Edit: If Vincent Jackson were available.

[Vetamur]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

Essentially youre saying you want to reverse the entire offensive philosophy of the Seahawks, and also game plan around extending the career of one player rather than winning as a team.

The Seahawks purposefully want the opponents loading the box. This is why they seek receivers who can win a one on one. The idea is, we are tough in the run. And you put 8 there we are still going to get our 4 yards most of the time and end up with 3rd and 2...and we are going to win on 3rd and 2....we have too many options.

Stop pretending people dont want a great receivers (I wont use the vacuous, tenuous "#1 WR" label). If we can get them how we got Sherman or Browner etc ....... everyone would want them.

What I and others dont want is to reform the entire offense because you as a person cant get over one play in the Super Bowl.

And by the way, your own list says you consider someone who is a "true number 1" to have red zone production, and yet you carry a torch for someone who isnt a red zone threat and scored just 2 TDs last year despite going over a thousand yards.

Still waiting for the explanation as to why we need a #1 WR when no other Super Bowl winners have of late, and teams that DO have them are just high light reel teams that are 1 and done in the playoffs or dont get there.

V. Jackson averages less than 5 catches a game.. moving away from what we do to accommodate that? No thanks. And if Lynchs back cant take the NFL game anymore then sadly he and the Seahawks have to move on. Its not about one man.

Jackson actually would be a pretty fantastic signing. And I'd take 5 catches a game given his career average 17ypc. It is true he'd demand respect, and with Wilson drawing spies you could have some nice looks with Lynch in the backfield. Maybe you could find a guy in the draft, but Jackson's a sure thing. Had some bad qb play of late but on this team he'd get anywhere between 6-12 TDs imo.

For his career Jackson catches just over half of balls thrown him, caught 70 balls last year but only 2 in the end zone and hasnt averaged 17 yards a catch for years. Im not saying hes bad, Im saying he wouldnt have the value in our offense he would in other offenses so theres no point in paying him as much as other teams will. Beyond that, hes signed and despite speculation, the Bucs havent even asked him to take a pay cut much less cut him yet. They likely see him as integral to what they are trying to build.

Thread upon thread talking about guys that arent even available.

Im not against having a great receiver, but would Jackson even want to play in Seattle? Seattle isnt where receivers who want to make a name for themselves go, because despite the OPs wishes, Seattle isnt going to suddenly change their philosophy. The ceiling for signings at the position is someone like Sydney Rice, someone who can legitimately take the top off a defense but isnt what the OP would consider a true number one but still opens things up to the same degree -- keeping the safety far enough off the line because of the speed.

 

[SomersetHawk]

For his career Jackson catches just over half of balls thrown him, caught 70 balls last year but only 2 in the end zone and hasnt averaged 17 yards a catch for years. Im not saying hes bad, Im saying he wouldnt have the value in our offense he would in other offenses so theres no point in paying him as much as other teams will. Beyond that, hes signed and despite speculation, the Bucs havent even asked him to take a pay cut much less cut him yet. They likely see him as integral to what they are trying to build.

Thread upon thread talking about guys that arent even available.

Im not against having a great receiver, but would Jackson even want to play in Seattle? Seattle isnt where receivers who want to make a name for themselves go, because despite the OPs wishes, Seattle isnt going to suddenly change their philosophy. The ceiling for signings at the position is someone like Sydney Rice, someone who can legitimately take the top off a defense but isnt what the OP would consider a true number one but still opens things up to the same degree -- keeping the safety far enough off the line because of the speed.

That's cool, we just disagree. And he put up over 19 yards per catch a couple of season's back, have you watched Tampa recently? They're picking #1 overall for a reason, and it's not all on their D. Jackson would certainly have more value in this offense than Tampa's. You can't just quote the stats and neglect context. Balls thrown at him by Wilson>Freeman/McCown/Glennon.

Sidney Rice was damn good for us when healthy, his stats might not suggest it but the offensive ones do. Our offense was awesome down the line in 2012, I'd pay big for a guy who could give us what Sid did. When we started unleashing Russell as a running threat defences went Derpmode, can't double cover a receiver, spy Wilson and stack the box for Beastmode at the same time.

But yeah, he might not even be available. It was just an argument I was willing to take on because I think he's a guy who could be very useful for the Hawks if he was on the trade block.

 

[Vetamur]

For his career Jackson catches just over half of balls thrown him, caught 70 balls last year but only 2 in the end zone and hasnt averaged 17 yards a catch for years. Im not saying hes bad, Im saying he wouldnt have the value in our offense he would in other offenses so theres no point in paying him as much as other teams will. Beyond that, hes signed and despite speculation, the Bucs havent even asked him to take a pay cut much less cut him yet. They likely see him as integral to what they are trying to build.

Thread upon thread talking about guys that arent even available.

Im not against having a great receiver, but would Jackson even want to play in Seattle? Seattle isnt where receivers who want to make a name for themselves go, because despite the OPs wishes, Seattle isnt going to suddenly change their philosophy. The ceiling for signings at the position is someone like Sydney Rice, someone who can legitimately take the top off a defense but isnt what the OP would consider a true number one but still opens things up to the same degree -- keeping the safety far enough off the line because of the speed.

That's cool, we just disagree. And he put up over 19 yards per catch a couple of season's back, have you watched Tampa recently? They're picking #1 overall for a reason, and it's not all on their D. Jackson would certainly have more value in this offense than Tampa's. You can't just quote the stats and neglect context. Balls thrown at him by Wilson>Freeman/McCown/Glennon.

Sidney Rice was damn good for us when healthy, his stats might not suggest it but the offensive ones do. Our offense was awesome down the line in 2012, I'd pay big for a guy who could give us what Sid did. When we started unleashing Russell as a running threat defences went Derpmode, can't double cover a receiver, spy Wilson and stack the box for Beastmode at the same time.

But yeah, he might not even be available. It was just an argument I was willing to take on because I think he's a guy who could be very useful for the Hawks if he was on the trade block.

It becomes a bit of a trap, doesnt it? If Jackson is all that, then why would the Bucs consider letting him go? If they do let him go, wouldnt that be considered a sign by those who know him best that hes on the down side? We can possibly attribute the yards per catch drop off to qb play, but in 70 catches only 2 of them being in the end zone speaks to something I would think. And no matter who is throwing to him throughout his career he catches just a bit over half of them.

I wasnt trying to say Rice wasnt good. My point was that the OP wouldnt conside Rice a true #1 but thats sort of the upper limit I would go in searching for a wide receiver. Some one good enough to take the top off. No point in paying too much for someone who isnt going to get but 3 balls a game. Jackson is head and shoulders above, say, Nate Washington, but there numbers in Seattles offense would look similar.. a Rice-esque 45 to 50 catches, 700 to 750 yards , 3 to 5 tds. Thats what our offense produces for the receivers.

Maybe Jackson is the rare receiver that totally doesnt care about the numbers, just wants to win and so on the off chance he is released maybe hed be open to playing in Seattle and even doing a short deal for less than market value to taste some playoffs, get a chance at a super bowl, and show he isnt declining. In that case, cool.

I dont want it to sound like I dont want a good receiver, what the OP keeps pretending im saying. What I am saying is, the salary cap means if you start paying an extra 9 million for the receiver position that we werent before.. thats 9 million you are taking away from the defense (because there is no fat to be cut on the O side).

We are Money-balling right now in a sense, and its working beautifully. Im loathe to fix what aint broken.

Interesting stat if youre looking for an efficient offense... look at the yards from a receiver you average getting PER TARGET, and you get more from throwing to Baldwin than Jackson because he catches nearly 70% of the passes thrown his way (up from 60 early in his career...still more than Jackson, even when Tarvaris was his QB).

And since its this kind of board now I have to clarify, Im not saying Baldwin is an amazing receiver. But he may be that time we need and his numbers are limited by the offense.. Look what Tate did as soon as he left and his numbers we nearly identical (again, because thats just what youre gonna produce if youre our top receiver).

 

[SomersetHawk]

He's probably expendable for the reasons you underline. He's aging, he's on a lot of money and he only had 2TDs last season. Again, have you seen them recently? They have Mike Evans now (went to him a lot in the redzone) and so maybe there's an argument for them freeing up even more money to make a splash at some bigger names at positions they need help i.e. pretty much everywhere.

If I was them I'd keep him, but if they do ask him to take a pay cut I can't see a whole lot of reasons why he should. He'd be better off seeking a trade with a contender like us or the Ravens on a restructured deal (we wouldn't pay $9m).

Enough stats, they lack context, particularly in this case. Wilson throws the most catchable ball in the NFL, we're also pretty conservative with it. Stats don't translate and there's no way Nate Washington gives us what Jackson would either.

 

[Vetamur]

He's probably expendable for the reasons you underline. He's aging, he's on a lot of money and he only had 2TDs last season. Again, have you seen them recently? They have Mike Evans now (went to him a lot in the redzone) and so maybe there's an argument for them freeing up even more money to make a splash at some bigger names at positions they need help i.e. pretty much everywhere.

If I was them I'd keep him, but if they do ask him to take a pay cut I can't see a whole lot of reasons why he should. He'd be better off seeking a trade with a contender like us or the Ravens on a restructured deal (we wouldn't pay $9m).

Enough stats, they lack context, particularly in this case. Wilson throws the most catchable ball in the NFL, we're also pretty conservative with it. Stats don't translate and there's no way Nate Washington gives us what Jackson would either.

Im not saying Nate Washington is the receiver Jackson is. What Im saying is, in our offense, the production difference wouldnt be worth the price difference.

In any case, its already March 2nd (Tokyo time)... if they are going to ask him to take a pay cut theyd better do it soon.

 

[HawkFan72]

Vincent Jackson will NOT be available, unless it's a trade. He will not be released.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...incent-jackson-to-stay-with-bucs-on-same-deal

 

[Rat]

Eh, it's difficult to believe anything teams say this time of year. It benefits the Bucs for other teams to think he won't be cut. Not saying I think he will, but I wouldn't put too much stock into that report either.

 

[hawksurething]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

Essentially youre saying you want to reverse the entire offensive philosophy of the Seahawks, and also game plan around extending the career of one player rather than winning as a team.

The Seahawks purposefully want the opponents loading the box. This is why they seek receivers who can win a one on one. The idea is, we are tough in the run. And you put 8 there we are still going to get our 4 yards most of the time and end up with 3rd and 2...and we are going to win on 3rd and 2....we have too many options.

Stop pretending people dont want a great receivers (I wont use the vacuous, tenuous "#1 WR" label). If we can get them how we got Sherman or Browner etc ....... everyone would want them.

What I and others dont want is to reform the entire offense because you as a person cant get over one play in the Super Bowl.

And by the way, your own list says you consider someone who is a "true number 1" to have red zone production, and yet you carry a torch for someone who isnt a red zone threat and scored just 2 TDs last year despite going over a thousand yards.

Still waiting for the explanation as to why we need a #1 WR when no other Super Bowl winners have of late, and teams that DO have them are just high light reel teams that are 1 and done in the playoffs or dont get there.

V. Jackson averages less than 5 catches a game.. moving away from what we do to accommodate that? No thanks. And if Lynchs back cant take the NFL game anymore then sadly he and the Seahawks have to move on. Its not about one man.

This is what I mean about completely missing the context of my post.

I know hawks scheme, we don't have ANY WRs that can beat single coverage consistently ! Let alone vs good CBs.

I never said to revamp the offense,so why you make stuff up ?

Hawks run 11- personal. 3 WRs. Baldwin should be the 3rd & drop the 2 sorry WRs for WRs that can beat single coverage & 1 demand double.( its counterproductive to have 8 in the box just to get sorry WRs single coverage,while sacrificing Lynch or any RB. Thereby being 1 dimensional & easier to read). I want the defense to have to pick their poision while hawks are unstoppable !

Lastly Vjackson just made the top 100 players judge by NFL players so your completely wrong about him ! You better look at Mcnown's passer rate before you try to say Jackson is not good enough.

Anyways. You can want leave the offense where its at. But I know every year teams adjust,copy cat,& get better...so I want to get better than last year too. You don't have to want to get better... I'm not on your post telling you that you have to either.

Go Hawks !

 

[Vetamur]

He said a #1, only #1's beat double coverage like Marshall, Jackson.

I clearly said demand double coverage in my WRs attributes post. Even explained it. So anything I say after that is obviously a bonus.

This is what I mean about not picking just so that you can make the hawks collective consciousness not want a WR that demands double coverage & save Lynch's back.

Essentially youre saying you want to reverse the entire offensive philosophy of the Seahawks, and also game plan around extending the career of one player rather than winning as a team.

The Seahawks purposefully want the opponents loading the box. This is why they seek receivers who can win a one on one. The idea is, we are tough in the run. And you put 8 there we are still going to get our 4 yards most of the time and end up with 3rd and 2...and we are going to win on 3rd and 2....we have too many options.

Stop pretending people dont want a great receivers (I wont use the vacuous, tenuous "#1 WR" label). If we can get them how we got Sherman or Browner etc ....... everyone would want them.

What I and others dont want is to reform the entire offense because you as a person cant get over one play in the Super Bowl.

And by the way, your own list says you consider someone who is a "true number 1" to have red zone production, and yet you carry a torch for someone who isnt a red zone threat and scored just 2 TDs last year despite going over a thousand yards.

Still waiting for the explanation as to why we need a #1 WR when no other Super Bowl winners have of late, and teams that DO have them are just high light reel teams that are 1 and done in the playoffs or dont get there.

V. Jackson averages less than 5 catches a game.. moving away from what we do to accommodate that? No thanks. And if Lynchs back cant take the NFL game anymore then sadly he and the Seahawks have to move on. Its not about one man.

This is what I mean about completely missing the context of my post.

I know hawks scheme, we don't have ANY WRs that can beat single coverage consistently ! Let alone vs good CBs.

I never said to revamp the offense,so why you make stuff up ?

Hawks run 11- personal. 3 WRs. Baldwin should be the 3rd & drop the 2 sorry WRs for WRs that can beat single coverage & 1 demand double.( its counterproductive to have 8 in the box just to get sorry WRs single coverage,while sacrificing Lynch or any RB. Thereby being 1 dimensional & easier to read). I want the defense to have to pick their poision while hawks are unstoppable !

Lastly Vjackson just made the top 100 players judge by NFL players so your completely wrong about him ! You better look at Mcnown's passer rate before you try to say Jackson is not good enough.

Anyways. You can want leave the offense where its at. But I know every year teams adjust,copy cat,& get better...so I want to get better than last year too. You don't have to want to get better... I'm not on your post telling you that you have to either.

Go Hawks !

Back to front, though it doesnt matter because you Learning With Phonics subscription stopped with the second issue.

Whatever McCown's rating, Jackson caught 70 balls. And between them, the Bucs QBs threw 21 TDs. 12 to Evans, just 2 Jackson. Are you implying somehow Glennon and McCown are good enough to throw TDs to Evans, but somehow incapable of throwing them to Jackson, maybe because hes just too good? WHy was McCown able to throw TDs to Marshall, Jeffery, and Evans..but NOT to Jackson? If hes so good, wouldnt it be EASIER to connect to him? I mean, there was a game where he completed 10 passes to Jackson..but 2 TDs to Evans.

How am I completely wrong about Jackson because the "players" (and by the way the playes dont vote, theyve said so themselves) said he was a top 100 player? Im sorry your reading course finished early, because if it hadnt youd have been able to see I said Jackson would be an upgrade. What I said was, for what he would mean to the team, he wouldnt be worth it. Do you understand that? No matter WHO is on the roster, under Peter Carrols philosophy which you dont understand, the top receiver is going to get 800 to 900 yards and the next will get 700 to 750 yards. So how much do you want to pay the 850 yard guy? Dont back track and pretend you dont want to change the philosophy and system. You keep writing about saving Lynch's back. You do that by throwing of course. WHICH ISNT WHAT PETE WANTS TO DO. Let me say it 100% directly: I believe Jackson is a very good WR. I havent said he isnt. But I also believe he is on the down side of his career and I dont think I want the Seahawks spending money on over priced veterans a la Washington.

We all want to get better. Grow up and stop pretending people who dont agree with you dont want to get better or arent real fans. I outlined exactly how I want to get better. Put the 9 million you want to waste on a receiver who wont see the ball more than Baldwin, and instead get a "good" guy who can take the top off the defense, and upgrade the line.

Im STILL waiting for you to explain why Seattle needs an elite receiver when no other Super Bowl winner in the past 4 years has.

And no, not every team gets better every year. If you do the math, barring ties, youll see the same amount of wins and losses every year distributed differently. But youre again implying you want to change the offensive philosophy.

And FINALLY, its not "your thread". This is a discussion board. Its not a potification board. Stop trying to tell me where I can and cant post just because you have to resort to poor reading skills to try to argue back.

 

[Vetamur]

and by the way, why a whole thread on someone under contract? Why not just write it on Megatron?

 

[kidhawk]

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000475129/article/vincent-jackson-to-stay-with-bucs-on-same-deal[/urltargetblank]

NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported Sunday that Jackson will return in 2015 at his base salary of $9.78 million, per a source familiar with the Bucs' thinking. The Tampa Bay Times first reported the news.


The report jibes with what we heard at the combine from general manager Jason Licht, who said Jackson, 32, would "absolutely" be back for a fourth season in Tampa. Jackson, unlike other big-ticket Bucs players in recent years, has lived up to his contract with three consecutive 1,000-yard seasons.