ebartender Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 D-Jax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Jackson's value takes a hit considering his problem staying healthy. He has missed 13 games in the last two years even though he has been very productive when he is on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarryTheRock Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Where the Hawk fans that disputed this up and down a couple weeks ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Where the Hawk fans that disputed this up and down a couple weeks ago? Trading their Jackson spamshirts in for Branch spamshirts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The link doesn't work for me... It keeps saying: Sorry, there is no post to display... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The link doesn't work for me... It keeps saying: Sorry, there is no post to display... It had been just been deleted there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 It had been just been deleted there. I had the same problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I found it: http://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/seaha...p-5698815c.html Seahawks intend to shop Jackson MIKE SANDO; The News Tribune Published: February 25th, 2007 01:00 AM INDIANAPOLIS – What might receiver Darrell Jackson return in a trade? The Seahawks plan to find out. The decision to shop Jackson stems from a long-simmering contract dispute and lingering distrust over the handling of a 2005 knee injury, sources have said. While the organization does not consider the relationship beyond repair, the team would prefer to trade him for a draft choice. Seahawks president Tim Ruskell and coach Mike Holmgren, speaking at the NFL scouting combine, declined to comment on the team’s plans for Jackson, other than to say he remains under contract. The team has not yet shopped Jackson or informed his agents of its plans. “Darrell would love to retire as a Seahawk,” agent Brian Mooney said, “but we are unsure what the Seahawks have in mind.” It remains unclear what the 28-year-old might bring in a trade. There was no strong consensus among general managers polled anonymously at the combine. But given Jackson’s relatively high salary for 2007 ($3.25 million) and recent injury problems, the Seahawks might not receive a first-day pick in return, they said. The evidence is mixed. While the Seahawks sent a first-round choice to New England for receiver Deion Branch, a former Super Bowl MVP without a 1,000-yard season, Philadelphia acquired former first-round choice Donte’ Stallworth from New Orleans for a conditional fourth-round pick and linebacker Mark Simoneau. Green Bay traded Javon Walker to Denver for a second-round pick. Denver acquired a much higher first-round pick in exchange for Ashley Lelie. Jackson has considerably better career numbers than any of those receivers. He is also under contract, whereas Walker was looking for a lucrative new deal. Markets can be difficult to predict because it takes only one team willing to pay a high price. The upcoming draft is considered strong for receivers, but the free-agent crop lacks star appeal. Jackson is an established player known for his quickness. Jackson was leading the NFL in touchdowns last season when a turf-toe injury forced him to miss the final three games. The injury prevented Jackson from achieving his third 1,000-yard season in four years and the fourth overall. Jackson still led the Seahawks with 63 catches for 956 yards and 10 touchdowns. He had six plays of at least 40 yards. Jackson set a franchise record with 87 catches in 2004. He has at least 60 catches five times in seven NFL seasons. 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. The relationship soured further after Jackson suffered a knee injury during an Oct. 2, 2005, game at Washington. Jackson had bruised the knee earlier and experienced pain following a Sept. 25 game against Arizona. He suffered cartilage damage against the Redskins, raising questions in his mind about whether he should have been on the field at all, sources said. The damage did not show up on initial tests. The team recommended rest. Holmgren avoided giving a timetable other than to say he thought it would be “shorter more than longer” after speaking with Jackson. The team ruled out Jackson for the next game. Jackson, acting on the advice of Florida-based agents Mooney and Kendall Almerico, sought a second opinion from Dr. John Uribe, a prominent Miami orthopedist known for treating pro athletes. Jackson underwent surgery to repair his right knee’s lateral meniscus, which consists of cartilage on the outer side of the knee. He wondered if the team was trying to rush him back. The team resented the implication. Jackson missed the next nine games, returning in time for the playoffs. He caught 20 passes for 268 yards and two touchdowns in three playoff games, leading the team in each category (Jerramy Stevens also caught two touchdown passes). Jackson underwent a second procedure on the knee after the season. He missed minicamps and training camp, all while maintaining he would be ready for the opener. He returned for the opener; his late catch-and-run helped the Seahawks beat Detroit, 9-6. But the team was already preparing for life without him. The Seahawks had shipped a 2006 third-round pick to Minnesota after signing Vikings receiver Nate Burleson, a restricted free agent. Ruskell followed that deal by sending a 2007 first-round choice to New England for Branch shortly after the 2006 opener. D.J. Hackett flashed starting potential last season, setting career highs with 45 catches for 610 yards and four touchdowns. The team is expected to retain Hackett’s rights by making one of the higher qualifying offers under rules for restricted free agents. Ruskell also has expressed hope for Ben Obomanu, a 2006 seventh-round choice who spent last season on the practice squad. The team added Obomanu to its active roster in the playoffs, when Jackson was struggling to overcome the toe injury. Bobby Engram may be another option, although he is scheduled to become a free agent March 2. Jackson has three years remaining on a six-year, $25 million deal. His remaining salaries are $3.25 million, 4 million and $4.75 million. The deal included an $8 million signing bonus. One-sixth of the bonus counts against the salary cap each year. But if the Seahawks traded Jackson for a 2006 draft choice, the final three years of prorated bonus would accelerate, resulting in a $4 million hit. Jackson’s contract would count $4.58 million against the cap if he were to remain on the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 The Nate Burleson signing last year didnt make sense. The Deion Branch trade didn't make sense. Now they're trying to trade there best receiver? This team is insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) If neither Ruskell or Holmgren said anything, how did this rumor get started, am I missing something?? Either way, I think the chances of Cactus Jackson being dealt are very slim. For a group that has done reasonably well with these types of decisions, I find it hard to imagine they could be contemplating something that could end as catastrophicly as this could, especially since the NFC West is still lined up for them to win. I'm kinda horrified. As terrible as the front offices of the Sonics and Mariners have been, we have kind of been able to count on the Seahawks to make good decisions and be competetive. Messin with fire here. Edited February 25, 2007 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 especially since the NFC West is still lined up for them to win. I wouldnt sleep on the niners this year... Or the rams for that matter either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 If neither Ruskell or Holmgren said anything, how did this rumor get started, am I missing something?? It's the combine dude. Everybody is there. Mike Sando has already talked about meeting with Ruskell and Holmgren on Thursday and Friday in his blog. Either way, I think the chances of Cactus Jackson being dealt are very slim. You think Darrell Jackson wants to come back to Seattle now? The team is actively trading him, making it apparent that they view him as a risk and a liability with the depth they have at WR (and his $4.8 million cap hit). For a group that has done reasonably well with these types of decisions, I find it hard to imagine they could be contemplating something that could end as catastrophicly as this could, especially since the NFC West is still lined up for them to win. I'm kinda horrified. As terrible as the front offices of the Sonics and Mariners have been, we have kind of been able to count on the Seahawks to make good decisions and be competetive. Messin with fire here. I hear all these glowing things about the Seahawks front office since Tim Ruskell's been in place. He has brought in some stellar young talent acquired through the draft (Tatupu, Spencer, Sims, Tapp, etc.). And the team did reach the Super Bowl in his first season. However, would you consider failing to franchise Steve Hutchinson a 'good decision'? How about trading a 1st Round pick for Deion Branch? How about alienating Darrell Jackson in public this way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) Don't think it makes sense to trade Jackson right now, if he plans on coming back and playing. But, I also think its way too early to evaluate the D. Branch trade as a bad decision. Let's at least give him and Hass a training camp and a season together before judging he wasn't worth the 24th pick in the 2007 draft based on 8 games together. Edited February 26, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 It's the combine dude. Everybody is there. Mike Sando has already talked about meeting with Ruskell and Holmgren on Thursday and Friday in his blog. You think Darrell Jackson wants to come back to Seattle now? The team is actively trading him, making it apparent that they view him as a risk and a liability with the depth they have at WR (and his $4.8 million cap hit). I hear all these glowing things about the Seahawks front office since Tim Ruskell's been in place. He has brought in some stellar young talent acquired through the draft (Tatupu, Spencer, Sims, Tapp, etc.). And the team did reach the Super Bowl in his first season. However, would you consider failing to franchise Steve Hutchinson a 'good decision'? How about trading a 1st Round pick for Deion Branch? How about alienating Darrell Jackson in public this way? No I don't think Darrell Jackson wants to come back. That doesn't mean the Seahawks shouldn't bring him back. You have no choice but to give the Seahawks a pass on the Hutch thing. They had every intention of matching whatever offer he got. They could not have forseen that any team could do anything near as dirty as the the crap the Vikings pulled. I give the most blame to the NFL for not allowing the Seahawks to re-work Walt's contract to allow them to match. That was garbage. The front office did rebound nicely however, and quickly signed Julian Peterson. The trade for Deion Branch is undefendable. You got me there. Darrell Jackson left the Seahawks no choice but to air him out publicly. The stunt he pulled at the beginning of camp last year was one of the most baby-ish things I can recall from a pro athlete. That said, we freakin' need the guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 If he's really on the market, I sure hope that Carl Peterson picks up the phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Don't think it makes sense to trade Jackson right now, if he plans on coming back and playing. It makes even less sense to pay D-Jax, Branch, AND Burleson. Since it's not really possible to trade one of the latter two without taking a massive cap hit, D-Jax is the odd man out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 No I don't think Darrell Jackson wants to come back. That doesn't mean the Seahawks shouldn't bring him back. You have no choice but to give the Seahawks a pass on the Hutch thing. They had every intention of matching whatever offer he got. They could not have forseen that any team could do anything near as dirty as the the crap the Vikings pulled. I give the most blame to the NFL for not allowing the Seahawks to re-work Walt's contract to allow them to match. That was garbage. The front office did rebound nicely however, and quickly signed Julian Peterson. The trade for Deion Branch is undefendable. You got me there. Darrell Jackson left the Seahawks no choice but to air him out publicly. The stunt he pulled at the beginning of camp last year was one of the most baby-ish things I can recall from a pro athlete. That said, we freakin' need the guy. I refuse to give them a pass on Hutch. If they had simply used the franchise tag on him he would not have been allowed to leave! Just because they "thought" nobody would match the offer is no excuse. This guy is regarded as the best LG in the entire league, how do you not ensure that you keep him? I loved the Peterson signing, and hated the deals for both Burleson and Branch. If they hadn't pulled in both receivers we'd be resigning DJax and going into next year with Jackson, Hackett, and Engram and a helluva lot more $$ in the pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I refuse to give them a pass on Hutch. If they had simply used the franchise tag on him he would not have been allowed to leave! Just because they "thought" nobody would match the offer is no excuse. This guy is regarded as the best LG in the entire league, how do you not ensure that you keep him? I loved the Peterson signing, and hated the deals for both Burleson and Branch. If they hadn't pulled in both receivers we'd be resigning DJax and going into next year with Jackson, Hackett, and Engram and a helluva lot more $$ in the pocket. I agree wholeheartedly on the WR situation. On the Hutch thing, the Hawks had no idea that somebody could have thrown in a "poison pill". It was an unprecedented situation. How can you prepare for something that you didn't know was possible?? They would have matched ANY offer he got barring the joke that the Vikings threw in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 It makes even less sense to pay D-Jax, Branch, AND Burleson. Especially in the long term. But, presently, they still have a fair amount of cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Especially in the long term. But, presently, they still have a fair amount of cap space. It might be in their best interest to put D-Jax out there this season and hope that he plays a relatively inury-free season. If that happens, he'll almost certainly play well and his trade value will skyrocket. The downside, of course, is that D-Jax is unhappy about his current deal and Burleson (likely the odd-man-out) might start complaining as well. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 If he's really on the market, I sure hope that Carl Peterson Joe Banner picks up the phone. especially if Stallworth walks, as expected. DJax would fit right into Reid's offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 This whole situation in Seattle kinda blows if you are a Seahawk fan. they overpay for 2 WR's(IMO Burleson is useless) and now are possibly gonna trade their best 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Ruskell denies that Djax is on the block Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I agree wholeheartedly on the WR situation. On the Hutch thing, the Hawks had no idea that somebody could have thrown in a "poison pill". It was an unprecedented situation. How can you prepare for something that you didn't know was possible?? They would have matched ANY offer he got barring the joke that the Vikings threw in. My gripe is that if they'd have used the franchise tag instead of the transition tag, they wouldn't have lost him. That's how they held on to Walter Jones for all those years, why hold back with Hutch? I agree that they didn't anticipate the poison pill by the Vikes, but it shouldn't have come down to that. If they had used the franchise tag, Hutch would still be a Hawk. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 On the Hutch thing, the Hawks had no idea that somebody could have thrown in a "poison pill". It was an unprecedented situation. How can you prepare for something that you didn't know was possible?? They would have matched ANY offer he got barring the joke that the Vikings threw in. Very true. My gripe is that if they'd have used the franchise tag instead of the transition tag, they wouldn't have lost him. That's how they held on to Walter Jones for all those years, why hold back with Hutch? I agree that they didn't anticipate the poison pill by the Vikes, but it shouldn't have come down to that. If they had used the franchise tag, Hutch would still be a Hawk. Period. And had they tagged him, they still would have been paying him less than they would have had they had to match an offer by the Vikings (without a poison pill). 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.