Calvin Johnson in the second half (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

Lions | Kitna believes C. Johnson should get the ball more

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:29:11 -0700

Philip Zaroo, of Mlive.com, reports Detroit Lions QB Jon Kitna said during an interview with WDFN-AM Detroit that WR Calvin Johnson should get the football more. "Like I said, it's a complex system, and so the more you can have guys that have been in it, the better. But the fact remains with Calvin and his skill set, we need to find ways to get him the football a little more, and give him a chance to take advantage of how talented he really is," Kitna said.

Im thinking the more he learns that system, the more he will be on the field. He is tough to cover as is, and will most likely be drawing the #2 CB.

He will have some indoor games when the weather starts to turn

I wouldnt call him a great buy low guy, However, I think he can really improve on his numbers over the second half of the season.

Thoughts?

 

[PantherPower]

I think Jon Kitna is the smartest man in the universe.

-Calvin Johnson owner in 6 dynasty leagues

 

[BigTex]

As a proud owner a CaJo this news makes me feel like a virgin all over again, thank you.

 

[Wingnut]

pssst....hey John....yeah, over here...you want Calvin to get the ball more?? Heres an idea....since you decide where it goes, throw it to him more!!

 

[Sack-Religious]

pssst....hey John....yeah, over here...you want Calvin to get the ball more?? Heres an idea....since you decide where it goes, throw it to him more!!

I agree partially.I don't have the numbers that are in other threads. But, IIRC, Calvin has been on the field (when healthy) for less than 50% of the plays. If the coaching staff will get him on the field more, Kitna can throw it to him more.It's up to the coaching staff to get him into the game more. Once he's in the game it's up to Kitna to get him the ball.

 

[Magnum]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

pssst....hey John....yeah, over here...you want Calvin to get the ball more?? Heres an idea....since you decide where it goes, throw it to him more!!

I agree partially.I don't have the numbers that are in other threads. But, IIRC, Calvin has been on the field (when healthy) for less than 50% of the plays. If the coaching staff will get him on the field more, Kitna can throw it to him more.It's up to the coaching staff to get him into the game more. Once he's in the game it's up to Kitna to get him the ball.

It all boils down to how much they put Calvin on the field. If he's on the field like the star WR he is, I fully believe he'll be a Top 15-20 option in the second half.what's held Calvin back is the amount of snaps. Look for that to drastically change in the 2nd half as the staff's feeling the heat due to the fact they haven't put Calvin on the field extensively.

 

[BigTex]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

 

[Magnum]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

Due back for week 9

 

[shadyridr]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

 

[bostonfred]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

 

[Kuz]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

 

[BigTex]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

Due back for week 9

Branch has been a HUGE letdown, only time will tell if that will change.

 

[Big Blue Wrecking Crew]

What is the coaching staff commentary? Is there a groundswell there to get Calvin more involved? Just because Kitna says this doesn't mean it is going to happen.

Plus, what the latest on his back?

 

[BigTex]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

0+0=00x0=00-0=00/0=0

 

[switz]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

 

[Stabmug]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

0/0=0

That is incorrect... you can not divide something into zero parts... but I get your overall point

 

[Gig Em]

The more time he has to learn the offense = the more time he will be involved in the game = more opportunities to make plays.

Let him get more experience in practice and in games and his production will surely rise.

 

[shadyridr]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

Funny thing is he did it AFTER the Branch injury

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

Pretty sure this is Sig worthy

 

[BigTex]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

0/0=0

That is incorrect... you can not divide something into zero parts... but I get your overall point

That is the point and it is correct. Nothing from nothing equals nothing no matter the equation.

 

[BigTex]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

Funny thing is he did it AFTER the Branch injury

I actually thought he was joking at first.

 

[Magnum]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

Funny thing is he did it AFTER the Branch injury

What's REALLY funny is both players have played 3 full games and Branch has outscored Johnson 38 to 31 (standard scoring). Branch also gets more targets, is the #1WR on his team, and is on the field more. Yet, know-it-alls like yourself talk it up like you are the all knowing. What a joke.

 

[Wingnut]

pssst....hey John....yeah, over here...you want Calvin to get the ball more?? Heres an idea....since you decide where it goes, throw it to him more!!

I agree partially.I don't have the numbers that are in other threads. But, IIRC, Calvin has been on the field (when healthy) for less than 50% of the plays. If the coaching staff will get him on the field more, Kitna can throw it to him more.It's up to the coaching staff to get him into the game more. Once he's in the game it's up to Kitna to get him the ball.

Im just hoping Kitna gets it to him more no matter how many plays hes on the field

 

[switz]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

Funny thing is he did it AFTER the Branch injury

What's REALLY funny is both players have played 3 full games and Branch has outscored Johnson 38 to 31 (standard scoring). Branch also gets more targets, is the #1WR on his team, and is on the field more. Yet, know-it-alls like yourself talk it up like you are the all knowing. What a joke.

Hmmm... so you're crowing about a #1 WR outscoring a ROOKIE #2 WR by SEVEN POINTS???? Nevermind that as CJ develops he will see more playing time, and Branch is injured and going to miss at least two games. It mimght be a wise move to listen to us "know-it-alls" since it seems you could learn quite a bit from us, if you think that trade was a good one.

 

[Magnum]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

Funny thing is he did it AFTER the Branch injury

What's REALLY funny is both players have played 3 full games and Branch has outscored Johnson 38 to 31 (standard scoring). Branch also gets more targets, is the #1WR on his team, and is on the field more. Yet, know-it-alls like yourself talk it up like you are the all knowing. What a joke.

Hmmm... so you're crowing about a #1 WR outscoring a ROOKIE #2 WR by SEVEN POINTS???? Nevermind that as CJ develops he will see more playing time, and Branch is injured and going to miss at least two games. It mimght be a wise move to listen to us "know-it-alls" since it seems you could learn quite a bit from us, if you think that trade was a good one.

You may want to take a closer look at this thread. I was not "crowing" whatsoever about the trade. In fact, I said..."with reservation" I made the trade. It wasn't until the know-it-alls starting spewing that I made a case for the trade. BTW....in a redraft.....I could care less if Calvin is a rookie. The bottom line is points scored. BTW...Branch is my WR3...and he's only expected to miss one more week (plus his "bye").

 

[Loopdog]

I think Calvin will really come on in the second half as well. The Lions need him to and he will certainly get more snaps as he is getting back healthy again. His body control in the air is sick and he is pretty much uncoverable by a nickle corner. Kitna knows that. Calvin's ready to explode. Sorry guy with Deion Branch but I'd be shocked if Calvin didn't score at least 5 times more this season.

 

[packersfan]

Branch has been a HUGE letdown, only time will tell if that will change.

He's averaging nearly 10 points per game when healthy and that's including the dog in Week 1. Take away that game which was clearly a fluke and he's averaging 13 points per game in standard scoring leagues. The only disappointing thing about Branch is he got hurt and hasn't been able to continue to put up stellar numbers the last two weeks.Sorry for the hijack.

 

[packersfan]

Hmmm... so you're crowing about a #1 WR outscoring a ROOKIE #2 WR by SEVEN POINTS???? Nevermind that as CJ develops he will see more playing time, and Branch is injured and going to miss at least two games.

Branch is expected back next week.

 

[shadyridr]

I think Calvin will really come on in the second half as well. The Lions need him to and he will certainly get more snaps as he is getting back healthy again. His body control in the air is sick and he is pretty much uncoverable by a nickle corner. Kitna knows that. Calvin's ready to explode. Sorry guy with Deion Branch but I'd be shocked if Calvin didn't score at least 5 times more this season.

I thought it was a bad deal but I doubt he outscores him 5X more

 

[Loopdog]

i mean score 5 more TD's over the course of the rest of the season. Not outscore Branch's production by 5

 

[shadyridr]

i mean score 5 more TD's over the course of the rest of the season. Not outscore Branch's production by 5

lol oh

 

[bostonfred]

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

Pretty sure this is Sig worthy

Why? Would you rather start a 50% Calvin Johnson last week, or bench a 0% Andre Johnson/Javon Walker? Calvin got one catch for 3 yards. In that case, I'd rather have started my WR4 than a receiver who was supposedly at 50%.

 

[moleculo]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

0/0=0

That is incorrect... you can not divide something into zero parts... but I get your overall point

That is the point and it is correct. Nothing from nothing equals nothing no matter the equation.

huh?

 

[BigTex]

Branch has been a HUGE letdown, only time will tell if that will change.

He's averaging nearly 10 points per game when healthy and that's including the dog in Week 1. Take away that game which was clearly a fluke and he's averaging 13 points per game in standard scoring leagues. The only disappointing thing about Branch is he got hurt and hasn't been able to continue to put up stellar numbers the last two weeks.Sorry for the hijack.

LOL, I started him week 1 and he met the bench after that. Highly upset, highly i tell you.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Calvin Johnson's gotta prove himself. Right now it's Dwayne Bowe that's looking like the phenom rookie wide receiver. CJ2's gotta change that perception starting this Sunday.

 

[davearm]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.

I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.

FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.

70/9 > 83/11.

 

[switz]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.70/9 > 83/11.

I doubt Branch puts up better numbers than Johnson from here on out on a game by game average.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I see alot more upside with Cal Johnson than I do with Branch.

 

[Paddy O'Seanessy]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Isn't Branch hurt?50%>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>0%

I would much rather have one of my top 3 receivers at 0% than 50%. Otherwise you never know when to start them.

0/0=0

That is incorrect... you can not divide something into zero parts... but I get your overall point

and he wonders why his projection numbers are so wrong

 

[The_U]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.70/9 > 83/11.

I doubt Branch puts up better numbers than Johnson from here on out on a game by game average.

"Bartender, another one of whatever he's drinking - and make it a double!"No doubt about this one IMO. CJ should ROLL Branch's production over the second half.

 

[davearm]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.70/9 > 83/11.

I doubt Branch puts up better numbers than Johnson from here on out on a game by game average.

That's all well and good, but it's only your opinion. Earlier you popped off like anyone who thinks otherwise must be a complete and utter moron.Well David Dodds is amongst those that think otherwise. And it's hardly a radical, way-out-on-a-limb notion.So maybe saving the condescending self-righteous schtick for when it might actually be warranted would be something for you to consider. Just a thought.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

With reservation.........I traded Calvin for D. Branch yesterday (in a redraft, non ppr league). It was the "being on the field for less than 50% of the plays" that was the decision maker for me.

Ouch was that ever a bad trade.... especially with Branch now going to miss at least the next couple games.

Funny thing is he did it AFTER the Branch injury

What's REALLY funny is both players have played 3 full games and Branch has outscored Johnson 38 to 31 (standard scoring). Branch also gets more targets, is the #1WR on his team, and is on the field more. Yet, know-it-alls like yourself talk it up like you are the all knowing. What a joke.

Hmmm... so you're crowing about a #1 WR outscoring a ROOKIE #2 WR by SEVEN POINTS???? Nevermind that as CJ develops he will see more playing time, and Branch is injured and going to miss at least two games. It mimght be a wise move to listen to us "know-it-alls" since it seems you could learn quite a bit from us, if you think that trade was a good one.

You may want to take a closer look at this thread. I was not "crowing" whatsoever about the trade. In fact, I said..."with reservation" I made the trade. It wasn't until the know-it-alls starting spewing that I made a case for the trade. BTW....in a redraft.....I could care less if Calvin is a rookie. The bottom line is points scored. BTW...Branch is my WR3...and he's only expected to miss one more week (plus his "bye").

Branch has scored more fantasy points in their 3 full games....barely. When you consider Branch probably played double the snaps that Calvin has...and factor in that Calvin will certainly start playing a lot more, that should tell you Calvin has a great chance to have the better numbers from here on.

 

[switz]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.70/9 > 83/11.

I doubt Branch puts up better numbers than Johnson from here on out on a game by game average.

That's all well and good, but it's only your opinion. Earlier you popped off like anyone who thinks otherwise must be a complete and utter moron.Well David Dodds is amongst those that think otherwise. And it's hardly a radical, way-out-on-a-limb notion.So maybe saving the condescending self-righteous schtick for when it might actually be warranted would be something for you to consider. Just a thought.

Maybe you should re-read the thread and get the full story My initial response was - ouch that's a bad trade, especially with Branch going to be missing time.The trader was the one who popped off all condescending, calling names, etc.Maybe you should take your own advice - since I wasn't being condescending, and you are.

 

[shadyridr]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.70/9 > 83/11.

I doubt Branch puts up better numbers than Johnson from here on out on a game by game average.

That's all well and good, but it's only your opinion. Earlier you popped off like anyone who thinks otherwise must be a complete and utter moron.Well David Dodds is amongst those that think otherwise. And it's hardly a radical, way-out-on-a-limb notion.So maybe saving the condescending self-righteous schtick for when it might actually be warranted would be something for you to consider. Just a thought.

Maybe you should re-read the thread and get the full story My initial response was - ouch that's a bad trade, especially with Branch going to be missing time.The trader was the one who popped off all condescending, calling names, etc.Maybe you should take your own advice - since I wasn't being condescending, and you are.

 

[Bob Lee Swagger]

When both guys are playing, Branch > Johnson.I don't think that's a bad trade at all, provided you can manage the next two weeks without Branch.FWIW, the Top 200 shows Branch scoring 70 points the rest of the way (9 games), vs. 83 (in 11 games) for Johnson.70/9 > 83/11.

I doubt Branch puts up better numbers than Johnson from here on out on a game by game average.

That's all well and good, but it's only your opinion. Earlier you popped off like anyone who thinks otherwise must be a complete and utter moron.Well David Dodds is amongst those that think otherwise. And it's hardly a radical, way-out-on-a-limb notion.So maybe saving the condescending self-righteous schtick for when it might actually be warranted would be something for you to consider. Just a thought.

Maybe you should re-read the thread and get the full story My initial response was - ouch that's a bad trade, especially with Branch going to be missing time.The trader was the one who popped off all condescending, calling names, etc.Maybe you should take your own advice - since I wasn't being condescending, and you are.

Listen, girls. Both of you stop being #####es. It's embarassing.

 

[CrossEyed]

Hmmm, somebody just dropped CJ in my redraft ppr league. Worth a flyer? I'd have to drop Ike Hilliard, who has been surprisingly productive in ppr leagues.

 

[WhoDat]

Calvin Johnson's gotta prove himself. Right now it's Dwayne Bowe that's looking like the phenom rookie wide receiver. CJ2's gotta change that perception starting this Sunday.

11 catches...10 for 1st downs...17.5 per catch average...2 scores in 4 gamesPrior to the back injury, which is a detractor, Johnson was every bit the player advertised. He did not look like a rookie WR...far too technical and polished at route running...and I am not how much more someone could want from him over his first few games. As a Bowe/Johnson owner and Lions fan, I cannot say Johnson has disappointed in anyway and I would expect Johnson's year end tally to be on par with Bowe's especially given the Lions offense and ability to play from behind. I would agree his missing a game (Bears) and disappearing from another (Skins) are negative marks but, when the production he does have is looked at, I cannot reach the same conclusion.