Zorn and Skins to pursue D. J. Hackett

[bertoskins2]

I would go with bryant for the reason the DJ cannot stay healthy. what the heck if this guy knows the system but cannot step on the field. we don't what another player to fill our IR room like last year.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

While I myself am not enamored with Johnson, you have to look closer at what constitutes a start. I'm confused as to if its counted as a start if the team opens up with a 3-Receiver set. Does a start mean that a player was in on the first snap of the game on thier respective side of the ball.

I personally doubt that Boldin and Fitzgerald missed a combined 7 games and still put up 1,400 yards each.

Boldin missed 4 starts, Fitzgerald missed 1 start.

Both of them battled nagging injuries all year.

Boldin didn't put up 1400 yards, try 853.

[DGreene28]

Just a side note... In the 2003 combine Hackett was one of the top performers at WR

Vertical 41" (Would be the best overall in this years draft, one of the best all-time probably)

Broad Jump 10'11" (Would be 1 or 2 in this years draft)

40 yard dash 4.53

3-cone drill 6.80 (Would be 2nd in this years combine among WR)

D.J. Hackett, WR, Colorado - 2004 NFL Draft Scout Profile, Powered by The SportsXchange


Bryant ran a 4.57 40 and didn't do any agility or jumping

Wonderlic results:
16 Johnson
24 Hackett

Take what you want from all this... I'm impressed with Hackett's athleticism... did not know he was that kind of explosive athlete

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Actually Boldin and Fitz sat out the Cleveland game, and both of them battled injuries most of the year and weren't 100% even when starting.

Johnson hasn't done much over the course of his career to show that he's capable of stepping in and being a big time guy, while Hackett has proved he's capable.

I don't know about that.

Hackett missed all but 6 games last year. In the two years before that, he also didn't manage to play a full season despite being used much more sparingly than he was last season.

He's had a few huge games. I see a few over 100 yard games on his resume. Of course he had Matt Hasselbeck throwing to him instead of the very green Matt Leinart and the very old Kurt Warner.

He toasted us for 101 yards on 6 catches in our playoff game against Seattle. But then when he went up against Al Harris and Charles Woodson, he was held to 2 catches for 15 yards against the Pack in the divisional round. That's indicative of his all-or-nothing kind of play. He's either way up or way down.

I'm of the mindset we need someone pretty consistent to give us a big target in the red zone, first and foremost, and help us move the chains. I think we've already got two big play guys.

For the record, and all that said, I'd still prefer Hackett simply because he knows Zorn and will know the playbook, which is huge when it comes to making an immediate impact. But I don't see a huge difference between him and Bryant Johnson from a talent perspective. We should get Hackett because of the familiarity with our coach, but I won't be disappointed with Bryant Johnson.

[Longtimefan]

Hackett would IMO be a good addition provided he could remain healthy for an entire season.

There's no question he's been productive [when he's played] but the question with him is the same one we have with Moss, "accountability". I've said many times before, regardless of a players ability, if he's not there he can't be depended on.

[EEich]

I like Hackett. Especially his prior knowledge of the west coast offense, but his injury history scares me. Out 10 games (two stretches) last season. Out 2 games in 2006.

I love Bryant. I think he was always to step up when asked... Maybe not the superstar skill set necessary to supplant Boldin or Fitz... but still a quality big WR.

[celts32]

We are all disecting these Cards WR numbers like the answer is suddenly going to leap off the screen at us. The reality is that none of us know if Johnson is a very good WR being held back by great ones or just an average WR. It's the redskins job to figure that out...hopefully they do. Poking holes in Hackett & Johnson as free agent pickups is like shooting ducks in a barrel. The only way we will know for sure if we upgraded the WR corps on opening day is to trade for a proven #1.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by celts32

We are all disecting these Cards WR numbers like the answer is suddenly going to leap off the screen at us. The reality is that none of us know if Johnson is a very good WR being held back by great ones or just an average WR. It's the redskins job to figure that out...hopefully they do. Poking holes in Hackett & Johnson as free agent pickups is like shooting ducks in a barrel. The only way we will know for sure if we upgraded the WR corps on opening day is to trade for a proven #1.

Yeah good point. I'd lean towards him being an average WR but that's just my 2 cents.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah good point. I'd lean towards him being an average WR but that's just my 2 cents.

I think I agree...problem is I think Hackett is average also. So where does that leave us?

[MTK]

Personally I think Hackett has more upside, but of course there's the injury concern with him. He would seem to make more sense because of the connection with Zorn, but I'd be ok with picking up either guy.

[Longtimefan]

The team has identified WR as a position that could use an upgrade. If we're looking to upgrade immediately it probably won't be through the draft. It's unlikely a "rookie" WR will crack the line-up and make an immediate impact. I can see drafting a WR to develop for the future.

It apears obvious we want to upgrade the position for the 2008 season, and the only way that seems possible is through FA's or trade.

*I* want to see what/if anything Anthony Mix can bring to the table. We know he's unproven, but many in the Giants organization didn't want to see him leave, and had nothing but good things to say about him. He came in late last year and was relegated to ST play. We do know he's famaliar with JC having played with him at Auburn. If all else fails, I would like for him to at least have an opportunity to show if he has anything despite not having a stellar resume.

[DGreene28]

College career
In his freshman year at Cal State Northridge, Hackett appeared in 10 of the Matadors' 11 games. He finished the season with 47 receptions for 728 yards and 7 touchdowns, finishing 2nd on the team in all three categories. As a sophomore, Hackett again finished 2nd on the team in receptions (53) and yards (778), and was tied for the team lead in touchdowns (10).
Hackett transferred to the University of Colorado in 2002, appearing in 12 of the team's 13 games. In 2003 Hackett led all Buffaloes receivers with 1,013 receiving yards and 78 total receptions, scoring 7 touchdowns.

We can also look back to Hackett's college career to see if he can stay healthy and be productive. It looks like he can stay healthy and put up great numbers but just has been nicked a little bit in Seattle. Last year he had a high ankle sprain which forced him to miss significant time. Maybe playing on turf in Seattle had a little something to do with that. In his previous 2 seasons he played in 27 out of 32 regular season games. Does not look like the injury question with Hackett should be too much of a concern.

[SmootSmack]

I'm not 100% sold on either Hackett or Johnson. But I don't think they'd really damage us, just don't know how much they'd help.

So Hackett's from Colorado eh? Yikes! Hopefully he won't end up like Michael Westbrook or even worse Rae Carruth!!

[jsarno]

It's good to see that not everyone is thinking Hackett is answer, but there are way too many people that are overrating Hackett...hopefully Cerrato won't and pay him disgusting pay.

[Rajmahal33]

Has the ship already sailed on a trade for Roy Williams? He's probably the closest to a sure thing that we can get this FA period at WR.