DeSean Jackson meeting with the Redskins on Monday

Ed Werder on Twitter is reporting 2 team with big interest with D Jax are in deep negotiations with him and his team. These 2 teams havent been made public. Anybody want to guess?

My guess is Pats and 49ers...neither have spoken publically about interest.

I get it - he's 27 and coming off a career year.

I still don't get why we want to bust our cap to sign a headcase when we can just draft the next DJax at pick #34. This option is WAY cheaper and offers the possibility of not having a me-first cancer in the locker room.

Handicapping the race for DeSean Jackson - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/6569/handicapping-the-race-for-desean-jackson)

Good break down by Keim. Of the three teams interested in him, Tampa has mild interest, Oakland and Buffalo have more money than us but we have more personnel pro's, including QB, than them. Plus he would get 2 chances /yr to stick it to Kelly with us. As long as we're not too off on price, I think we get him.

Show me a single contract in the NFL that straight-lines the cap hit.

You're dismissed.


Smart ass- check.

Petty - check.


More "management material" qualities I see. Quite the professional.

In just about every article about Jackson's release, one of the reasons cited is that he had a negative influence on the younger players. Sure, the Eagles won the NFC East last year, but perhaps Kelly's influence and leadership were able to overcome what Reid couldn't. If all the talk about Jackson's gang activity and negative influence is just a smokescreen to hide the real reason, money, then I would be in favor of signing him. But I'd be wary of adding a guy to our locker room if he would be a hindrance to the younger players.

If his being cut ends up costing D-Jax a lot of money, I wouldn't be surprised to see him file a lawsuit over all of this unsubstantiated gang activity talk.

I grew up in the inner city. I knew gang members. How could I not know some of them? They lived in my neighborhood. We played together as young children. I went to school with some of them. I was friendly with some of them when we were teenagers. We went to some of the same parties. I sometimes went to clubs where they hung out. Where I lived, gangs were part of the landscape, like trees and grass.

But I wasn't a gang member and I was not involved in any of their illegal activities. Perhaps the same is true of D-Jax.

In just about every article about Jackson's release, one of the reasons cited is that he had a negative influence on the younger players. Sure, the Eagles won the NFC East last year, but perhaps Kelly's influence and leadership were able to overcome what Reid couldn't. If all the talk about Jackson's gang activity and negative influence is just a smokescreen to hide the real reason, money, then I would be in favor of signing him. But I'd be wary of adding a guy to our locker room if he would be a hindrance to the younger players.

I think the gang talk is a smokescreen but not for money. The Eagles took a huge dead-cap hit in releasing him (I read a dead-cap hit of about $8 mil.), so the Eagles did not release him for monetary issues.

10 people voted for the vet min lmao

I get it - he's 27 and coming off a career year.

I still don't get why we want to bust our cap to sign a headcase when we can just draft the next DJax at pick #34. This option is WAY cheaper and offers the possibility of not having a me-first cancer in the locker room.

Because at 34 we could also pick:
a) 3yr project like Hankerson
b) failures like DT and MK
c) a possible starting FS
d) a possible starting RT


and, we would have PR and our top 4 receivers set (Garcon, DJax, Roberts, Moss).

your way may be way cheaper, but DJax will produce for the next 3 years. You give him a contract that lets him out in 3 years with minimal cap hit, and makes him happy this year and next. You figure the money, plus vendetta against the Eagles will keep him content at least 2 years. By then maybe his maturity catches up with his talent, maybe not. But DHall certainly shows it can happen.

10 people voted for the vet min lmao

there is no option like "if the FO vets him properly and he accepts a reasonable contract".

credskinsrule did a good post a few pages back ... if the FO does their job the right way and the money is acceptable, then yes i would be for it at this point.

Because at 34 we could also pick:
a) 3yr project like Hankerson
b) failures like DT and MK
c) a possible starting FS
d) a possible starting RT


and, we would have PR and our top 4 receivers set (Garcon, DJax, Roberts, Moss).

your way may be way cheaper, but DJax will produce for the next 3 years. You give him a contract that lets him out in 3 years with minimal cap hit, and makes him happy this year and next. You figure the money, plus vendetta against the Eagles will keep him content at least 2 years. By then maybe his maturity catches up with his talent, maybe not. But DHall certainly shows it can happen.


If or when we sign him, I think by season's end Robinson or Hank puts himself in as the 4th WR, (More Robinson than Hankerson)