Would the Eagles have had more leverage if they had kept Desean Jackson

[weizer]

It's the system man

I just can't take anyone seriously who looks at players like Jackson and Cooper and comes away with what you have to say about them. I'd like for Cooper to prove you right as long as he's an Eagle, but you and I don't seem to be looking at the same player. You say Chip made Jackson the player he is (not true, but whatever) but seem to think Cooper was a superstar just waiting to happen. I think you are right that Jackson doesn't appear to be the type of receiver Kelly wants (for reasons unbeknownst to me), but that's about it

Sorry you don't understand it.

[TerpEagle]

Right? Right like wide receivers never get traded in the draft? Maybe Cleveland sweetens the pot maybe they don't, what did they gain by releasing him before the draft? You still have never answered that question which would give your defense of the maneuver some backbone (which it still lacks and makes you come off as just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative).

I answered it. In the first sentence.

"I still think that there was little benefit to keep him past the time they did given that he was not in the future plans of the Eagles and the negative press was reaching a critical mass."

If that wasn't clear enough, here's the extended edition:

So yes, I still think there was little to gain by keeping him around when the situation was clear to everyone that he'd eventually be gone. The fiasco would have gotten bigger - possibly locked out of Novacare to train, twitter bullshit, more players giving anonymous quotes, more stories of problems between Chip and Jackson, etc. The only possible positive was they might get a desperate team to throw them a draft pick for an overpriced receiver with whispers of character/locker room/gang/effort issues that was going to get cut eventually. So yes, I still think it was a good move based on the fact that the Eagles decided they wanted him gone and there were no takers after the owners meetings.

Now, your argument is that MAYBE Cleveland makes a deal for an overpriced WR? Your basis is what? Is it that a their star/troubled WR might be suspended? So why not trade for another WR with negative press right who is being overpaid, right?

I mean, given their behavior during the draft it was surely a possibility even though they:

1) passed on Watkins and
2) did not draft a single WR in a year heralded as being stacked with WR talent

Given all that, they might have sweetened the deal for the 22nd pick. Sweetened it with what exactly?

So yes, while only 2 players were traded during the 2014 draft, one of them was a WR. A WR with more production to value ratio than Jackson and he didn't go to the Browns who clearly had draft picks based on the Watkins trade which netted them a 4th round draft pick from Buffalo.

[Melchior]

I just can't take anyone seriously who looks at players like Jackson and Cooper and comes away with what you have to say about them. I'd like for Cooper to prove you right as long as he's an Eagle, but you and I don't seem to be looking at the same player. You say Chip made Jackson the player he is (not true, but whatever) but seem to think Cooper was a superstar just waiting to happen. I think you are right that Jackson doesn't appear to be the type of receiver Kelly wants (for reasons unbeknownst to me), but that's about it

It's the system. They're not necessarily looking for deep speed players, because their system doesn't really allow for long developing routes on a regular basis. When they go vertical, they intend to beat man coverage with body control and physicality, not just separation.

The main goal is to spread the defense out, get your guy the ball and get your other WR's blocking downfield for the greatest amount of YAC. Cooper produced above his presumed talent level because he was well-suited to the scheme. Jackson still had a good year, but it wasn't the same kind of jump in production that Cooper had.

That's the problem with football. You never know if someone is a flat out bum, or a good player in a bad fit. You also don't have the time to research the answers yourself. It's also impossible to know what intangibles will make one guy a stud and another a bum.

So all you can really do is speculate on past production, but mostly we just end up looking like assholes.

[Eagle In Ohio]

Sometimes saying nothing

was he smeared? They were silent for a month after and then said it was a football decision...i guess you don't understand what a smear is. The media may have smeared him by saying he had gang ties, but the Eagles FO didn't.

Is just as bad as saying everything.

[Greenstealth]

"I still think that there was little benefit to keep him past the time they did given that he was not in the future plans of the Eagles and the negative press was reaching a critical mass."

That does not answer my question

The negative press was reaching critical mass? So you are saying Howie didn't handle it well and was getting negative press so it was ok to fold? This, coming from you is not surprising. I don't know if Cleveland picks him up, if they threw in a 7th from the 2028 draft it would be more than they got. Maybe Jacksonville or Oakland or god knows who else, it's not my job to find trade partners, it's Howie's. IT MADE ZERO SENSE TO CUT HIM AFTER THE OWNER'S MEETINGS OTHER THAN TO RELIEVE HOWIE.

[TerpEagle]

"I still think that there was little benefit to keep him past the time they did given that he was not in the future plans of the Eagles and the negative press was reaching a critical mass."

That does not answer my question

The negative press was reaching critical mass? So you are saying Howie didn't handle it well and was getting negative press so it was ok to fold? This, coming from you is not surprising. I don't know if Cleveland picks him up, if they threw in a 7th from the 2028 draft it would be more than they got. Maybe Jacksonville or Oakland or god knows who else, it's not my job to find trade partners, it's Howie's. IT MADE ZERO SENSE TO CUT HIM AFTER THE OWNER'S MEETINGS OTHER THAN TO RELIEVE HOWIE.

I disagree. This isn't Madden where all players have trade value and salaries/intentions of the team trying to move a player don't matter.

What is telling is that even after he was cut he only visited one team and they signed him for 20% less than he would be making if he had been traded. That's when 31 teams all had an equal shot to get him without having to give the Eagles anything. That's how sought after Jackson and his contract were.

But you can continue to have your opinion. We'll never know what would have happened if he had been kept. Maybe he would have been traded. Maybe he would have caused more distractions. That's all we have to go on for our arguments - maybes. I think they cut him at the appropriate time when there was no serious interest in him.

[TerpEagle]

Is just as bad as saying everything.

They cut him. That said everything they needed to say. Obviously the Eagles didn't find him valuable. I guess they smeared him in that sense too.

20% salary reduction and only visiting one team because the Eagles didn't comment on a nj.com article. Amazing.

[Greenstealth]

There's nothing to argue. You still have not answered the simple question of "How did cutting jackson after the owners meetings benefit the Eagles?". You have nothing.

[TerpEagle]

There's nothing to argue. You still have not answered the simple question of "How did cutting jackson after the owners meetings benefit the Eagles?". You have nothing.

Jesus - I've answered it plenty. He wasn't in the plans for the team. Keeping him around was a distraction at best and a possible fiasco at worst. The rumors and his release in March already weren't that smooth - imagine what a another month of that crap would have been like.

And all for what, the slim chance that a team would change their mind about his contract knowing that he was 1) going to get cut eventually and 2) there is plenty of WR talent in the draft.

And you still don't address the fact that he took a huge paycut after he was released and only visited one time. Doesn't that tell you that there wasn't a lot of interest even without having to pay him $10 million and giving up draft picks/players?

He signed with the fucking Redskins. I mean, over the last 15-20 years that team is defined by making shitty free agent moves and overvaluing players.

But there's a chance they could have gotten a pick. Totally worth keeping him for sure.

[nerd]

The only way I can only think it benifited then is basing it off whats been guessed at. That desean was a pain to deal with and that having to deal with him took time away from working with other players.

Im just guessing at this point. I thought he was in trouble once vick and avant weren't coming back. They seemed to control him....but there is probably a better word that I can't think of.

[Greenstealth]

YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. What he makes now has nothing to do with the question. I don't care what his contract with the redskins is. That was two months ago and things have changed since then which is why it made no sense letting him go then. It hurt no one to see if a potential partner would materialize through the draft. What's next? What argument can you try to make with any merit about what I just said. Exactly.

[TerpEagle]

YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. What he makes now has nothing to do with the question. I don't care what his contract with the redskins is. That was two months ago and things have changed since then which is why it made no sense letting him go then. It hurt no one to see if a potential partner would materialize through the draft. What's next? What argument can you try to make with any merit about what I just said. Exactly.

Dude. I've answered you numerous times. You are arguing from the stance that Jackson maybe would have had some trade value by the time of the draft.

I disagree. And since I don't think he had any trade value (which I feel is supported by 1) no one traded for him by the end of March, 2) once a free agent he failed to meet his previous contract, 3) the WR traded during the draft was much less costly with production that was better than his value compared to Jackson and 4) the team that had the most glaring need, opportunity to get whichever one they wanted and ammunition once passing up their opportunity to get a WR decided it wasn't worth it.

So, you think there's a possibility that someone would have traded something for him. Good for you. I think you're wrong. And because I think what I do, I think it was better to cut him sooner rather than later.

You don't seem get what I'm saying but that's it right there. I can't make it any more clear and if you deep down think the Eagles could have traded him because either he had value or you just think Roseman is incompetent at all things GM related. Well I can't help you there. That's your opinion. Carry on.

[Greenstealth]

Ok, I've asked "how did it benefit the Eagles by letting him go after the owners meetings". You have not answered that. I can rephrase it for you "HOW WOULD THE EAGLES HAVE BEEN HURT IF THEY HELD ON TO JACKSON THROUGHOUT THE DRAFT?" Whether or not another team would have hypothetically traded for him does not matter. I'm not addressing that.

[TerpEagle]

Ok, I've asked "how did it benefit the Eagles by letting him go after the owners meetings". You have not answered that. I can rephrase it for you "HOW WOULD THE EAGLES HAVE BEEN HURT IF THEY HELD ON TO JACKSON THROUGHOUT THE DRAFT?" Whether or not another team would have hypothetically traded for him does not matter. I'm not addressing that.

I answered that. More than once. Search for distraction and fiasco.

[Greenstealth]

Roseman avoiding complications is a good reason to not try to trade a player? K