Darrell Jackson?
 

I've always liked in since his Florida days and he a big receiver that has extensive knowledge of the west coast offense that Zorn plans to run. I think that he may be cheaper than Hackett. Also he has been injury prone in the past, but did play a lot last season. Zorn should know him pretty well. I saw on profootballtalk.com that he was just released from the 49ers. What do you guys think? Hell if it works out we can have him and Hackett to get this type of offense of of the ground. Just wishful thinking.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;432193]I've always liked in since his Florida days and he a big receiver that has extensive knowledge of the west coast offense that Zorn plans to run. I think that he may be cheaper than Hackett. Also he has been injury prone in the past, but did play a lot last season. Zorn should know him pretty well. I saw on profootballtalk.com that he was just released from the 49ers. What do you guys think? Hell if it works out we can have him and Hackett to get this type of offense of of the ground. Just wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

mmm..........I think it might work but with his age you can't depend on him for long.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

I definitely think the Redskins would be interested considering Jackson's history with Zorn. I doubt they'd take both Hackett and Jackson.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor;432193]I've always liked in since his Florida days and he a big receiver that has extensive knowledge of the west coast offense that Zorn plans to run. I think that he may be cheaper than Hackett. Also he has been injury prone in the past, but did play a lot last season. Zorn should know him pretty well. I saw on profootballtalk.com that he was just released from the 49ers. What do you guys think? Hell if it works out we can have him and Hackett to get this type of offense of of the ground. Just wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

He knows the west coast offense that Zorn runs, but I dunno about calling him a big wide reciever, hes only 5'11.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Some sites list him at 6'0 and some at 5'11 buy hey he is not slim. He is built in the mold of a Hines Ward body type meaning he can break tackles. No he is not 6'4 but 6'0 is not bad at all when our best receivers are 5'10.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Just because we have a former Seahawks coach doesnt mean we need to become the Seahawks. Geez people when is something going to happen? I am tired of all this speculation on what should happen whenever a FA is released.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Stuck in TX;432204]Just because we have a former Seahawks coach doesnt mean we need to become the Seahawks. Geez people when is something going to happen? I am tired of all this speculation on what should happen whenever a FA is released.[/QUOTE]

This thread was just to see if people thought we should sign Darrel Jackson, not to sign a bunch of Seahawks kuz of Zorn, but just to sign a wide reciever.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

He couldn't hurt, and should come cheap I would like to have both of them we need something different to happen at wideout, it was pititful and painful watching the receivers last year. Especially in Indianapolis

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=Eknox;432219]He couldn't hurt, and should come cheap I would like to have both of them we need something different to happen at wideout, it was pititful and painful watching the receivers last year. Especially in Indianapolis[/QUOTE]

Indianapolis?

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

I wonder if the people that don't want Jackson to come to Washington are the same people who want Mix to get on the field in 2008. The funny thing is, if we sign Jackson not only will we shore up our recieving core for a year or two, but Mix will be the only big guy in the whole recieving core, so that would make him a special commodity. Plus Jackson has a slight history of injuries.

If we don't add a Hacket or a Jackson then that leaves the draft, in which case your boy Mix will have to compete for time with possible additions like Thomas, Sweed, and Nelson who more likely then not will be favored by ownership and the coaching staff.

Think about it, you're so close. Also for the record I say the Redskins would pay him around 2 years $4 million. However thats just a guess.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

Darrell Jackson is a gamble.

He has had injuries - - to his legs. Not good for a WR.

He was let go by the Niners who signed Isaac Bruce to take his job. Bruce is way over the hill.

BUT, if Jackson is healthy and it was his health that made him expendable on a truly bad team in SF, then he's worth a shot. But the FO can't invest their ego in this signing. If he comes in and doesn't cut it, then they have to cut him.


BOTTOM LINE: If he'd sign a two year deal - with a TEAM option on year three for sensible money - I'd sign him and give him a shot.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon;432235]Darrell Jackson is a gamble.

He has had injuries - - to his legs. Not good for a WR.

He was let go by the Niners who signed Isaac Bruce to take his job. Bruce is way over the hill.

BUT, if Jackson is healthy and it was his health that made him expendable on a truly bad team in SF, then he's worth a shot. But the FO can't invest their ego in this signing. If he comes in and doesn't cut it, then they have to cut him.


BOTTOM LINE: If he'd sign a two year deal - with a TEAM option on year three for sensible money - I'd sign him and give him a shot.[/QUOTE]

If we sign him, then should we still go after some WR in the draft, or just stay with the unit we have?

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

If you've signed Jackson, presumably your training staff and medical gurus have told you he is healthy and you should expect him on the field. With that "assessment", I'd say WR in the draft becomes a much lower priority than if they sign no one.

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon;432242]If you've signed Jackson, presumably your training staff and medical gurus have told you he is healthy and you should expect him on the field. With that "assessment", I'd say WR in the draft becomes a much lower priority than if they sign no one.[/QUOTE]

Lets say Jordy Nelson drops to us in the third round, do you pick him or pass?

Re: Darrell Jackson?
 

[quote=SeanTaylor21;432238]If we sign him, then should we still go after some WR in the draft, or just stay with the unit we have?[/quote]

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.

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.

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.