do you or dont you

[skinsdad62]

Should the Redskins pursue DeSean Jackson? - Hogs Haven

do we go after him either by trade or by signing if he is released?

 

[deanpet21]

No way. He makes 10 mil per season which is a joke. Even if he is released he is over rated.

 

[Buffalo_Nickel_1]

Nooooo

 

[Sleepy T]

For a 1st rounder trade or crazy money??? No.

I think he is a similar player to Garçon... If we didn't have Pierre, I would say hell yes.

 

[gkekoa]

It's an interesting proposition actually. I have said all along this team needs to be based on speed because that's what our QB is.


I would consider trading our 3rd for him if we can get a contract around 7 mil/season for 6 seasons.

 

[martinez]

3 years 18 mil, is the most id give him

 

[Stymietee]

Simply put............No

 

[Skin'EmAll]

I didn't read the article but there's no way I wouldn't at least consider trying to get him. In our offense, he would be deadly, and a decoy that would open up 1-on-1 for Garcon and keep the Safeties away from Morris.
Not like we wouldn't have the money

 

[skinsdad62]

I didn't read the article but there's no way I wouldn't at least consider trying to get him. In our offense, he would be deadly, and a decoy that would open up 1-on-1 for Garcon and keep the Safeties away from Morris.
Not like we wouldn't have the money

 

[Sharkinva]

The problem with pulling the trigger on this isnt the draft pick, i would give up a 4th or 5th for Jackson to put in this offense. But his $10+ Million salary would be a bit of a stretch to fit in right now. It would have to be based on a deal to rework his deal right off the bat. And also would mean we still lack height in the pass catching department. But it would scare the bejezuz out of any one lining up against us for the first 3-4 weeks of the season at any rate.

 

[skinz2winz]

The problem with pulling the trigger on this isnt the draft pick, i would give up a 4th or 5th for Jackson to put in this offense. But his $10+ Million salary would be a bit of a stretch to fit in right now. It would have to be based on a deal to rework his deal right off the bat. And also would mean we still lack height in the pass catching department. But it would scare the bejezuz out of any one lining up against us for the first 3-4 weeks of the season at any rate.

On that note, it would immediately improve our WR corps, address our #34 pick in regards to WR allowing us to take BPA that's not a WR.

 

[Stymietee]

It is laughable to compare D. Jackson to P. Garcon, Jackson is a game breaker (as Washington fans can attest) where P. Garcon, a gifted wide-out, is not. Unfortunately, Jackson is fully infected with that green slime by association, has eight years under his belt, costs more than he's worth at this stage and is too small for this new HC. Even if he came at an acceptable price, I would not entertain thoughts of acquiring him when this draft and FA period could net a player with his game breaking ability at a better price, who's as fast, younger, and more likely bigger.

 

[Sleepy T]

I don't think so Stymie. They are similar players, is Jackson a little bit faster and more dynamic?? Maybe so. But I don't feel that he is head and shoulders better than Garçon, certainly not at the WR position (PR sure). He didn't have quite as many TDs or 20+ plays, but Pierre has more YAC last year.

As a true WR in a more traditional offense, I would take Garçon. Jackson is perfect for what Kelly is running in Philly. Baffles me that they might let him go.

 

[Stymietee]

I don't think so Stymie. They are similar players, is Jackson a little bit faster and more dynamic?? Maybe so. But I don't feel that he is head and shoulders better than Garçon, certainly not at the WR position (PR sure). He didn't have quite as many TDs or 20+ plays, but Pierre has more YAC last year.

As a true WR in a more traditional offense, I would take Garçon. Jackson is perfect for what Kelly is running in Philly. Baffles me that they might let him go.

I've had my share of point, counter-point on the subject relating to P. Garcon. I fully accept your point but respectfully disagree. While there are similarities (both are wide-outs), the differences are difficult to ignore. Does Garcon command special treatment from a defensive perspective on every snap? No.......Jackson....yes. Is he however a #1 on this particular team....yes, but that says more about the team than his talents.

I'm sure that you meant that "As a true WR in a more traditional offense, you would take Garçon" to be your #2 considering that a more traditional offense would include that guy that stretches the field and commands special attention from defenses on every snap. It is possible that the many who have debated this in favor of Mr. Garcon are doing so without proper perspective.....Washington not having a wide receiving corp of which I speak since G. Clark, R. Sanders and A. Monk. Here are a couple of other comments on the subject.




Shawn Springs: Pierre Garcon is a No. 2 - Washington Post



www.washingtonpost.com/.../shawn-springs-...


Jamie Dukes: Pierre Garçon Is Not a No. 1 Wide Receiver « CBS DC

washington.cbslocal.com/.../jamie-dukes-pierre-garcon-isnt-a-no-1-recei

 

[skinsdad62]

I've had my share of point, counter-point on the subject relating to P. Garcon. I fully accept your point but respectfully disagree. While there are similarities (both are wide-outs), the differences are difficult to ignore. Does Garcon command special treatment from a defensive perspective on every snap? No.......Jackson....yes. Is he however a #1 on this particular team....yes, but that says more about the team than his talents.

I'm sure that you meant that "As a true WR in a more traditional offense, you would take Garçon" to be your #2 considering that a more traditional offense would include that guy that stretches the field and commands special attention from defenses on every snap. It is possible that the many who have debated this in favor of Mr. Garcon are doing so without proper perspective.....Washington not having a wide receiving corp of which I speak since G. Clark, R. Sanders and A. Monk. Here are a couple of other comments on the subject.


Shawn Springs: Pierre Garcon is a No. 2 - Washington Post



www.washingtonpost.com/.../shawn-springs-...


Jamie Dukes: Pierre Garçon Is Not a No. 1 Wide Receiver « CBS DC

washington.cbslocal.com/.../jamie-dukes-pierre-garcon-isnt-a-no-1-recei

both of those articles were written in OCt and dec. of 2013 .. you catch 113 balls you are in the number one wr conversation

 

[Stymietee]

both of those articles were written in OCt and dec. of 2013 .. you catch 113 balls you are in the number one wr conversation[/QUOTE

On this team..........yeah!! how'd that work out for us?? Let's not overlook WHAT was said and WHY it was said.

 

[gkekoa]

Garcon had more catches and more yards than Jackson. Garcon was more a #1 last season than Jackson...and Garcon had a wildly inaccurate QB last season.

 

[Stymietee]

Garcon had more catches and more yards than Jackson. Garcon was more a #1 last season than Jackson...and Garcon had a wildly inaccurate QB last season.

I think that the point that some are missing is that if Garcon had double the numbers and double the yards, he would still NOT be a game changer type wide-out. Effective...yes, productive....yes, puts doubt into most starting corners that they cannot check him......NO!!!

 

[gkekoa]

Well most starting corners got beat more by Garcon than Jackson. Jackson is a one trick pony.

 

[Stymietee]

Well most starting corners got beat more by Garcon than Jackson. Jackson is a one trick pony.

Why are so many of you willing to settle for less? Am I the only person who has witnessed what a true trio of pass catchers in burgundy and gold looks like (Monk, Clark and Sanders)???

Tell you all what.......imagine this, the damage that P. Garcon could do if he's in concert with a big game breaking wideout, another pass catching threat at TE, and Roberts in the slot. I believe that you are all infected with the same mediocre type thinking that has plagued this team for so long. Nice is OK, better is ....er...well better, but the best wins championships when it settles in Washington.