Darrell Jackson?

Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor · 03-15-2008, 11:06 AM

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.

Redskin Warrior · 03-15-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor

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.

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

SmootSmack · 03-15-2008, 11:20 AM

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

SeanTaylor21 · 03-15-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor

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.

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

Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor · 03-15-2008, 11:35 AM

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.

Stuck in TX · 03-15-2008, 11:38 AM

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.

SeanTaylor21 · 03-15-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuck in TX

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.

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.

Eknox · 03-15-2008, 02:36 PM

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

SmootSmack · 03-15-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eknox

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

Indianapolis?

Dirtbag359 · 03-15-2008, 05:07 PM

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.

sportscurmudgeon · 03-15-2008, 06:45 PM

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.

SeanTaylor21 · 03-15-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

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.

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

sportscurmudgeon · 03-15-2008, 06:55 PM

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.

SeanTaylor21 · 03-15-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

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.

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

Dirtbag359 · 03-15-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanTaylor21

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

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.

03-15-2008, 11:06 AM	#1 (permalink)
Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 278	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.

03-15-2008, 11:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
SmootSmack Patience=Virtue Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 21,475	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. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

03-15-2008, 11:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
Sean"Big Hurt"Taylor Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 278	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.

03-15-2008, 11:38 AM	#6 (permalink)
Stuck in TX Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Wichita Falls, TX Posts: 384	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. __________________ We will miss you Sean. RIP 1983-2007 REMEMBER VT Go Hokies

03-15-2008, 02:36 PM	#8 (permalink)
Eknox Camp Scrub Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Flint,Mi Posts: 43	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

03-15-2008, 05:07 PM	#10 (permalink)
Dirtbag359 The Starter Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland Posts: 2,187	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. __________________ "What does a new president mean for the space program? Miles O'Brien explains, next." - Wolf Blitzer (Please tell me that I'm not the only one that see's the irony in this quote)

03-15-2008, 06:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
sportscurmudgeon The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,669	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. __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

03-15-2008, 06:55 PM	#13 (permalink)
sportscurmudgeon The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 1,669	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. __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Darrell Jackson?

Redskins Locker Room