knomage]

Johnson has other attributes. He's smart(high school valedictorian),reliable,agile (especially knocking down passes) and seems to enjoy being a Bengal..but money screams

while less money just talks.

If he makes the move for more money... its his choice

and our loss as well.