Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=skinsnut;432332]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.[/QUOTE]

Well what I believe is that Jackson has shown to be more durable and productive over the course of his career than Hackett has. I think Hackett may have a brighter future, but he has yet to really turn potential into productivity.

Honestly, I don't know that I take either one. I tend to lean toward re-signing Caldwell and then drafting a WR; but not a high pick more like somewhere between rounds 3-5 (Bennett? Hubbard? Hocker?)

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;432337]Well what I believe is that Jackson has shown to be more durable and productive over the course of his career than Hackett has. I think Hackett may have a brighter future, but he has yet to really turn potential into productivity.

Honestly, I don't know that I take either one. I tend to lean toward re-signing Caldwell and then drafting a WR; but not a high pick more like somewhere between rounds 3-5 (Bennett? Hubbard? Hocker?)[/QUOTE]

Not even gonna mention Jordy Nelson, I really hope he drops to the third round, wherever he goes hes gonna be something special.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;432337]Well what I believe is that Jackson has shown to be more durable and productive over the course of his career than Hackett has. I think Hackett may have a brighter future, but he has yet to really turn potential into productivity.

Honestly, I don't know that I take either one. I tend to lean toward re-signing Caldwell and then drafting a WR; but not a high pick more like somewhere between rounds 3-5 (Bennett? Hubbard? Hocker?)[/QUOTE]

Excellent points...but due to risk and time involved with drafting rookie WR, I do see the need to try to score a potentially solid Red Zone and 3rd down receiving threat without using and picks....we have tons of top level needs to fill. (DE DT OL CB)
That's why I'm hoping the Hackett thing goes through...lower risk and you get a solid draft prospect at a position in greater need.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;432221]Indianapolis?[/quote]
Yeah it sucks!!!!!!

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=skinsnut;432341]Excellent points...but due to risk and time involved with drafting rookie WR, I do see the need to try to score a potentially solid Red Zone and 3rd down receiving threat without using and picks....we have tons of top level needs to fill. (DE DT OL CB)
That's why I'm hoping the Hackett thing goes through...lower risk and you get a solid draft prospect at a position in greater need.[/QUOTE]

Great points as well.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

I just don't get it. We have servicable WR's now...seems like people are already throwing Moss and Randle El in the trash. Why get someone like Jackson? So he can be another in a long line of good but not great wr's that are not very big? 6'0" 201lbs is small in my book. Also, Seattle let him leave town cause he couldn't catch a cold, and he didn't fare much better in SF.
Here is the breakdown for Jackson / Moss / Randle El last year:
Jackson - 46 - 497 - 3tds in 15 games (6'0" 201lbs)
Moss - 61 - 808 - 3 tds in 14 games (5'10" 185 lbs)
Randle El - 51 - 728 - 1 td in 15 games (5'10" 192lbs)

Why are we interested in a mediocre WR? We have those, we need a game breaker, if we can't find one, then draft someone with the potential. No point in wasting money on this guy.
Rather keep Caldwell or McCardell and draft someone.
BTW- that would mean that if we do not sign McCardell, Jackson would be the oldest WR we have...he will be 30 in December.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;432346]I just don't get it. We have servicable WR's now...seems like people are already throwing Moss and Randle El in the trash. Why get someone like Jackson? So he can be another in a long line of good but not great wr's that are not very big? 6'0" 201lbs is small in my book. Also, Seattle let him leave town cause he couldn't catch a cold, and he didn't fare much better in SF.
Here is the breakdown for Jackson / Moss / Randle El last year:
Jackson - 46 - 497 - 3tds in 15 games (6'0" 201lbs)
Moss - 61 - 808 - 3 tds in 14 games (5'10" 185 lbs)
Randle El - 51 - 728 - 1 td in 15 games (5'10" 192lbs)

Why are we interested in a mediocre WR? We have those, we need a game breaker, if we can't find one, then draft someone with the potential. No point in wasting money on this guy.
Rather keep Caldwell or McCardell and draft someone.
BTW- that would mean that if we do not sign McCardell, Jackson would be the oldest WR we have...he will be 30 in December.[/QUOTE]

I don't think people are disregarding Moss and ARE, but we need a big receiver that can compliment those two and Cooley. I mean look at New England last year, they had a big receiver in Moss and a short speedy receiver in Welker. I think the combination of Moss, ARE, *big receiver*, and Cooley would be a great improvement to our offense. I think getting Hackett for a good price could make this a very good situation. Any other WR acquisitions (either a veteran or through the draft or resigning Caldwell) should be added for depth.

The Redskins are not quite in rebuilding mode (I mean we made the playoffs last year), so I don't think we should be picking up a WR int he first round, b/c they would not contribute right away and would need to developed. We already have a player we can develop (crowd favorite A. Mix), what we need a WR that can come in an contribute right away and help us to contend for the playoffs and more next year.

(PS: Jackson is old, injury prone, and well like someone else said there's a reason why he was let go...so no thanks).

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[quote=Ruhskins;432374]I don't think people are disregarding Moss and ARE, but we need a big receiver that can compliment those two and Cooley. I mean look at New England last year, they had a big receiver in Moss and a short speedy receiver in Welker. I think the combination of Moss, ARE, *big receiver*, and Cooley would be a great improvement to our offense. I think getting Hackett for a good price could make this a very good situation. Any other WR acquisitions (either a veteran or through the draft or resigning Caldwell) should be added for depth.

The Redskins are not quite in rebuilding mode (I mean we made the playoffs last year), so I don't think we should be picking up a WR int he first round, b/c they would not contribute right away and would need to developed. We already have a player we can develop (crowd favorite A. Mix), what we need a WR that can come in an contribute right away and help us to contend for the playoffs and more next year.

(PS: Jackson is old, injury prone, and well like someone else said there's a reason why he was let go...so no thanks).[/quote]

two points:
1. Randy Moss is faster than welker. he's THE deep threat of the league, and has been.
2. Unless you mean develop Mix from a nobody to a decent #4, I don't think that's really going to be the best path. i mean, there are at least 10 WRs THIS YEAR that are 6'3" or 6'4" that run faster than Mix, and they've all had college careers with at least double the season and career totals, and at least half won't get drafted.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Ruhskins;432374]I don't think people are disregarding Moss and ARE, but we need a big receiver that can compliment those two and Cooley. I mean look at New England last year, they had a big receiver in Moss and a short speedy receiver in Welker. I think the combination of Moss, ARE, *big receiver*, and Cooley would be a great improvement to our offense. I think getting Hackett for a good price could make this a very good situation. Any other WR acquisitions (either a veteran or through the draft or resigning Caldwell) should be added for depth.

The Redskins are not quite in rebuilding mode (I mean we made the playoffs last year), so I don't think we should be picking up a WR int he first round, b/c they would not contribute right away and would need to developed. We already have a player we can develop (crowd favorite A. Mix), what we need a WR that can come in an contribute right away and help us to contend for the playoffs and more next year.

(PS: Jackson is old, injury prone, and well like someone else said there's a reason why he was let go...so no thanks).[/QUOTE]

Yes we made it to the playoffs, but it was just the first round, and if we had a big WR on a few occasions it would have been comepleted instead of intercepted or dropped.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Ruhskins;432374](PS: Jackson is old, injury prone, and well like someone else said there's a reason why he was let go...so no thanks).[/QUOTE]

Jackson is 29, which isn't old at that position. He missed one game last year. He caught passes from four different QB's last year, in a new offense, which likely didn't help his numbers. While 2007 was a statistical disappointment, he's not a stiff.

Jackson was scheduled to make $3.8 million in base salary plus $200,000 in bonus. His contract called for a $4.5 million base salary in 2009. He would have been playing in his third offense in as many years. That's reason enough to see him go from San Francisco.

Coming off a disappointing year, he could be a bargain player. That's why he's worth exploring if you're the Redskins, and that's why he's worth discussing here.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

New link talking about Darrel Jackson:[url]http://www.mercurynews.com/49ers/ci_8592220[/url], it mentions he was among the NFC's leaders in drop, I didn't know that.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee;432393]Jackson is 29, which isn't old at that position. He missed one game last year. He caught passes from four different QB's last year, in a new offense, which likely didn't help his numbers. While 2007 was a statistical disappointment, he's not a stiff.

Jackson was scheduled to make $3.8 million in base salary plus $200,000 in bonus. His contract called for a $4.5 million base salary in 2009. He would have been playing in his third offense in as many years. That's reason enough to see him go from San Francisco.

Coming off a disappointing year, he could be a bargain player. That's why he's worth exploring if you're the Redskins, and that's why he's worth discussing here.[/QUOTE]

My bad, I didn't know how old he was, I know he had been around.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee;432393]Jackson is 29, which isn't old at that position. He missed one game last year. He caught passes from four different QB's last year, in a new offense, which likely didn't help his numbers. While 2007 was a statistical disappointment, he's not a stiff.

Jackson was scheduled to make $3.8 million in base salary plus $200,000 in bonus. His contract called for a $4.5 million base salary in 2009. He would have been playing in his third offense in as many years. That's reason enough to see him go from San Francisco.

Coming off a disappointing year, he could be a bargain player. That's why he's worth exploring if you're the Redskins, and that's why he's worth discussing here.[/QUOTE]


Im not positive...but I recall, the niners traded for him for a 4th round pick and are still cutting him....that says something may be wrong with the dude
Lloyd anyone?

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Ruhskins;432429]My bad, I didn't know how old he was, I know he had been around.[/QUOTE]

How did you not know how old he was? I just said it, and you quoted my post. He will be 30 in December.

For those that like Jackson, he's not worth it. He drops way too many, and if we recall, a lot of us were ready to string Moss up by his toenails for his drops. Many said he single handedly lost us the GB game with his drops...so why go after a guy with brick hands?
Again, I will say, (and agree with some here) that we need a big WR. Jackson being barely 6'0" and only 201 lbs, is not big. He is useless to us.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=SeanTaylor21;432243]Lets say Jordy Nelson drops to us in the third round, do you pick him or pass?[/QUOTE]

We'd better run to the freakin podium! But he prob'ly won't be there in the third