Hat Trick Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Again, if Branch had shown anything at all, this scenario may be different. Hmm, 20th WR in the NFC last year in catches, after being traded to a new team, and while playing in 14 games, and starting 13 of them, the first season ever in his career in a West Coast offense? Yeah, he showed nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Are we really arguing about Branch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Jackson is not unhappy with his current contract, he is unhappy that he was never paid his bonus from three years ago. Engram got a small contract, Burleson got a small contract. Again, do the Hawks have any cap problems that would lead to them having to get rid of Jackson, no matter how much the other WR's on the roster make?? Is there anybody reading this that would be happy to have Deion Branch as their team's #1 receiver?? Other than New England or Tennessee homers?? I'm done with you man. Wake me up when you're right about something. So far, everything we have argued about I have been right on with, and you are wasting everyone's time predicting things that will never happen. Again, nice job substituting name-calling for actually being correct about something. Stick to science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Hmm, 20th WR in the NFC last year in catches, after being traded to a new team, and while playing in 14 games, and starting 13 of them, the first season ever in his career in a West Coast offense? Yeah, he showed nothing Branch showed NOTHING. He dropped several crucial passes and didn't make a big catch all year. Not exactly #1 receiver type stuff here. 20th in the NFC!!! That is just the NFC!! If Engram was healthy he is 40th in the NFC. Get outta here, the guy flat out didn't do anything last year. I had high hopes for the guy...very disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Branch showed NOTHING. He dropped several crucial passes and didn't make a big catch all year. Not exactly #1 receiver type stuff here. 20th in the NFC!!! That is just the NFC!! If Engram was healthy he is 40th in the NFC. Get outta here, the guy flat out didn't do anything last year. I had high hopes for the guy...very disappointing. I am good friends with a Seahawks fan so I know that you don't speak for Seahawk nation. And I would LOVE Deion Branch as my number one wide receiver. My two cents.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Jackson is not unhappy with his current contract, he is unhappy that he was never paid his bonus from three years ago. No. Jackson ALLEGEDLY signed a contract with the former team President that had oral agreements in place that the current team President won't abide by. We don't know for sure because Jackson doesn't talk to the media. Not just about this. He doesn't talk at all, or at least very rarely. Nor does he bring his contract situation into the locker room or onto the playing field. He is the atypical NFL receiver in that regard. What Jackson has done is sit out minicamps, training camp, and gets medical treatment/opinions from outside the club. In 2006, he worked out on his own timetable throughout the off-season and most of August. That didn't go over well with the powers that be in the organization when they are left in the dark about the situation with his recovery from knee rehab. You can love DJax all you want, he's a hardnosed football player that leaves it on the field. That does not change the reality of the situation. You are alone in everything you're saying in these threads, and so far are only "right" about the fact he has yet to be traded. From this morning's Seattle Times: "He'd like to retire as a Seahawk," Brian Mooney, Jackson's agent, said Wednesday. "But they've brought in Deion Branch, [Nate] Burleson, they have [bobby] Engram back. They've got an awful lot of receivers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 (edited) I'm done with you man. Wake me up when you're right about something. So far, everything we have argued about I have been right on with, and you are wasting everyone's time predicting things that will never happen. Again, nice job substituting name-calling for actually being correct about something. Stick to science. LOL, speaking of "being correct about something", how can somebody who supposedly covers the freaking Seahawks for a living not know about Jackson writing "I need DB money" on his shoes the freaking week after his team signed Deion Banch? Does that sound like he's happy about his current contract? I don't even LIKE the Seahawks, much less COVER THEM FOR A LIVING, yet I know that from just casual reading over the Internet. You're an obnoxious blow-hard who knows crap about pro football. You couldn't get John Clayton's Starbucks order correct, much less do his job. Maybe you need to go back to the AOL boards, because you've obviously lost any shred of credibility you've ever had here. Edited March 29, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 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. John Clayton was just on KJR and stated rather emphatically that Seattle will trade Djax before the season starts. That's pretty odd how he gave you the inside info on Asante Samuel but hasn't persuaded your opinion on the Djax situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 No. Jackson ALLEGEDLY signed a contract with the former team President that had oral agreements in place that the current team President won't abide by. " Exactly. We all know what the agreement was. Darrell has every right to be pissed. Doesn't change anything. No, I don't cover the Seahawks, and no, I don't get John Clayton's coffee. Big man callin names on the internet. What a lil punk. I couldn't go through life being wrong all the time. Somebody get picked on too much as a child?? John has been saying since Branch came that Jackson would be traded. We agree to disagree. There just isn't any logic behind trading your best receiver for a 3rd round pick when you don't have any cap problems and he doesn't hurt the locker room. What could you possibly gain out of doing so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 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. 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). I agree with Bill... Driver right now is the best offensive player on the team, the entire organization loves Jennings, and I beleive he'll be the starter opposite Driver from here on out. Yes, they do need to adress overall depth at the position, but they do not a Darrell Jackson type player. I honestly think that Ruvell Martin will be the no.3 until Koren Robinson comes back around week six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Exactly. We all know what the agreement was. Darrell has every right to be pissed. Doesn't change anything. Darrell doesn't need to be pissed. Darrell needs a better agent and/or better judgement in signing a contract with someone who isn't going to stick around. It's not the Seahawks fault that DJax and Bob Whitsett were buds. Doesn't excuse the refusal to participate in off-season programs and training camp just to make a point to the new regime. Darrell made his point, now his employer is making their point (or supposedly trying). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 (edited) No, I don't cover the Seahawks Good, because it'd be pretty sad if a Colts fan knew as much about them as you do. Big man callin names on the internet. Big man telling everybody on the Internet that they're "wrong." Mr. Know-It-All said that that there was no precedent for a player to be franchised and then traded that same year. Mr. Know-It-All then got schooled by a bunch of Huddlers who knew what they were talking about. Mr. Know-It-All then proclaimed that Darrell Jackson was happy with his contract and got schooled again by a couple of people who took 10 seconds to do a Google search. Mr. Know-It-All (who supposedly researches the Colts for a living) tells a Colts fan that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but then puts his tail between his legs when he's called on it. Pretty much everybody at The Huddle disagrees with Mr. Know-It-All, yet he still thinks that he's right all of the time. What a lil punk. LOL, this coming from somebody with an ego the size of Montana and the personality of battery acid. I couldn't go through life being wrong all the time. I seriously hope that you're correct somewhere outside of The Huddle, because you're wrong pretty much all of the time here. Edited March 30, 2007 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 (edited) I'm sorry, but you can't tell me Branch, Hackett, Engram & Burleson looks like an impressive receiving corps on paper. I do agree that that is not a impressive recieving core. 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. It always makes me laugh when someone calls Burleson "valuable". 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. Wonder why those teams are making inquiries? wonder if it could be because they heard he may be available? 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. Branch has shown me that he has the potential to be as effective in 16 games as Jackson is in 12 games. problem is Jackson probably can't be healthy for 12 games. I am not a Branch fan and from day 1 said that trade was a bad trade for the Seahawks(although not near as bad as the Burleson signing). no matter if Jackson stays or not Branch will probably end up being the number 1 WR in half of next years games. Jackson should play about 11 games but only be healthy enough in about 8 of those games to be the number 1. so why not trade Jackson ? all part time guys like Jackson do is keep the offense from ever getting into the right chemistry. of course if you get lucky and he stays healthy for 14 games you do got a guy who can draw doubles and open the field up for the rest of his teammates. but IMO the Seahawks are not only sick of his attitude but sick of rolling the dice with him. The bottom line is that the Seahawks can't afford to get rid of Jackson. No..they could not afford to lose Hutchinson..they can afford to lose Jackson. Edited March 30, 2007 by Doc Holliday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Is there anybody reading this that would be happy to have Deion Branch as their team's #1 receiver?? Other than New England or Tennessee homers?? :raiseshand: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 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. Looks better than anything the Patriots had last year. Ok, I'm just saying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 :raiseshand: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 No..they could not afford to lose Hutchinson..they can afford to lose Jackson. I couldn't agree with this more. That's a very, very perceptive analysis, there, Doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Whatever. Everything I have said has been 100% factually correct. Just like the Samuel thing and everything else we have argued about....go ahead and wake me when you're correct about something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Whatever. Everything I have said has been 100% factually correct. Just like the Samuel thing and everything else we have argued about....go ahead and wake me when you're correct about something. Nice strawman argument, but nobody said that Asante Samuel was DEFINITELY going to be traded. People merely said that it was POSSIBLE and that there was ample precedent (which you incorrectly argued aganist). And you're also incorrect that Darrell Jackson is happy with his current contract, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. So, are you going to tell me how my Colts analysis is flawed, or can we safely assume that you're just a mouthy little punk who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Nice strawman argument, but nobody said that Asante Samuel was DEFINITELY going to be traded. People merely said that it was POSSIBLE and that there was ample precedent (which you incorrectly argued aganist). And you're also incorrect that Darrell Jackson is happy with his current contract, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. So, are you going to tell me how my Colts analysis is flawed, or can we safely assume that you're just a mouthy little punk who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about? Yeah, there ya go!! Nice comeback!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Yeah, there ya go!! Nice comeback!! Nice threatening PM... I will be in Indianapolis April 12th-15h if you'd like to discuss this further. Of course you're not man enough to back your words in person, thought I'd try anyway. I don't live in Indianapolis, Mr. Internet Tough Guy. Your stupidity is reaching Ugly Tuna proportions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Yeah, there ya go!! Nice comeback!! Nice threatening PM... I don't live in Indianapolis, Mr. Internet Tough Guy. Your stupidity is reaching Ugly Tuna proportions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I know you are but what am I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I know you are but what am I? I'm rubbery glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. 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.