Not sold on Larry Johnson


The Redskins signed RB Larry Johnson last week to a 3-year contract worth $3.5 million, though incentives could push the deal to $12 million [though I wouldn't spend that full 12 mil just yet if I was LJ].
The signing of Larry Johnson is weird. With Clinton Portis already on board, the Redskins need youth and speed at running back and they got neither. They got another old running back with a lot of wear and tear on his 30-year-old body. [Remember, Johnson carried the ball an incredible 416 times in 2006. Most running backs are never the same after a season like that. Johnson himself has certainly never been a top back since 2006.] In fact, Johnson was the 2nd most inefficient running back in the NFL last year.
2) Larry Johnson, Chiefs/Bengals: -103 DYAR (-91 rushing, -12 receiving)
Johnson ran much better in Cincinnati [4.4 yards per carry] than he did in Kansas City [2.9 yards per carry], but the difference cannot be blamed on the Kansas City offensive line. Jamal Charles, the running back who replaced Johnson in Kansas City, was one of the more efficient backs in the NFL during the second half of last season.
Johnson looks like a capable backup, but the Redskins could probably draft a capable backup running back or get one with far less baggage in free agency. I'm not the only one doubting this move:
 
One general manager wasn't high on Johnson or Portis, saying both, in his mind, were done as No. 1 running backs. Johnson is 30; Portis is 28.
"Portis is a complementary guy and so is Johnson," he said. "Between the two of them maybe they get one [running back]."
Considering what the Redskins are paying Portis, this is a lot of money for one serviceable running back. True, only two years ago Johnson was averaging 4.5 yards per carry, but NFL observers know how quickly running backs decline, particularly when they've had as many carries as Johnson has had.
Over at ESPN, NFC East blogger Matt Mosley sums up my views on Johnson nicely:
In 2005 and 2006, Johnson was one of the two or three best backs in the league. He had back-to-back 1,700-yard seasons, but in '06, he had a staggering 416 carries. He's basically never recovered from taking all that punishment. So I wouldn't look at him like a typical 30-year-old running back. In fact, I think players in his age bracket such as LaDainian Tomlinson, Willie Parker, Brian Westbrook and Thomas Jones all have more tread left than Johnson. ...

The Redskins signed RB Larry Johnson last week to a 3-year contract worth $3.5 million, though incentives could push the deal to $12 million [though I wouldn't spend that full 12 mil just yet if I was LJ].
The signing of Larry Johnson is weird. With Clinton Portis already on board, the Redskins need youth and speed at running back and they got neither. They got another old running back with a lot of wear and tear on his 30-year-old body. [Remember, Johnson carried the ball an incredible 416 times in 2006. Most running backs are never the same after a season like that. Johnson himself has certainly never been a top back since 2006.] In fact, Johnson was the 2nd most inefficient running back in the NFL last year.
2) Larry Johnson, Chiefs/Bengals: -103 DYAR (-91 rushing, -12 receiving)
Johnson ran much better in Cincinnati [4.4 yards per carry] than he did in Kansas City [2.9 yards per carry], but the difference cannot be blamed on the Kansas City offensive line. Jamal Charles, the running back who replaced Johnson in Kansas City, was one of the more efficient backs in the NFL during the second half of last season.
Johnson looks like a capable backup, but the Redskins could probably draft a capable backup running back or get one with far less baggage in free agency. I'm not the only one doubting this move:
 
One general manager wasn't high on Johnson or Portis, saying both, in his mind, were done as No. 1 running backs. Johnson is 30; Portis is 28.
"Portis is a complementary guy and so is Johnson," he said. "Between the two of them maybe they get one [running back]."
Considering what the Redskins are paying Portis, this is a lot of money for one serviceable running back. True, only two years ago Johnson was averaging 4.5 yards per carry, but NFL observers know how quickly running backs decline, particularly when they've had as many carries as Johnson has had.
Over at ESPN, NFC East blogger Matt Mosley sums up my views on Johnson nicely:
In 2005 and 2006, Johnson was one of the two or three best backs in the league. He had back-to-back 1,700-yard seasons, but in '06, he had a staggering 416 carries. He's basically never recovered from taking all that punishment. So I wouldn't look at him like a typical 30-year-old running back. In fact, I think players in his age bracket such as LaDainian Tomlinson, Willie Parker, Brian Westbrook and Thomas Jones all have more tread left than Johnson. ...

The Redskins signed RB Larry Johnson last week to a 3-year contract worth $3.5 million, though incentives could push the deal to $12 million [though I wouldn't spend that full 12 mil just yet if I was LJ].
The signing of Larry Johnson is weird. With Clinton Portis already on board, the Redskins need youth and speed at running back and they got neither. They got another old running back with a lot of wear and tear on his 30-year-old body. [Remember, Johnson carried the ball an incredible 416 times in 2006. Most running backs are never the same after a season like that. Johnson himself has certainly never been a top back since 2006.] In fact, Johnson was the 2nd most inefficient running back in the NFL last year.
2) Larry Johnson, Chiefs/Bengals: -103 DYAR (-91 rushing, -12 receiving)
Johnson ran much better in Cincinnati [4.4 yards per carry] than he did in Kansas City [2.9 yards per carry], but the difference cannot be blamed on the Kansas City offensive line. Jamal Charles, the running back who replaced Johnson in Kansas City, was one of the more efficient backs in the NFL during the second half of last season.
Johnson looks like a capable backup, but the Redskins could probably draft a capable backup running back or get one with far less baggage in free agency. I'm not the only one doubting this move:
 
One general manager wasn't high on Johnson or Portis, saying both, in his mind, were done as No. 1 running backs. Johnson is 30; Portis is 28.
"Portis is a complementary guy and so is Johnson," he said. "Between the two of them maybe they get one [running back]."
Considering what the Redskins are paying Portis, this is a lot of money for one serviceable running back. True, only two years ago Johnson was averaging 4.5 yards per carry, but NFL observers know how quickly running backs decline, particularly when they've had as many carries as Johnson has had.
Over at ESPN, NFC East blogger Matt Mosley sums up my views on Johnson nicely:
In 2005 and 2006, Johnson was one of the two or three best backs in the league. He had back-to-back 1,700-yard seasons, but in '06, he had a staggering 416 carries. He's basically never recovered from taking all that punishment. So I wouldn't look at him like a typical 30-year-old running back. In fact, I think players in his age bracket such as LaDainian Tomlinson, Willie Parker, Brian Westbrook and Thomas Jones all have more tread left than Johnson. ...

The Redskins signed RB Larry Johnson last week to a 3-year contract worth $3.5 million, though incentives could push the deal to $12 million [though I wouldn't spend that full 12 mil just yet if I was LJ].
The signing of Larry Johnson is weird. With Clinton Portis already on board, the Redskins need youth and speed at running back and they got neither. They got another old running back with a lot of wear and tear on his 30-year-old body. [Remember, Johnson carried the ball an incredible 416 times in 2006. Most running backs are never the same after a season like that. Johnson himself has certainly never been a top back since 2006.] In fact, Johnson was the 2nd most inefficient running back in the NFL last year.
2) Larry Johnson, Chiefs/Bengals: -103 DYAR (-91 rushing, -12 receiving)
Johnson ran much better in Cincinnati [4.4 yards per carry] than he did in Kansas City [2.9 yards per carry], but the difference cannot be blamed on the Kansas City offensive line. Jamal Charles, the running back who replaced Johnson in Kansas City, was one of the more efficient backs in the NFL during the second half of last season.
Johnson looks like a capable backup, but the Redskins could probably draft a capable backup running back or get one with far less baggage in free agency. I'm not the only one doubting this move:
 
One general manager wasn't high on Johnson or Portis, saying both, in his mind, were done as No. 1 running backs. Johnson is 30; Portis is 28.
"Portis is a complementary guy and so is Johnson," he said. "Between the two of them maybe they get one [running back]."
Considering what the Redskins are paying Portis, this is a lot of money for one serviceable running back. True, only two years ago Johnson was averaging 4.5 yards per carry, but NFL observers know how quickly running backs decline, particularly when they've had as many carries as Johnson has had.
Over at ESPN, NFC East blogger Matt Mosley sums up my views on Johnson nicely:
In 2005 and 2006, Johnson was one of the two or three best backs in the league. He had back-to-back 1,700-yard seasons, but in '06, he had a staggering 416 carries. He's basically never recovered from taking all that punishment. So I wouldn't look at him like a typical 30-year-old running back. In fact, I think players in his age bracket such as LaDainian Tomlinson, Willie Parker, Brian Westbrook and Thomas Jones all have more tread left than Johnson. ...

The Redskins signed RB Larry Johnson last week to a 3-year contract worth $3.5 million, though incentives could push the deal to $12 million [though I wouldn't spend that full 12 mil just yet if I was LJ].
The signing of Larry Johnson is weird. With Clinton Portis already on board, the Redskins need youth and speed at running back and they got neither. They got another old running back with a lot of wear and tear on his 30-year-old body. [Remember, Johnson carried the ball an incredible 416 times in 2006. Most running backs are never the same after a season like that. Johnson himself has certainly never been a top back since 2006.] In fact, Johnson was the 2nd most inefficient running back in the NFL last year.
2) Larry Johnson, Chiefs/Bengals: -103 DYAR (-91 rushing, -12 receiving)
Johnson ran much better in Cincinnati [4.4 yards per carry] than he did in Kansas City [2.9 yards per carry], but the difference cannot be blamed on the Kansas City offensive line. Jamal Charles, the running back who replaced Johnson in Kansas City, was one of the more efficient backs in the NFL during the second half of last season.
Johnson looks like a capable backup, but the Redskins could probably draft a capable backup running back or get one with far less baggage in free agency. I'm not the only one doubting this move:
 
One general manager wasn't high on Johnson or Portis, saying both, in his mind, were done as No. 1 running backs. Johnson is 30; Portis is 28.
"Portis is a complementary guy and so is Johnson," he said. "Between the two of them maybe they get one [running back]."
Considering what the Redskins are paying Portis, this is a lot of money for one serviceable running back. True, only two years ago Johnson was averaging 4.5 yards per carry, but NFL observers know how quickly running backs decline, particularly when they've had as many carries as Johnson has had.
Over at ESPN, NFC East blogger Matt Mosley sums up my views on Johnson nicely:
In 2005 and 2006, Johnson was one of the two or three best backs in the league. He had back-to-back 1,700-yard seasons, but in '06, he had a staggering 416 carries. He's basically never recovered from taking all that punishment. So I wouldn't look at him like a typical 30-year-old running back. In fact, I think players in his age bracket such as LaDainian Tomlinson, Willie Parker, Brian Westbrook and Thomas Jones all have more tread left than Johnson. ...