Burgold Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 There are two reasons why I think trading Desean might be a bad idea. 1)We're trying to develop a QB. QBs need good players to build their confidence and succeed with. Having Garcon, Jackson, and (hopefully) Grant gives us a trio of dependable very good receivers who can help their QB. Garcon, Roberts, and Grant might be good enough, esp. adding in Reed, but Jackson seems to be the only Homerun hitter and those are important to a team's and young QB's psyche... someone who can make a great play out of a bad situation. 2) If McCloughin really dislikes free agency as much as he claims then you don't need the salary cap savings. Draft picks are relatively cheap. You do need space in four or five years when his crop starts needing renewals, but right now, you don't need the room esp. with the NFL floor. Getting rid of Jackson and others may actually force you to go heavy into free agency just to hit the spending thresholds. That would run counter to what McCloughin says he wants to do this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmartin7776 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 The DJax trade does not make sense if you are trying to win now - which we are likely not going to do. Also, the comparison with Philly does not apply, as they let him go and got nothing for him. I'm saying he is more attractive now than he was when Philly had him. It's all about the draft picks and our team 2-4 years down the road, not this year. I hope McLovin (that was funny) considers doing this. Besides, we don't know if Jackson fits into our overall plan in terms of the type of player and they kind of football we want to play. We didn't have a significant need for him before he was released and he was more of a luxury when he was. We were still 4-12. If trading DJax will help with our OL, I think that would be worth 2-4 more wins a season compared to a single player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I don't know when the words "no guarantee" became the substitute for an actual argument, but it seems to often be the case. There is no guarantee we will ever win anything with the players you listed, either. So, you know, take that. Really? So what is the purpose of the draft? To get players who have talent. But you are saying get rid of the talent you already have and get talent you think might be better. Isn't better to just get more talent to compliment the talent you already have to make the product better? I don't think I said we will win with what we have but we can win with what we have as long as more talent is added to the roster. Unlike you I won't say "so take that!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I have explained multiple times now that my, and others, rationale for trading Jackson is long-term and that your talking about what it does to the Redskins in 2015 is completely irrelevant to that point. And you insist on telling me the Redskins will be worse in 2015 if he's traded. So there is quite clearly no point in addressing you further. Problem is, you can't talk about the future without talking about the present and how you are going to get to that future. That step seems to be missing from your argument. You seem to think that these players who may not be useful to your hypothetical future great team should be traded for draft picks. But, in the meantime, who are our young QBs going to throw to? Wouldn't said player be more valuable to a developing offense? Jackson does a great job getting himself open, which is part of the reason why he was so succesful with our rogues gallery of QBs last year. Scot had a quote somewhere about a QB needing proper support and to have the pressure taken off of them from feeling like they had to do it all. That involved a proper OL, an running game, a TE that can stretch the field and a couple of WRs to throw to. Don't you realize that's the reason why Jackson was brought in in the first place? And I'll repeat again: the examples you gave were teams that had players who were ready to step up with a mature organization. I haven't seen you give an example from a team in our situation, where we need lots of help. That's because most of those teams need all the talent they can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaSkins21 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Aside from Jackson, they have no speed at the position. So this a NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Funny when someone posts an idea about trading one of our players, they think the other team is the redskins and willing to do stupid trades to get one of our players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanRob Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 You guys that want to trade him are crazy. He is a playmaker on a team that lacks playmakers. When was the last time we had a deep threat this good? I for one enjoy watching jackson catching 50+ yard bombs on the regular. Why get rid of one of our best players for what would probably be a mid round pick at most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 With the other team taking on a large guaranteed salary, it's tough to move him, and he should only be moved for the right price. I would imagine that if we moved DJax we would be keeping Garcon and Roberts, and asking Grant to take a more active role, in addition to drafting somebody. I think the "trade DJax" scenario becomes much more realistic if Amari Cooper is BPA and we go with him. If you manage to find a trading partner in that scenario it makes sense seeing as a WR corps of DJax/Garcon/Cooper/Roberts is probably overkill (almost 27M in cap costs for those 4). If we're ok with those costs, keep them all, we'll move people next year. If not and we can find a trading partner willing to give up a decent pick, move him. If no trading partner, then move Garcon, keep DJax. While Cooper wouldn't address the trenches, it would refill the cupboard with regard to WRs that will be bare within 2 seasons, and that could allow us to focus on the trenches in other years while maintaining a solid corps of receivers (since developing receivers tends to take a couple years, while 1st and 2nd round OG, C, and sometimes RT picks can step in year 1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 The bears got Marshall for 2 thirds and randy moss was traded to the pats for a 4th round pick. We will not get aarp first and a 2nd for Djax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think the other thing to keep in mind is the Wizards example. They had world class talents w Wall, Beal, and some others, but couldn't win until they got Nene and some other gray beards. You need a few vets who've been there, can teach the pups, and be role models. It's best when that player is not only someone players look up to, but are still producing at the highest level. It gives their words or example more weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 1)We're trying to develop a QB. QBs need good players to build their confidence and succeed with. Having Garcon, Jackson, and (hopefully) Grant gives us a trio of dependable very good receivers who can help their QB. Garcon, Roberts, and Grant might be good enough, esp. adding in Reed, but Jackson seems to be the only Homerun hitter and those are important to a team's and young QB's psyche... someone who can make a great play out of a bad situation. 1) I think the idea that you need great WRs to develop QBs is significantly overblown. Wilson has developed without great WRs, Brady did back in the day. Roethlisberger only had a Hines Ward 1004 yard season as the only 1000 yard receiver in his first several years. Griffin's spectacular rookie season cam without a 700 yard pass catcher. 2) Jackson's skill set specifically doesn't seem like something that will be a big help to development. His game is mostly running deep or taking screens and making something happen. Neither bombs nor screens are what you should be concentrating on throwing if you're trying to teach a young QB how to make reads and run a timing pass game. In fact, being compelled to work those plays in for Jackson could be argued as a negative in that regard. 3) I certainly wouldn't advocate going with Roberts, Grant and Hankerson as next year's WRs. The team should be finding WRs who will be here for the long haul and grow with whoever our QB of the future is. This is a strong year for WRs both in free agency and the draft, which is one reason it makes sense to move on from Jackson now. 2) If McCloughin really dislikes free agency as much as he claims then you don't need the salary cap savings. Draft picks are relatively cheap. You do need space in four or five years when his crop starts needing renewals, but right now, you don't need the room esp. with the NFL floor. Getting rid of Jackson and others may actually force you to go heavy into free agency just to hit the spending thresholds. That would run counter to what McCloughin says he wants to do this year. 1) I think the idea that he's going to stay away from free agency completely (or near completely) is probably off-base. We'll see, but I will be disappointed if he completely neglects an avenue for talent acquisition like that. It shouldn't be the focus, certainly, but it's a tool that should be used. 2) Even if he doesn't go after FAs you are still better off with more cap space. If he brings in talent that can being us back to real contention, then more cap space means holding on to those players longer. And cap space rolls over so more space now means more space later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommDownMan Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It seems many on this thread are completely one sided on this issue. If the options were either, 3 1sts or merely a 7th, this becomes an easy decision. Without knowing the specifics there is no definitive way to truly know right now. As a new GM takes the reigns, I hope he asks around to see what other teams would give up for Jackson. He is a potentially valuable piece for us either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It seems many on this thread are completely one sided on this issue. If the options were either, 3 1sts or merely a 7th, this becomes an easy decision. Without knowing the specifics there is no definitive way to truly know right now. As a new GM takes the reigns, I hope he asks around to see what other teams would give up for Jackson. He is a potentially valuable piece for us either way. And honestly that should be a big part of the convo, you're right. I wouldn't say "I would trade Jackson" but I would see what his market is. There's no way we get a 1 for him. But to me the cutoff becomes a 3. If I could get that (and I would hope for at least a little more, like a future conditional) or the equivalent (like two 4s) then I think I pull the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattSchewe Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I heard you out as well as others in this thread and shake my head. Yeah lets get rid of a big playmaker. The same people will be crying when the other WR's are dropping balls, and lacking production. Get rid of a great player to get another great player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodriggo Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Agreed. And I'd include ... Niles Paul. I'd trade Niles Paul for a dozen hot Krispy Kreme donuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 1) I think the idea that you need great WRs to develop QBs is significantly overblown. Wilson has developed without great WRs, Brady did back in the day. Roethlisberger only had a Hines Ward 1004 yard season as the only 1000 yard receiver in his first several years. Griffin's spectacular rookie season cam without a 700 yard pass catcher. 2) Jackson's skill set specifically doesn't seem like something that will be a big help to development. His game is mostly running deep or taking screens and making something happen. Neither bombs nor screens are what you should be concentrating on throwing if you're trying to teach a young QB how to make reads and run a timing pass game. In fact, being compelled to work those plays in for Jackson could be argued as a negative in that regard. 3) I certainly wouldn't advocate going with Roberts, Grant and Hankerson as next year's WRs. The team should be finding WRs who will be here for the long haul and grow with whoever our QB of the future is. This is a strong year for WRs both in free agency and the draft, which is one reason it makes sense to move on from Jackson now. 1) You happened to pick two teams who were very heavily run focused. Seattle was the #1 rushing team in yards, while 27th in pass. Certainly in some ways we should be leaning more on a running game, but that doesn't suddenly make WRs lower in worth. In fact, as mentioned below, a deep passing threat can help a running game a lot. 2) I don't get your argument here. One of the best deep threats in the NFL isn't helpful to a young QB? Really? He's a guy defenses need to pay attention to. A deep threat loosens up a running game, putting less pressure on the QB. No, you might not want a team of them, but a guy like Jackson is useful for any QB. 3) Ah finally, a hint of a plan. So, any details as to which FA WR you think will be available and would fit in the slot vacated by Jackson? Problem right now is that we don't know who will be available, since likely that list of great names will be whittled down as a large percentage of them will reup with their current teams. What is left might not produce much savings over Jackson, given that his signing bonus will accelerate into this year's cap. As for a rookie, while some have made some instant impact, most young WRs take 2-3 years to get up to speed. Many haven't had to learn to run good routes or had something close to an NFL passing system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I heard you out as well as others in this thread and shake my head. Yeah lets get rid of a big playmaker. The same people will be crying when the other WR's are dropping balls, and lacking production. Get rid of a great player to get another great player. Having a playmaker now does what for us? We have nothing resembling a complete team. If we somehow play above our ability level we maybe crack .500. The right thing to do is look at all the options on the table, trades, cuts, and everything, and make decisions that will benefit us the most for 3 years out. DJax almost certainly won't be here in 3 years. He might even be gone after this season, trade or not, thanks to his cap number. One of Garcon and him needs to move soonish, 19M for 2 WRs in 2016 when you've got no developed QB to throw to them? Poor investment. In the grand scheme of things you need to develop a QB, a fully stocked WR corps falls below a decent OL. One good WR is fine with a couple merely ok ones backing him up. Now, him being here this year might not hurt us, and if he's expected to help us develop other players, then there might be a positive there. Thus, looking out 3 years, and examining whatever options are on the table, including offers for DJax if they're there, we have to ask, do we reap greater benefits 3 years down the road from keeping DJax for a year or two, or do we reap greater benefits in 3 years from whatever we get for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmania123 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I like the arguments for trading DeSean but it is NOT going to happen. It is counterintuitive to what the goals of this team are and what I heard SM say. You need to surround your QB with decent talent, and build upon it. I think if we pick up a few decent draft picks and a couple of decent FA's we will be competitive sooner then later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Again, trading him is a $9m cap hit. His money this year is guaranteed. Do people here just not read the thread? It's even worse than that - his cap hit in 2015 as a Redskin is $9.2M, if we trade him it creates a dead cap hit for us of over $11M. Jackson costs us more cap space if he is not on the roster in 2015 than if he is on the roster. He's going nowhere, and nor should he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 It's even worse than that - his cap hit in 2015 as a Redskin is $9.2M, if we trade him it creates a dead cap hit for us of over $11M. Jackson costs us more cap space if he is not on the roster in 2015 than if he is on the roster. He's going nowhere, and nor should he. I don't think that's true. The team that takes him takes all of the liabilities. If we CUT him, we take an 11M cap hit. If we TRADE him, that hit is 3.75M, the savings are 5.5M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Conclusion: If we could get a number one and number two... This would be a no brainer if another team would do it, but just the suggestion makes this whole thread fantasyland football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTBIRD 227 Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Keep DeSean, he has talent and the Skins need all the talent they can muster. If Scot M finds a counter part to DeSean in the draft with the same kind of speed and attributes and pair the rookie with DeSean, the Skins could cause defenses to have to worry about both sides of the field . Plus DeSean could be mentor for the Skins youth, you need some Vets to pass the torch. Hail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmartin7776 Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Look, I don't know what the new GM will do. I am not saying we should definitely trade DJax no matter what, but what a good GM should do is ask around and see what the market will bear (there MAY be one or two teams that would be willing to give up a little more than most other teams). We seemed to do OK with our receiving corps in 2012 without DJax (of course we had better QB play and running game, but I think a better OL today would be the equivalent of that from 2012) so he is not the "difference maker" at this point and would only make us marginally better if we don't address the OL and seek better QB play. Will more drafts picks help with that? Definitely for OL, not sure about QB. Just saying our GM should quietly inquire about it. If a team is desperate, see what we can get. If not, then we keep him. But, you at least better be asking, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyeG Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 wow..the best player on offense drops in our lap..n people want to trade him..smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewmartin7776 Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 wow..the best player on offense drops in our lap..n people want to trade him..smh People told Jimmy Johnson the same thing about Herschel Walker. How did that work out for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.