DeSean Jackson meeting with the Redskins on Monday

[RedskinRat]

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

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Kindoy

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?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[saden1]

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.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

See, the bold is the biggest beef I have with you. It doesn't matter where a guy was drafted, or how many years he's been in the league; if he's at least good depth and cheap, you keep him. You don't cut Hankerson because he hasn't lived up to his draft status, or because he hasn't developed into A.J. Green yet; it just doesn't make sense. If you go by that, do you want Helu cut too? Because he hasn't exactly developed into Jamaal Charles...

And if we do sign Jackson and draft a WR high(no to the former, yes to the latter), we could still keep Hankerson. With Jackson, Roberts, and the rookie on board, Hankerson would probably be the #4 at best, but considering his insignificant salary, why wouldn't you keep him around and at least let him compete in camp? If we had 5 WRs entrenched in front of him on the depth chart, and then drafted a WR or two, then I'd understand cutting him. But as of right now, the WR spot opposite Garcon is Hankerson's to lose.

Eh...I suppose it really doesn't matter. And this is a DeSean Jackson thread, not a Hankerson thread.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

See, the bold is the biggest beef I have with you. It doesn't matter where a guy was drafted, or how many years he's been in the league; if he's at least good depth and cheap, you keep him. You don't cut Hankerson because he hasn't lived up to his draft status, or because he hasn't developed into A.J. Green yet; it just doesn't make sense. If you go by that, do you want Helu cut too? Because he hasn't exactly developed into Jamaal Charles...

And if we do sign Jackson and draft a WR high(no to the former, yes to the latter), we could still keep Hankerson. With Jackson, Roberts, and the rookie on board, Hankerson would probably be the #4 at best, but considering his insignificant salary, why wouldn't you keep him around and at least let him compete in camp? If we had 5 WRs entrenched in front of him on the depth chart, and then drafted a WR or two, then I'd understand cutting him. But as of right now, the WR spot opposite Garcon is Hankerson's to lose.

Eh...I suppose it really doesn't matter. And this is a DeSean Jackson thread, not a Hankerson thread.

1) you say he's cheap, but he's not. Hankerson's cap number is 29th on our roster, a 4th round rookie - in the 50's.
2) I am not saying cut him because of where he was drafted. I agree with you, where he was drafted is inconsequential. If he adds value to the team relative to team needs keep him. In my opinion he does not.
3) IF we sign Jackson, Hankerson is at best the 5th best receiver - Garcon, Jackson, Roberts, Moss, then Hankerson or Robinson depending on what you want from the 5th receiver.
4) IF we don't sign Jackson then you draft a guy high, and hope he can develop to a number 2, but we are left with a 1 in Garcon, low 2 or high 3 in Roberts, a backup for Roberts in Moss, and a 3a/3b in Hankerson/Robinson.
So we have to hit on whatever receiver we pick.

Cutting Hankerson saves $121K on the cap based on rule of 51, yeah it's chump change, but Hankerson doesn't even bring that value at this point.

[Gary84Clark]

Good depth = make tackles on special teams

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Good depth = make tackles on special teams

agreed 100%

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

DeSean Jackson arrives at airport before Redskins meeting | Comcast SportsNet Washington

[SFREDSKIN]

REDSKINS FOOTBALL: RG III meets with DeSEAN JACKSON in LA before he meets with TEAM HONCHOS??!

[CRedskinsRule]

Kevin ‏@HTTR24_7 6m
Haha RT @CharlesgnrlJr Waiting for redskins news on twitter like....

[SkinzWin]

@Tim_McManus: Have had a couple people tell me that talks between Jackson's side and Redskins have been going very well. My guess is he signs there.

[DynamiteRave]

The sad part is, I actually have his twitter open in another box and I'm doing exactly that.

[SkinzWin]

@HTTR24_7: Ha RT @TheRaidersDaily TRD EXCLUSIVE: RG3 father telling people that Desean Jackson is going to playing for Redskins.Says it's a "done deal"


If daddy said it, it's a wrap folks!