DeSean Jackson meeting with the Redskins on Monday

Even though Hankerson was a solid #2 last year before he got hurt, you really want him gone, don't you? It would be stupid to cut him before next offseason; if he gets hurt again this year, then you let him walk in FA. If he turns in a good performance, then you resign him.

I think a big reason people want Hankerson gone is because they're disappointed that he has never lived up to his draft status. However, just because someone doesn't live up to where they were drafted doesn't mean they should be cut. They can still be solid contributors that can be had at a minimal price, e.g. Hankerson. Don't let sentimentalism dictate who should be cut and who should stay.

Hank was never really a solid #2. He's really like a 3 or 4. He shouldn't be cut be he shouldn't be starting as a #1 or #2. He's looking more and more like a depth player.

Hank was never really a solid #2. He's really like a 3 or 4. He shouldn't be cut be he shouldn't be starting as a #1 or #2. He's looking more and more like a depth player.

Fair enough; and while I disagree, I'm not going to argue that because it wasn't the point of my post. Whether or not anybody thinks he's a #2 or merely a bottom-of-the-chart depth player, the point is that you shouldn't let draft position dictate if a player goes or stays. If a guy is solid depth and has a fairly cheap contract, you keep him around, regardless whether he was drafted in the 3rd round, 1st round, or 7th round.

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.

The bold is where you and I differ. Some people mature, like DHall, some people don't. To me DJax has tattooed on his forehead, in big bright letters, "I'm NEVER gonna get it so my only contribution to the locker room is being destructive of morale."

Don't we want a locker room full of team players? If so, we don't want DJax.

Art Monk would slap the taste buds out of your mouth for even suggesting this.

Learn your history.

Apologies. I have an explanation but I doubt it makes any difference.

Guys, I have a problem. I keep checking back here obsessively in hopes I see someone say we either signed DJ or he left Redskins Park. Blaahhhhh.
Ed Werder said on ESPN this afternoon that DJ is scheduled to arrive this evening and the first meeting will be over dinner with the rest of the meetings occurring tomorrow.

Don't want the dude, he's not what the Redskins were supposedly trying to built. Character guys? Remember? One wankster like him and the whole team goes south.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Is 81 taken? I think he might go for that. Paying Aldrick for 11?

I heard once that he chose Cal over SC because he couldn't get #1 there haha.

You're kidding. Right?

Even though Hankerson was a solid #2 last year before he got hurt, you really want him gone, don't you? It would be stupid to cut him before next offseason; if he gets hurt again this year, then you let him walk in FA. If he turns in a good performance, then you resign him.

I think a big reason people want Hankerson gone is because they're disappointed that he has never lived up to his draft status. However, just because someone doesn't live up to where they were drafted doesn't mean they should be cut. They can still be solid contributors that can be had at a minimal price, e.g. Hankerson. Don't let sentimentalism dictate who should be cut and who should stay.

unequivocally yes. bottomline, if we get Jackson, Hank is the 4th best receiver on our team - at best more likely the 5th behind Moss. That's AFTER 3years in the league. I would have been fine if they cut him last season but everyone said 2013 was his 3rd year, that's the year for receivers. Well it wasn't Hank's year. AND, if we bring a guy from the 4th round in, in this deep receiver draft, then he would need 2-3 years to get ready (or just about the time you would be ready to say see ya to either Garcon or DJackson if either wants to make a salary dispute).

Let Hank go somewhere else and prove me wrong, I don't see that his value for his payrate is greater then a cheap 4th round rookie.

The bold is where you and I differ. Some people mature, like DHall, some people don't. To me DJax has tattooed on his forehead, in big bright letters, "I'm NEVER gonna get it so my only contribution to the locker room is being destructive of morale."

Don't we want a locker room full of team players? If so, we don't want DJax.

Remember DHall after his 2nd year here, man was griping fussing causing penalties left and right. (probably a bit of exaggeration) Now he has matured. Maybe Djax does, maybe he doesn't, I agree you never know for sure, but DHall is the right kind of guy who's been there done that, and can make a difference for Djax, if anybody can.

I think Shanahan brought in a ton of top character guys, and I commend him for that, and if the team decides it doesn't want to risk the lockerroom over a guy like DJax I am ok with that decision. But I think that our locker room (Griffin, DHall, Roberts) would all encourage him to a positive direction.

Jackson would definitely make this team better. I wouldn't pay him more than 30 million over 4 years and I would make sure there are morality clauses in his contract that prevents him from getting paid if he has any off field issues.