arftech Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Desean Jackson has never blocked a day in his life. Not sure why people would expect differently here in DC. He's the best playmaker we've had on our roster in probably decades. I don't care if he pouts, taunts the opponent, etc. Dude can flat out play and when the ball is in his hands, he PRODUCES. Simple as that. I'd MUCH rather keep him and try to find a taker for Garcon. Ding, Ding Ding! And it's fulfilling that some of you are not General Managers of actual teams! HTTR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooleyfan1993 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 No. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Of course, but it's about establishing a team identity and plugging in talent that fits. Harvin's as talented a players as there is in this league but he didn't fit in with Seattle's identity both on the field and in the locker room. Jackson has produced far more in one year here than the whole time Harvin was in Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Of course, but it's about establishing a team identity and plugging in talent that fits. Harvin's as talented a players as there is in this league but he didn't fit in with Seattle's identity both on the field and in the locker room. Percy Harvin bad mouthed the Vikings QB and got traded, then got into a fight before the superbowl and reportedly failed to get along with Wilson in Seattle. See a pattern? It's not that he didn't fit in terms of talent, he didn't fit because he's a dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoox Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Based on McCloughan's stated preferences (big people) and past player acquisitions, it would make sense that a trade for Jackson could and should be explored. But no way we're getting back anything more than a 2nd or a 3rd. What team in their right mind would trade a #1 for him? Whether Jackson stays or goes, Garcon is going to be kept on. Quality person, and a tough (borderline violent) receiver. Exactly what McCloughan looks for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drowland Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Percy Harvin bad mouthed the Vikings QB and got traded, then got into a fight before the superbowl and reportedly failed to get along with Wilson in Seattle. See a pattern? It's not that he didn't fit in terms of talent, he didn't fit because he's a dick. DJax has had is issues too. I'm not saying DJax must be traded, but I don't see him as a player the Skins can't live without. He's not one of the top WRs in the league. He's a one trick pony. It's a great trick, but if the Skins want to run the ball late in the year they need more well rounded WRs who can block. Look at Desean's playoff stats. He's played in 6 playoff games, 19 catches for 321 yards and 2 TDs. He's really not big time when it counts. I think if you ask other teams who they'd rather have at WR off the Skins roster, they'd probably go with Garcon. The point is, McC spelled it out in the presser, players 6 through 35 on the roster is where they're going to focus on building. That's the heart of the team. The goal is to build a Super Bowl contending roster. I view DJax as more of a luxury then a need. If they can get a 2nd or 3rd rd pick for him I'd move him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carex Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Based on McCloughan's stated preferences (big people) and past player acquisitions, it would make sense that a trade for Jackson could and should be explored. But no way we're getting back anything more than a 2nd or a 3rd. What team in their right mind would trade a #1 for him? Whether Jackson stays or goes, Garcon is going to be kept on. Quality person, and a tough (borderline violent) receiver. Exactly what McCloughan looks for. I'd either demand a first or two picks to give him up the way he played last year. Otherwise, he stays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo 3squire Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I can kinda agree with this. Especially if we send him to a team that can compete right away. As much as it hurts since he's a great player, it would be pointless to waste his time here when we are NOW truly in rebuilding mode. Gain picks so we can get a jump start on drafting players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qdeathstar Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I like desean and although I agree about having more pressing needs than a star receiver I think we'd get less than what he is worth to us... Edit, I would easily trade him for a first and a second round pick, but I think most teams won't pay that for the same exact reasons op is saying we should trade him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNoles21 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 One of like 5 players on this roster we can build around. I get trading him, but what Jackson does to open up an offense is invaluable. No reason he cant do it for another 5-7 years. Don't expect it to happen, McCloog thinks we are closer to winning than I think everyone here will think. Does that mean we win this year, no probably not. But he may think this team is 2-3 years from competing ... Only trade DJax if you think we can't resign him at the end of his current deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaga Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 As stated previously, I doubt you would get any where near a 1st and a 2nd for him and we have no one to step in and fill his shoes. I say use him up while we draft his replacement(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Even though these types of threads are fun, I'm going to avoid having any strong draft/trade/FA opinions now that we have someone with a proven personnel track record. I mean, it's fine to debate and all, but what's the point of me stating that I think we should draft player A with pick B when there's someone 1,000x more competent pulling the trigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Jackson's under contract for next year only, right? So are all of you who are saying we shouldn't trade him also saying we should pay him big money to keep him? If you are, I say you're likely paying for a declining asset, and it would be a mistake. If you're not, then you're admitting he won't be here when we're good, so you might as well get something for him while you can. Based on what I think I know about his contract (could be wrong), I'd say that the only reason to keep him now is because you want 6 wins instead of 5 next year, and I think I'd rather have the 2nd-3rd round draft pick we'd get instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Be a terrible shame to lose the only legit top tier playmaker/ game changer we've had in EONS around here; but in the bigger picture we want guys that will be in their prime to contribute 2/ 3 years down the line and more when we are ready to step back to the table. DeSean sadly won't be one of those guys. You can't have sentiment in football and we now have a guy in charge who knows that and more. Very pertinent OP and one I can see being addressed sooner rather than later by Mac. Not just on DeSean. On ALL guys who won't realistically be playing a part in the long term. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 DJax has had is issues too. I'm not saying DJax must be traded, but I don't see him as a player the Skins can't live without. He's not one of the top WRs in the league. He's a one trick pony. It's a great trick, but if the Skins want to run the ball late in the year they need more well rounded WRs who can block. Look at Desean's playoff stats. He's played in 6 playoff games, 19 catches for 321 yards and 2 TDs. He's really not big time when it counts. I think if you ask other teams who they'd rather have at WR off the Skins roster, they'd probably go with Garcon. Calling DeSean Jackson a one trick pony is ridiculous. He has great hands and can make big plays happen on slants, wide receiver screens, or deep. He can play in the slot or on the edge and has been known to return kicks pretty well when needed. He's not a good blocker and he's not a huge target. No need to pretend the only thing the guy can do is run straight down the field. Jackson has had issues but he's not been kicked off of this team because he's not the walking disaster that Percy Harvin is. Also, you said Harvin was traded because he didn't fit in terms of talent, that was wrong. Don't move the goal posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwo40 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 We aren't getting a 1st for D Jackson - we'd be lucky to get a single 2nd for all of the reasons you want to trade him. Other teams have thought about that too....team's in our situation would be like us wanting to dump, and teams ready to win aren't mortgaging a lot for him - they aren't built with those philosophies. Then the cap hit. Won't even get close to value for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 What about the guaranteed contract in 2015? I'd trade him for a first rounder. Otherwise he stays for my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Jackson's under contract for next year only, right? No, I think it is a 4 year deal. His contract is guaranteed for 2 years. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/02/the-full-desean-jackson-contract-details/ Be a terrible shame to lose the only legit top tier playmaker/ game changer we've had in EONS around here; but in the bigger picture we want guys that will be in their prime to contribute 2/ 3 years down the line and more when we are ready to step back to the table. DeSean sadly won't be one of those guys. You can't have sentiment in football and we now have a guy in charge who knows that and more. Very pertinent OP and one I can see being addressed sooner rather than later by Mac. Not just on DeSean. On ALL guys who won't realistically be playing a part in the long term. Hail. Sentiment aside, trading him makes no sense unless you think it is worth it to eat his contract. It would take a lot to make a 9m cap hit worth it. He'd either have to be Haynesworth, or you are getting something amazing in return. Neither is likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkeyBoy Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 What WR has Scot drafted that has come close to Jackson's production? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm convinced that some people think that the key to sports is trading every good player for a bunch of less good players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 However....he did immediately ship Brandon Lloyd out back in the day....although he was dealing with the Redskins back then so it was easy I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 However....he did immediately ship Brandon Lloyd out back in the day....although he was dealing with the Redskins back then so it was easy I guess... Brandon Lloyd also was reportedly a problem child at the time too. (Given how his career has played out, that hasn't changed a huge amount.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Jackson's under contract for next year only, right? So are all of you who are saying we shouldn't trade him also saying we should pay him big money to keep him? If you are, I say you're likely paying for a declining asset, and it would be a mistake. If you're not, then you're admitting he won't be here when we're good, so you might as well get something for him while you can. Based on what I think I know about his contract (could be wrong), I'd say that the only reason to keep him now is because you want 6 wins instead of 5 next year, and I think I'd rather have the 2nd-3rd round draft pick we'd get instead. Trading him would produce a large cap hit. Better to keep him for one more year and pay him for production on our team then production on another team. And the guys who keep saying he's a "one trick pony." Who cares as long as the trick keeps working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Brandon Lloyd also was reportedly a problem child at the time too. (Given how his career has played out, that hasn't changed a huge amount.) I wasn't being entirely serious with my comment, but i would suggest anything is possible....as to the contract in 2015, if we traded him do we eat that cap hit even if the contract goes with him? / or could we restructure him the trade him? Hypothetical for me, just interested, as I'd keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Sentiment aside, trading him makes no sense unless you think it is worth it to eat his contract. It would take a lot to make a 9m cap hit worth it. He'd either have to be Haynesworth, or you are getting something amazing in return. Neither is likely. Maybe they're wrong, but OvertheCap.com (who tend to be the best in the "cap management tool available to fans" market) says that if we trade him, we eat 3.75M this year in dead money, but that's it, for the rest of the contract. It appears that the guaranteed money he's owed this year shifts to the team that takes him on. My understanding was that when a trade occurs, the other team takes on the liabilities and costs of the contract, with the only exception being signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.