Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Is Desean Jackson a luxury we canít afford?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Philadelphia Eagles
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Is Desean Jackson a luxury we can't afford?
Yes
21%
 21%  [ 3 ]
No
78%
 78%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 14

Author Message
Rock_#5


Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 5585
Location: Chicago-Go Bulls!
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phire wrote:
How is being in favor of trading Maclin to have someone more diverse across from Jackson "not reasoned"?

It makes no sense to have both Maclin and Jackson on the same team. Have one or the other, but not both. Neither plays well against the press and neither are going to break any tackles or legitimately go across the middle unless they are wide open.

Both guys would benefit from having a more physically imposing wide out opposite of them. Both guys are better working in space.

Having both Maclin and Jackson on the team and paying them starter money excludes us from improving the position as well, which is something I don't want to see.


Agreed, and Ninja is right too. Hopefully we can land one of those top flight FA WR's but with the recent turn out of our big money free agent's will the FO be more hesitant to pay the big money it takes to sign those guys?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48325
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rock_#5 wrote:
Phire wrote:
How is being in favor of trading Maclin to have someone more diverse across from Jackson "not reasoned"?

It makes no sense to have both Maclin and Jackson on the same team. Have one or the other, but not both. Neither plays well against the press and neither are going to break any tackles or legitimately go across the middle unless they are wide open.

Both guys would benefit from having a more physically imposing wide out opposite of them. Both guys are better working in space.

Having both Maclin and Jackson on the team and paying them starter money excludes us from improving the position as well, which is something I don't want to see.


Agreed, and Ninja is right too. Hopefully we can land one of those top flight FA WR's but with the recent turn out of our big money free agent's will the FO be more hesitant to pay the big money it takes to sign those guys?


Well, personally, I'm in favor of taking a break from signing top free agents for a year.

I really want to see this team pool their draft picks and make smart decisions to build the team's core. I want this team to stop compensating their draft deficiencies with expensive free agents who get complacent and have no idea what it means to be an Eagle.

We can draft and develop a physical receiver who isn't super slow. They're in every draft. We just have to find them, draft them, and develop them. Something the current regime has never been able to do with wide outs.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meco


Joined: 30 Aug 2012
Posts: 2557
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phire wrote:
How is being in favor of trading Maclin to have someone more diverse across from Jackson "not reasoned"?

It makes no sense to have both Maclin and Jackson on the same team. Have one or the other, but not both. Neither plays well against the press and neither are going to break any tackles or legitimately go across the middle unless they are wide open.

Both guys would benefit from having a more physically imposing wide out opposite of them. Both guys are better working in space.

Having both Maclin and Jackson on the team and paying them starter money excludes us from improving the position as well, which is something I don't want to see.


If I took yours at surface value then yes, yours wasn't terribly unreasoned but I've seen some of your arguments before and this one didn't appear to be very well thought through or reasoned, it seemed knee jerk-ish.

Quote:
It makes no sense to have both Maclin and Jackson on the same team. Have one or the other, but not both. Neither plays well against the press and neither are going to break any tackles or legitimately go across the middle unless they are wide open.


Nobody said these things back in 2010. Vick hit a crazy hot streak. Kolb played well enough. DeSean and Maclin were one of the most respected and dangerous receiving duos in the league. What happened? DeSean and Maclin didn't change. Our QB situation changed. Kolb got shipped out of town and Vick regressed a very large amount.

All of you act like all good receiving duos are polar opposites of each other and compensate for the shortcomings in the others' skill sets. And yet that has proven not to be true. Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce. Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Those are the three best receiving duos in modern NFL history. They don't fit the receiving duo that is being put forward in this thread. And 5/6 of them aren't taller than 6' and the one that was was hardly a dominating possession receiver, he was DeSean Jackson on major uppers.

DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin have both proven they can be successful on an individual level and as a duo. Recent duo history also suggest they should be just fine.

I'll take you back to the Jeremy Maclin thread and use some arguments that you made.

Phire wrote:
It's hard to tell how good a receiver is or isn't when you're losing in the trenches anyways. All the problems at the line, QB position, run game and playcalling all affect Maclin and the receivers adversely.


Do these stipulations not apply to this thread? Everyone is in here trashing the hell out of Maclin and Jackson but we're not taking an incredibly bad OL and unreliable QB situation.

Phire wrote:
Is it any surprise that you can put any receiver into an offense with Eli Manning and have them produce?

Has there been a receiver who has played with him who flat out did not compete? From Manningham, to Steve Smith, Victor Cruz or Hakeem Nicks, it doesn't seem to matter who you put in there, Eli will get the ball to them.

The Eagles have never really had an accurate pocket passer. The first guys to suffer from bad QB play is the receivers.

Couple that with the fact that our gameplan features predictable routes, no run game, and a bad offensive line which brings down the entire offense and it's pretty clear why there are far too many variables to make any concrete conclusions.


Phire wrote:
The problem with this team is that they have a quarterback everyone seems to be overly protective and sympathetic toward. I've been here long enough to have seen some horrendous things said about McNabb and Kolb and yet, Vick seems to have some magical shield despite playing just as poorly and making tons more money. Probably because he was really cool in Madden, I don't know.

And because nobody is willing to blame Vick or admit that he's never been a good quarterback in his life, everyone resorts to pointing fingers and blaming everyone else on the team.


And your contingency plan for replacing Maclin or DeSean was Riley Cooper. I would argue that is very unreasoned.
_________________


Last edited by Meco on Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bednarik60


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 33179
Location: Jortland, Oregon<3
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meco wrote:
I'm talking about everyone, not just you. Are you even reading the responses in your own thread?


you missed how the entire forum was on his Jock less then 20 months ago and all its veteran posters used the eye test and their football knowledge to form their opinion about DeSean Jackson.. these opinions you are viewing now.

Even the experts who cover the game were saying the exact same thing we are right now when he threw a fit about his contract and were backed into a corner to pay him or not.

This is a you problem.. not a us problem.. were just being real.. and we want whats best for our team not a individual.
_________________

Sig/Art by The Great Silo
#championCHIP #CHIPlife #Sparkles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Meco


Joined: 30 Aug 2012
Posts: 2557
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bednarik60 wrote:

No body in the NFL really likes a quitter or a softy... That 3rd ad 2 and go out of bounds is like a represents why no one would want to play with him.


You act as if DeSean is the first receiver to duck out of bounds. Every receiver does it. Heck, I've seen LeSean McCoy duck out of bounds before. Cut him?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RollEagles


Joined: 10 Jan 2012
Posts: 6721
Location: Basel, Switzerland
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say that DeSean ducks out a little more than others.

What really bummed me out was seeing Wes Welker returning punts late in the game for the Patriots when they were up big.

If Wes Welker can return punts, DeSean Jackson can too.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PowerElite


Joined: 25 Dec 2009
Posts: 8808
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RollEagles wrote:
I'd say that DeSean ducks out a little more than others.

What really bummed me out was seeing Wes Welker returning punts late in the game for the Patriots when they were up big.

If Wes Welker can return punts, DeSean Jackson can too.


Wes Welker is more solidly built than Desean. Welker is just short. Desean is short and skinny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bednarik60


Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 33179
Location: Jortland, Oregon<3
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meco wrote:
Bednarik60 wrote:

No body in the NFL really likes a quitter or a softy... That 3rd ad 2 and go out of bounds is like a represents why no one would want to play with him.


You act as if DeSean is the first receiver to duck out of bounds. Every receiver does it. Heck, I've seen LeSean McCoy duck out of bounds before. Cut him?


yeah after Shady blows up the field for a huge chunk of yardage and hes running on his toes on the side line with the cut back lane cut off and is eventually ran out.

Hes proven he will fight for fightable yards..


DeSean just checks out if he is even going to get touched. he gives up to many 1st downs and critical momentum with his garbage-softest-player-ever act.
_________________

Sig/Art by The Great Silo
#championCHIP #CHIPlife #Sparkles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48325
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meco wrote:
Phire wrote:
How is being in favor of trading Maclin to have someone more diverse across from Jackson "not reasoned"?

It makes no sense to have both Maclin and Jackson on the same team. Have one or the other, but not both. Neither plays well against the press and neither are going to break any tackles or legitimately go across the middle unless they are wide open.

Both guys would benefit from having a more physically imposing wide out opposite of them. Both guys are better working in space.

Having both Maclin and Jackson on the team and paying them starter money excludes us from improving the position as well, which is something I don't want to see.


If I took yours at surface value then yes, yours wasn't terribly unreasoned but I've seen some of your arguments before and this one didn't appear to be very well thought through or reasoned, it seemed knee jerk-ish.

Quote:
It makes no sense to have both Maclin and Jackson on the same team. Have one or the other, but not both. Neither plays well against the press and neither are going to break any tackles or legitimately go across the middle unless they are wide open.


Nobody said these things back in 2010. Vick hit a crazy hot streak. Kolb played well enough. DeSean and Maclin were one of the most respected and dangerous receiving duos in the league. What happened? DeSean and Maclin didn't change. Our QB situation changed. Kolb got shipped out of town and Vick regressed a very large amount.


So Vick's play can regress but our receivers can't? Most people weren't saying those in 2010 because of sample size as well. Maclin was in his 2nd year and performed well with both McNabb and Vick. As soon as Vick started to regress, we also saw our receiver play regress.

The fact of the matter is that after time, teams learn to play against players. Teams no longer give Jackson favorable match-ups over top. They play with a huge cushion and don't respect their ability to make catches inside.

Both Jackson and Maclin were maximized when they were given space.
Similarly, Vick was maximized when he was given time.

The same way teams learned to limit Vick's damage by blitzing him and not giving him time, teams learned how to defend our receivers as well. And unlike 2010, we've seen these guys for 3+ years.

I don't know if Jackson or Maclin have ever broken tackles in their careers. They're too similar.

Quote:
All of you act like all good receiving duos are polar opposites of each other and compensate for the shortcomings in the others' skill sets. And yet that has proven not to be true. Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. Tory Holt and Isaac Bruce. Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Those are the three best receiving duos in modern NFL history. They don't fit the receiving duo that is being put forward in this thread. And 5/6 of them aren't taller than 6' and the one that was was hardly a dominating possession receiver, he was DeSean Jackson on major uppers.


First of all, Randy Moss and Wes Welker aren't polar opposites? And the guys you've listed played with
1) Peyton Manning
2) The Greatest Show on Turf
3) Tom Brady

So bravo, you've basically proved nothing. If we had Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, WR probably wouldn't be a concern.

And diversity would help our offense because neither guy goes over the middle exceptionally well. Randy Moss and Wes Welker ran different routes to compliment each other.

Quote:
DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin have both proven they can be successful on an individual level and as a duo. Recent duo history also suggest they should be just fine.

I'll take you back to the Jeremy Maclin thread and use some arguments that you made.

Phire wrote:
It's hard to tell how good a receiver is or isn't when you're losing in the trenches anyways. All the problems at the line, QB position, run game and playcalling all affect Maclin and the receivers adversely.


Do these stipulations not apply to this thread? Everyone is in here trashing the hell out of Maclin and Jackson but we're not taking an incredibly bad OL and unreliable QB situation.


Problems at QB and OL go without saying. This was a question specifically about Desean Jackson, and therefore, it warrants a response about Jackson and the receiving corps.

Despite bad QB and OL play, there are still plays to be made on the field. There is still evidence that our receivers are severely limited by their skill set. There is still evidence that our receivers are being defended and are not really threatening defenses the way they used to.

Quote:
Phire wrote:
Is it any surprise that you can put any receiver into an offense with Eli Manning and have them produce?

Has there been a receiver who has played with him who flat out did not compete? From Manningham, to Steve Smith, Victor Cruz or Hakeem Nicks, it doesn't seem to matter who you put in there, Eli will get the ball to them.

The Eagles have never really had an accurate pocket passer. The first guys to suffer from bad QB play is the receivers.

Couple that with the fact that our gameplan features predictable routes, no run game, and a bad offensive line which brings down the entire offense and it's pretty clear why there are far too many variables to make any concrete conclusions.


Phire wrote:
The problem with this team is that they have a quarterback everyone seems to be overly protective and sympathetic toward. I've been here long enough to have seen some horrendous things said about McNabb and Kolb and yet, Vick seems to have some magical shield despite playing just as poorly and making tons more money. Probably because he was really cool in Madden, I don't know.

And because nobody is willing to blame Vick or admit that he's never been a good quarterback in his life, everyone resorts to pointing fingers and blaming everyone else on the team.


And your contingency plan for replacing Maclin or DeSean was Riley Cooper. I would argue that is very unreasoned.


Again, why does my belief that poor QB play should bear more of the criticism preclude my from wanting to improve our receivers?

My plan is to get an excellent receiver who can do it all across from Jackson.

We just signed Jackson to a deal, and if we sign Maclin to a similar deal, it would remove us from making any concerted efforts to making that happen.

Therefore, in the meantime, we start Cooper and thus leaving open the possibility of improving the WR position.

You're interpreting my response to different topics as contradictory, when all you're really doing is removing the context.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25106
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meco wrote:
killdawabbit wrote:
I happen to have several comments in this thread. Please point out to me which were not reasoned.


Alright. Laughing

eaglefan#1 wrote:
DeSean Jackson is soft and overrated. Same as Maclin.

willy_law wrote:
Jackson isn't a true #1 but we require him to act like one, get a WR that is bigger or a true #1 and I think you will see Jackson play better

Ryan Swope.

Phire wrote:
We can't afford to have both Jackson and Maclin.

Trade Maclin and get someone else. Start Cooper across Jackson until we do.

Hockey5djh wrote:
DeSean is a great weapon, #1 receiver he is not. DeSean is SEVERLY underutilized in the return game by Andy Reid. I think that putting Damaris Johnson back there instead of Jackson for returns is dumb considering Jackson made his probowls/money in the return game, not necessarily as a WR.

I compare Jackson to Josh Cribbs, Devin Hester, and Dante Hall. All above average return men but when put at WR they are considered below average. DeSean excels at go routes (speed) and end arounds (speed) and has that X factor quality but as a #1 WR I don't think he cuts the cheese.

We need someone that is capable of drawing the double team with the size and skill to be a true #1 for DeSean's one-trick pony style of play to work.

BLick12 wrote:
Just cut him, he sucks.

BLick12 wrote:

No, the problem is he doesn't get open against a decent cornerback. He is virtually useless in any jump ball scenario and doesn't fight back for anything. Dwayne Bowe disappears because he has Matt Cassel and Brady Quinn as his QBs and no other receivers to help him out. Dwayne Bowe is like a TO lite, McNabb would've killed it with him and he gives great effort after he makes the catch. I would trade both Maclin and Jackson straight up for Bowe.

marky_b27 wrote:
It's not about the money, it's about the fact that a cynic could call him a gimmick.

marky_b27 wrote:

Eddie Royal can go over the middle.

Jackson has a sick note preventing him

Laughing


Done.


Clearly you can't even comprehend his post. He was talking about his posts and you point out other peoples' posts. Good work.

And I like how you point a combination of clearly not serious posts (my initial one), as well as legitimate ones (that Jackson would benefit from an actual physical #1 WR).
_________________
johndeere1707 wrote:

Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.

Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fitz2k2


Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Posts: 6472
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

don't touch action jackson
_________________
Save Me Barry!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BLick12


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 25106
Location: South Jeezy fo sheezy
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, Phire, didn't you hear? Our receivers have proven for one year that they are good when our o-line gives our QB 7 seconds to throw the ball.

A large part of the reason we are so dreadful this year is because we have an o-line that can't block, that is obvious. But our WRs don't compliment any kind of short passing game that we can run to try and negate the poor blocking. What good does it do if your receivers can only excel when you have enough time to consistently run 5 and 7 step drops? That isn't realistic in the NFL and unfortunately, neither Jackson or Maclin possess the balls to beat a corner across his face and make a catch in traffic.
_________________
johndeere1707 wrote:

Another Ginger QB in the AFC North.

Looking forward to the "No Soul Bowl" twice a year
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Phire


Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 48325
Location: #championchip #2012BirdsHoF #2012GoldStnd #YAKtoseIntolerant #Merica #TrollyRangers #Danes #BirdGang
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

L.J. Smith was good for a year or two too.
_________________

theuntouchable wrote:
Think about this phire. I am the real chow.

RainbowCarebear wrote:
Only for the quick and lucky.

Danish proverb 3:69
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky_b27


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 21047
Location: Nottingham, England
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BBIB wrote:
marky_b27 wrote:


The problem is the QB and the offensive line.

No point having all pros at receiver if you QB is too incompetent to get the ball to them.


How can you even properly evaluate a QB if his offensive line is garbage???

Again look at high powered offenses throughout the history especially in the playoffs when they faced dominant front from another team. You see it in college and NFL ranks of those high powered offenses that get shut down

THose skill players are negated, that QB who may play well all year is negated because they don't have time to get the ball to those skill players.

That's what the Eagles basically face EVERY game. Vick is basically the only QB in the league who can still make that Eagles team competitive despite that adversity


See the first game, where Vick threw, what was it? 4 interceptions
_________________



RainbowCarebear wrote:
Marky > Foles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky_b27


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 21047
Location: Nottingham, England
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rock_#5 wrote:
I dont blame Marky for asking the question, he was just trying to see if we can improve our team in the long run.

I dont think cutting Jackson would help us, He's a damn good player and he has earned his spot as a solid starter. In his five seasons with the team. He is on pace to have 5,000 receiving yards.



Who said anything about cutting him? I want to cash in this chip and get me some draft picks.
_________________



RainbowCarebear wrote:
Marky > Foles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Philadelphia Eagles All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 6 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group