Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Whats the knock on this guy besides past injury?
any stuff like route running, drops, toughness, attitude, work ethic?
or just physical things like speed, size, age?

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Dirtbag359;432247]I say stick with the guys we have. Having six or seven guys that can play reciever is more then enough in my eyes. Plus we still have a big target in Cooley. However considering we haven't heard anything yet then I'll guess that the drafting of Sweed and Thomas in the first or Jordy in the second will become a real possiblity.[/QUOTE]

Wow, just imagining Santana Moss, ARE, Limas Sweed, and Jordy Nelson is awesome, we would be such an explosive team throwing the ball.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=skinsnut;432248]Whats the knock on this guy besides past injury?
any stuff like route running, drops, toughness, attitude, work ethic?
or just physical things like speed, size, age?[/QUOTE]

I don't really think age is a very big problem because 29 isnt too bad, his speed is decent not amazing but decent, but the problem that I had with him was the size issue, whether its that hes 5'11 or 6'0, I still think we need a guy like Limas Sweed who's 6'4.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[quote=SeanTaylor21;432251]Wow, just imagining Santana Moss, ARE, Limas Sweed, and Jordy Nelson is awesome, we would be such an explosive team throwing the ball.[/quote]


Grrrrrrrrrr :D To many Receivers.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Dirtbag359;432262]Grrrrrrrrrr :D To many Receivers.[/QUOTE]

Maybe that guy that said I was Matt Millen was right lol.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Jackson is a pretty good receiver. The only real issue with him has always been injuries. He would definitely add some quality to our WR corps and seeing how he knows the West Coast offence it wouldn't hurt to bring him in. He isn't dirt old yet so he might command a bit more money than a vets minimum. Oh and he runs great routes and has sure hands (except for that awful 2003 season when the entire Hawks WR corps had butter on their fingers).

I give bringing him in two thumbs up. I would certainly take Jackson over D.J. Hackett.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=saden1;432270]Jackson is a pretty good receiver. The only real issue with him has always been injuries. He would definitely add some quality to our WR corps and seeing how he knows the West Coast offence it wouldn't hurt to bring him in. He isn't dirt old yet so he might command a bit more money than a vets minimum. Oh and he runs great routes and has sure hands (except for that awful 2003 season when the entire Hawks WR corps had butter on their fingers).

I give bringing him in two thumbs up. I would certainly take Jackson over D.J. Hackett.[/QUOTE]

He's not the "big" receiver we're rumored to want, but overall I agree that he's a better receiver than DJ (the other DJ)

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Jackson still gets enough respect from opposing defenses. It would open more up for Moss and EL. I wouldn't mind signing him. i think patience pays off because teams are still releasing quality players. Wr would still need to be adressed through the draft.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

jackson's definitely worth a look.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Jackson was the seahawks best reciever on that super bowl team. Remember the td that got called back?

He was definitely a dangerous reciever, but not sure handed. Maybe he's improved in that area, but there was a time when he had his share of drops as someone mentioned.

I think Zorn would want to bring him in to compete for a spot, but 1) we're still trying to re-sign Caldwell, who doesn't play spec. teams, and 2) there's got to be a reason the 49ers cut him after only 1 year & signed I. bruce.

I can't see us keeping Caldwell & signing Jackson unless they decide not to draft a day 1 wr.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

he overated no thanks

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=freddyg12;432308]Jackson was the seahawks best reciever on that super bowl team. Remember the td that got called back?

He was definitely a dangerous reciever, but not sure handed. Maybe he's improved in that area, but there was a time when he had his share of drops as someone mentioned.

I think Zorn would want to bring him in to compete for a spot, but 1) we're still trying to re-sign Caldwell, who doesn't play spec. teams, and 2) there's got to be a reason the 49ers cut him after only 1 year & signed I. bruce.

I can't see us keeping Caldwell & signing Jackson unless they decide not to draft a day 1 wr.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, and I think that we will not get back Reche Caldwell because if he hasnt taken that offer yet that means he has doubts, and that isnt good, I hope we draft Jordy Nelson and Limas Sweed, and that we dont sign Jackson because as you said he has dropped his fair share of balls.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=SeanTaylor21;432326]I agree with you, and I think that we will not get back Reche Caldwell because if he hasnt taken that offer yet that means he has doubts, and that isnt good, I hope we draft Jordy Nelson and Limas Sweed, and that we dont sign Jackson because as you said he has dropped his fair share of balls.[/QUOTE]

There's no rush for Reche to sign, so I'm not too worried about that.

As for drafting Nelson and Sweed, if we do that that would mean spending probably 2 of your first 3 picks on WR and that seems like a waste to me.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

If we don't get Hackett I would like to have Jackson. He shouldn't cost too much money.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;432273]He's not the "big" receiver we're rumored to want, but overall I agree that he's a better receiver than DJ (the other DJ)[/QUOTE]

Smootsmack,
I value your opinion here, but I'm suprised by this statement.
Why would you say Jackson is better than Hackett?
I hear Jackson has had issues with drops throughout his career...even last year, and we are looking for a sure handed 2nd or 3rd receiver that can take a hit.