rajncajn Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Copied from the Saints board... Engram's return could signal end for Jackson Mar 28, 2007 | 9:36AM | The day he re-upped in Seattle, a jubilant Bobby Engram told us that phone calls from Coach Mike Holmgren and text messages from Matt Hasselbeck helped convince him to be back in the great Northwest. Engram, still the receiver Hasselbeck turns to on third downs, was very close to being a Saint. It was a decision he wrestled with, stressing just how first class the Saints were and how close they are to the Super Bowl. But when Seattle general manager Tim Ruskell, who Engram praised for signing Deon Grant and Patrick Kerney, upped the offer, the receiver was back. Engram said, "I knew in my mind I was talking to the two teams who I wanted to go to. I was just a matter of making sure that the commitment and the money was right. It was a matter of making sure the money was right for them. And once it was, I couldn't leave the Seahawks." The move could equal the end of Darrell Jackson's time in Seattle. Don't be surprised in New Orleans, Houston, or Green Bay jump in the mix to trade for the receiver. http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/adamschein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) So, let's see... Burleson, Branch, and have now Engram received new contracts in the past 12 months. But D-Jax, who has been vocally unhappy with his current deal since last summer, hasn't. Yeah, I'd say that he's the odd man out. Edited March 28, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 (edited) If he does leave I'd have to say Green Bay is the most likely place for him. The guys with connections on the Saints board say Loomis is not interested. That could be all different now that the Saints missed out on Engram though. Edited March 28, 2007 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If he does leave I'd have to say Green Bay is the most likely place for him. The guys with connections on the Saints board say Loomis is not interested. That could be all different now that the Saints missed out on Engram though. While I could see why the Packers (and especially Favre) would want a deep threat "specialist" like Moss, I don't see why they'd want D-Jax when they already have Driver and Jennings. The Saints would be a much better fit, IMO. Houston wouldn't be bad, either (assuming that they could absorb the cap hit from releasing Moulds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Not good for the Hawks...... Djax is the best WR they have by far- guy is injury prone, but a gamer and he produces. Engram and Djax aren't competing, DJax is the #1 , Engram is a #3. Burleson is all but a bust at WR- so the Hawks better come with DJax, Branch and Engram as their top 3, or their WR crew is looking pretty bleak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Not good for the Hawks...... Djax is the best WR they have by far- guy is injury prone, but a gamer and he produces. Engram and Djax aren't competing, DJax is the #1 , Engram is a #3. Burleson is all but a bust at WR- so the Hawks better come with DJax, Branch and Engram as their top 3, or their WR crew is looking pretty bleak. can ya keep that to yourself...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Do the Seahawks have cap problems that would cause them to get rid of anyone?? No. Do the Seahawks have an excess of talent at WR?? No. Could the Seahawks gain any help by selling Jackson at a low price?? No. Is Jackson a threat to the locker room atmostphere?? No. Does the re-signing of a cheap #3 receiver mean that the team's #1 reciever is "the odd man out"?? No. Get a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 (edited) Do the Seahawks have an excess of talent at WR?? Yes. Unless they use 5-WR sets on every down, I'd say that D-Jax, Branch, Burleson, Engram, and Hackett are pretty much the definition of "an excess of talent at WR." Do the Seahawks realistically expect to spend $18-$20 milion in cap room per year over the next few years on FOUR WRs? No. Is D-Jax an absolute lock to be traded this summer? No. Do the new contracts given to Burleson, Branch, and Engram and D-Jax's unhappiness about his current deal strongly suggest that he's on his way out? Yes. Edited March 29, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Can the Vikings use a WCO experienced wr? YES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Can the Vikings use a WCO experienced wr? YES! He could teach Williamson how to drop his passes with class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Hackett may be the best of the bunch. Djax, Hackett and Branch looked pretty lethal, if all healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I don't put much stock in some writer's guess that DJax will get cut or traded. Engram is a steady WR that can get 1st downs when they need one. My guess, which is a good as any other, is that he stays put for this year. Heck, they could move Burleson... just as likely. This is still the same old rumor that's been running around, and so far, nothing has happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I don't put much stock in some writer's guess that DJax will get cut or traded. Engram is a steady WR that can get 1st downs when they need one. My guess, which is a good as any other, is that he stays put for this year. Heck, they could move Burleson... just as likely. This is still the same old rumor that's been running around, and so far, nothing has happened. My thought is that is that Nate and Branch have so much money invested into them that Djax is probably gone. Djax held out of training camp last year, put the best numbers of any WR on the roster again, and management is hogtied as far as re-structuring his contract. I think nothing has happend with Djax yet because every GM knows that Seattle has very little leverage with Djax and the longer he stays in limbo the less you have to give to get him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 My feeling is that the following will happen this year: They'll quietly shop D-Jax, they'll give Burleson another year, and they'll give Hackett more playing time to see if he's really as good as he showed last year. They won't find any reasonable offers for D-Jax (who threatens to hold out if the new team doesn't pay him market value), but he'll miss a few games with another minor injury and he'll end up getting traded to the Raiders next Spring. Burleson will struggle again and will be cut after the season. After Hackett puts up another strong season, Seattle goes into '08 with Branch and Hackett as their starting wideouts with Engram in the slot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Do the Seahawks have cap problems that would cause them to get rid of anyone?? No. Do the Seahawks have an excess of talent at WR?? No. Could the Seahawks gain any help by selling Jackson at a low price?? No. Is Jackson a threat to the locker room atmostphere?? No. Does the re-signing of a cheap #3 receiver mean that the team's #1 reciever is "the odd man out"?? No. Get a clue. What are you going to do when DJax isn't a Seahawk for 2007? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 While I could see why the Packers (and especially Favre) would want a deep threat "specialist" like Moss, I don't see why they'd want D-Jax when they already have Driver and Jennings. Ted Thompson was on board when the Seahawks drafted Darrell Jackson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proninja Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 The writing has been on the wall for DJack to leave for over a year. He hasn't been happy with his contract, and management hasn't been happy with his health. Branch, Hackett, Engram in the slot, and Burleson as our #4 is a WR corps I'd be perfectly comfortable with, assuming we get something useful for DJack. They will trade him if they can get a useful piece or a good draft pick, but I wouldn't mind hanging onto him for this season either. 'Hawks can't really lose here, imo. Also, don't sleep on DJ Hackett this year. It wasn't just this last year, he's looked very solid with great potential for a few years now, and what he did last year was very expected by people who follow the team closely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 (edited) I'm sorry, but you can't tell me Branch, Hackett, Engram & Burleson looks like an impressive receiving corps on paper. Furthermore, Burleson won't be cut until after the 3rd year of his contract. He is too cheap to cut until then for as valuable as he is to the return game. You guys don't understand. They aren't shopping Jackson. Teams are making inquiries, but there isn't anything the Seahawks can do. They aren't gonna take a 3rd rounder for him. Like I have said many times, if Branch had shown us anything at all, I agree that Jackson would probably be gone. However, Branch didn't show a thing. The bottom line is that the Seahawks can't afford to get rid of Jackson. I like how the writers keep suggesting that this could be the end of Jackson, while nothing of substance has been brought up to prove this theory. Every time Ruskell is asked, he strongly denies that the team is looking to move Jackson. It won't happen. It would piss off Holmgren too much. Edited March 29, 2007 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSupe4You Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 (edited) Burleson will struggle again and will be cut after the season. Unless he slips on returns as well they won't cut Burleson until the big money starts to become due. He is a serviceable WR, but he greatly improved Seattle's return game. edit: should have read Seahawks21's last post before posting. Edited March 29, 2007 by NoSupe4You Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I'm sorry, but you can't tell me Branch, Hackett, Engram & Burleson looks like an impressive receiving corps on paper. Yeah, those guys all suck. You guys don't understand. And you don't seem to understand that THREE wide receivers not named Darrell Jackson have received generous contracts from the Seahawks over the past 12 months. Meanwhile, despite all of his complaining and his fake holdout last summer, Darrell Jackson has received NOTHING. While this does not necessarily mean that the Seahawks are shopping him RIGHT NOW, it's only logical to conclude that an injury-prone, under-paid player who is unhappy with his contract and is on a team that is stocked with WR talent may not be on said team for the long-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Yeah, those guys all suck. And you don't seem to understand that THREE wide receivers not named Darrell Jackson have received generous contracts from the Seahawks over the past 12 months. Meanwhile, despite all of his complaining and his fake holdout last summer, Darrell Jackson has received NOTHING. While this does not necessarily mean that the Seahawks are shopping him RIGHT NOW, it's only logical to conclude that an injury-prone, under-paid player who is unhappy with his contract and is on a team that is stocked with WR talent may not be on said team for the long-term. Who again has a generous contract?? Darrell is not unhappy with his contract at all, never has been. Heck, he just signed it two years ago. This receiving corps without him is only stacked for talent when being compared to teams like Tennessee and New England. Again, if Branch had shown anything at all, this scenario may be different. They won't shop Jackson, they can't shop Jackson. They can't afford at this point to go into a season that finds their division still being "down", with four #3 WR's. Won't happen. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 (edited) Who again has a generous contract?? Um, how about Branch and Burleson? And didn't Engram just get enough money to turn down an offer from a WR-deficient Saints? Darrell is not unhappy with his contract at all, never has been. D-Jax reportedly wrote "I want Reggie Wayne money" on his shoes last year. And I'm not the only person here to report that he's unhappy with his deal. Again, if Branch had shown anything at all, this scenario may be different. They won't shop Jackson, they can't shop Jackson. They can't afford at this point to go into a season that finds their division still being "down", with four #3 WR's. Um, Branch was a stud in NE. He only played 13 games in SEA last year, had never played in the WCO before, and because he was traded mid-season, he had little time to learn the playbook or establish chemistry with his QB. Given all of that, I'd say that he did relatively well last year. Anybody who thinks that Deion Branch is a #3 WR has either never watched him play in NE or is a complete moran who doesn't understand football. Engram would be a serviceable #2 WR on a number of teams and Hackett is on pace to be a fine #2 in another year or two. So, no, the Seahawks don't have "four #3 WRs." Won't happen. Sorry. Neither your man-crush on D-Jax nor all of the wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change his situation. Won't happen. Sorry. EDIT: Jackson wrote "DB money" on his shoes last season... When the Seahawks gave Branch a six-year contract worth $39 million and including $13 million in bonuses last September, Jackson's envy was obvious during the next game when he taped his cleats with the phrase, "DB money." The message was clear: He wanted Deion Branch money. Oh, but he's "not unhappy with his contract at all." Edited March 29, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 (edited) Yeah, those guys all suck. And you don't seem to understand that THREE wide receivers not named Darrell Jackson have received generous contracts from the Seahawks over the past 12 months. Meanwhile, despite all of his complaining and his fake holdout last summer, Darrell Jackson has received NOTHING. While this does not necessarily mean that the Seahawks are shopping him RIGHT NOW, it's only logical to conclude that an injury-prone, under-paid player who is unhappy with his contract and is on a team that is stocked with WR talent may not be on said team for the long-term. I think you're talking to a brick wall Bill. Edited March 29, 2007 by Hat Trick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charty Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Darrell is not unhappy with his contract at all, never has been. Heck, he just signed it two years ago. Uhmmm, check out the 3 paragraphs below, and here is the so you can "research" it. But trouble arose in March 2004 when former Seahawks president Bob Whitsitt allegedly shorted Jackson on a contract offer. Jackson said he signed the deal anyway at the urging of his father, who has since died. Whitsitt has dismissed the charge as preposterous, while Ruskell has resisted honoring a promise that a predecessor denies making. The dispute has escalated ever since, with the Seahawks and Jackson’s agents exchanging a series of blunt letters, sources said. When Ruskell became Seahawks president in February 2005, one of his first moves was to issue a letter to players outlining his expectations. He urged full participation in the team’s offseason program, including minicamps, but Jackson let it be known he would honor his contract but nothing more. Jackson subsequently skipped the voluntary portions of minicamps. Uhmmm, for a Paid researcher, you might want to research facts on your own team before worrying about Swerski's Swerski, I read what you have been writing lately about the Colts. You don't even have a handle on your own freakin' team's real issues. The Colts are one of the teams I am paid to research, and after reading what you wrote, I'm not sure we were watching the same team. If I were you I would take a seat in the front row when class starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Uhmmm, for a Paid researcher, you might want to research facts on your own team before worrying about Swerski's ignorance + arrogance = Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.