![]() |
|
|||||||
| Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
| View Poll Results: Should the Skins sign DeSean Jackson? | |||
| Yes, absolutely |
|
65 | 63.11% |
| Definitely not |
|
24 | 23.30% |
| Yes, but only for the vet min |
|
14 | 13.59% |
| Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
A Dude
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 12,458
|
Re: DeSean Jackson meeting with the Redskins on Monday
Quote:
Foles is a sound decision maker, I'll say that for him. But he was not getting rid of the ball crisply last season, he just had that much time behind that line. And least important positions on the field? Absolutely not. WR is one of the more important positions on the field. Ask the 49ers or Cowboys dynasties what Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin meant to them. Ask the Greatest Show on Turf what Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt meant. Ask Eli how he felt about having Plaxico vs not having Plaxico. And ask Matt Ryan how last season went without Julio Jones.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
The Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Davidsonville
Posts: 1,783
|
Re: DeSean Jackson meeting with the Redskins on Monday
Quote:
If being top 5 in WR spending was a common characteristic of Super Bowl winning teams over the last 10-15 years, I'd be all for it. It's a copycat league for a reason. The Skins had a top 5 Offense just 2 years ago with the guys they already have on the roster. Unless he wants to sign on the cheap, I don't think it makes sense strictly from a business standpoint.
__________________
I am a system poster. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
A Dude
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 12,458
|
Re: DeSean Jackson meeting with the Redskins on Monday
Quote:
The Seahawks won with a dominating defense, run game, and a mobile QB. The Rams won with a wide open offense. The Giants won with clutch pocket passing and dominating defensive lines. The Steelers won with dominating defense and an improvising QB. The 2000 Ravens won with one of the best defenses of all time and a QB who simply didn't screw things up. There's lots of ways to win. Why can't the team spend at WR, but get production on the cheap in the secondary? You can't spend everywhere, but what if David Amerson and Phillip Thomas turn into something? Just because it hasn't been the formula doesn't mean it can't be. Nobody thought mobile QBs could win until Russell Wilson did this year. And you keep citing Tom Brady. Do you want to count on RG3 becoming as legendary as Brady? I love RG3 but damn that's a high bar you're setting.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|