Brennan Johnson

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, TRO said:

I get the enthusiasm for Brennan Johnson, but the sort of sums they would want, when we have an untried young player already in place....leaves me in doubt.

Brennan Johnson is roughly a year older than Cam, so was given his chance in the Championship in season 2021-22, where he scored 16 league goals in 46 games.....a rate of 2.87

Cameron archer was out on Loan in the championship with 2 clubs Preston and Middlesbrough 2021-22 and then 2022-23 accruing 40 games scoring 18 goals.....a Rate of 2.22

Now, I am not trying to peddle any hard an fast opinions here....but my take on this is Brennan has a had a chance in the Premier league to prove himself.....Cameron hasn't yet.

How do we know, that Cameron isn't able to score 10 goals this coming season, like Brennan did in 2022-23......I think he can, given the game time.

I think we have 2 young lads with bundles of Potential....lets not miss out on it, by chasing "oven ready" alternatives and hampering the progress they can make with us.

FWIW.....I don't think UE will take that risk of spending good money on  flowers in Bloom....when he has possibly just as good growing in the Greenhouse.

PS i hear figures being banded around of £50 mill for Johnson and £15 mill for Archer......I don't quite get that.....One more season of patience and we might see a player like Archer, look like a Johnson......Thats what opportunities can bring.

I guess the finer detail that only coaching staff see is the difference.

But there are a couple of obvious differences - as far as I know they play a slightly different position.

Johnson has already shown he can do the PL job - archer hasn't yet. 

He is one of their key players - much like Watkins was at Brentford. Archer isn't a key player for us yet.

 

[Chindie]

Johnson isn't worth what Forest will want for him.

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Johnson isn't worth what Forest will want for him.

As somebody else mentioned he is for them. Probably worth even more when you consider he contributed to just under 30% of their league goals.  Without him they probably go down.

[TRO]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I guess the finer detail that only coaching staff see is the difference.

But there are a couple of obvious differences - as far as I know they play a slightly different position.

Johnson has already shown he can do the PL job - archer hasn't yet. 

He is one of their key players - much like Watkins was at Brentford. Archer isn't a key player for us yet.

 

And there lies the operative word......YET

He is one of their key players, because he has played his way in to that role through opportunites......Archer may have not proved he can score the goals Johnson has,in the Premier League,  but equally he hasn't proved that he can't either.

You could say that( slightly different positions) about every forward in football, but they are all measured by their main task, scoring goals.

[Zhan_Zhuang]

I can't see Emery and Monchi putting their heads together and the result being Brennan Johnson.

Just doesn't make any sense, especially at £50million. They both know the La Liga and La Liga 2 market and there will be much better value there.

[TRO]

9 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

As somebody else mentioned he is for them. Probably worth even more when you consider he contributed to just under 30% of their league goals.  Without him they probably go down.

But the thing is in any commercial transaction, you don't look at it from their point of view, you look at it from your own.

The risk of marring the progress of one of your own young players, who might turn out as good or better, for a huge outlay, (when the main character in the team is better, anyway) is questionable judgment to me....but Hey! its opinions.

Edited July 28, 2023 by TRO

[duke313]

22 minutes ago, TRO said:

I don't think UE will take that risk of spending good money on  flowers in Bloom....when he has possibly just as good growing in the Greenhouse.

Very nicely put.

[Tomaszk]

16 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Johnson isn't worth what Forest will want for him.

This is true.

I think he could be worth more with two years of moderate progression though. Especially under Emery.

I'd quite like us to sign him.

[TRO]

24 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I guess the finer detail that only coaching staff see is the difference.

But there are a couple of obvious differences - as far as I know they play a slightly different position.

Johnson has already shown he can do the PL job - archer hasn't yet. 

He is one of their key players - much like Watkins was at Brentford. Archer isn't a key player for us yet.

 

True, maybe they saw that he could have scored 2 goals in the game against Fulham, on another day, of lesser Goal Keeping.

[alreadyexists]

Just now, Tomaszk said:

This is true.

I think he could be worth more with two years of moderate progression though. Especially under Emery.

I'd quite like us to sign him.

Yeah me too, I think he has a lot of natural ability but is still a bit “raw” … with some elite level coaching (no offence to Forest’s coaching staff) he could become a very good player 

[Vive_La_Villa]

I hope I’m completely wrong but I’ve seen nothing of Archer to suggest he could be a better player than Johnson.  
 

I don’t think we’re going to blow another 50m on a player but I reckon a so called big club will snap him up at some point.

[Walmley_Villa]

My Forest supporting mate is really worried about losing him - best player they had for years in his opinion. 

[Chindie]

31 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

As somebody else mentioned he is for them. Probably worth even more when you consider he contributed to just under 30% of their league goals.  Without him they probably go down.

Absolutely, and they can and should value him at whatever level he's worth to them.

But he's not worth the money they will want to us, imo. We just broke our transfer record on a player we needed, a flexible wide forward who is on the edges of the French national team and has suceeded for a few seasons in a good league. With Johnson, we'd be looking at breaking that again for a player that has good potential and did alright for a struggling team in a tough league, but isn't someone we need.

I think he's a good player, potentially very good, he's going to have a good top flight career, but I just don't see us spending circa £50m on prospect that wouldn't immediately improve our first team and won't necessarily develop to the extent that money looks like value.

[MaVilla]

16 minutes ago, Walmley_Villa said:

My Forest supporting mate is really worried about losing him - best player they had for years in his opinion. 

Norwich fans said the same about Buendia.

I do like Johnson tho, but for that price, eh, dunno, must be better value in Spain, not sure how on the line we are for the English squad limit tho?

[TRO]

47 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

As somebody else mentioned he is for them. Probably worth even more when you consider he contributed to just under 30% of their league goals.  Without him they probably go down.

my research tells me Forest scored 38 goals last season and Johnson scored 8 of those thats c 21%

not that it matters.

[Rodders]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

my research tells me Forest scored 38 goals last season and Johnson scored 8 of those thats c 21%

not that it matters.

add in assists, and it might be closer to 30%

 

for me he's likely to be too valuable to forest to sell, unless they get silly money

[TRO]

1 minute ago, Rodders said:

add in assists, and it might be closer to 30%

 

for me he's likely to be too valuable to forest to sell, unless they get silly money

but I don't see "silly money" as a prescription to our progress....I really don't.

[Rodders]

Just now, TRO said:

but I don't see "silly money" as a prescription to our progress....I really don't.

not necessarily no, we're definitely going for it, but I'm sure they'll still have some sense of worth and too much in their calculations, and weighing up BJ versus other options. I am sure we are interested in him to some degree, I guess it's just where he is on a list.

[mikeyp102]

17 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Absolutely, and they can and should value him at whatever level he's worth to them.

But he's not worth the money they will want to us, imo. We just broke our transfer record on a player we needed, a flexible wide forward who is on the edges of the French national team and has suceeded for a few seasons in a good league. With Johnson, we'd be looking at breaking that again for a player that has good potential and did alright for a struggling team in a tough league, but isn't someone we need.

I think he's a good player, potentially very good, he's going to have a good top flight career, but I just don't see us spending circa £50m on prospect that wouldn't immediately improve our first team and won't necessarily develop to the extent that money looks like value.

You say not someone we need, but I’m not convinced that Emery rates Bailey or Traore. If we sold those (and we could be making moves on this), then we would need other players to come in. 

[nick76]

14 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Norwich fans said the same about Buendia.

I do like Johnson tho, but for that price, eh, dunno, must be better value in Spain, not sure how on the line we are for the English squad limit tho?

Maybe but far riskier and we’ve supposedly already been turned down by Williams, Asensio and F.Torres so it seems we’ve tried the Spanish and they haven’t been interested and Jackson has gone to Chelsea and that Chukwese (spelling!) has gone to Milan…maybe there is a gem elsewhere.