Zorn and Skins to pursue D. J. Hackett

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I'm torn between Hackett and Bryant Johnson. When Boldin was hurt last season, Johnson stepped in and played great. He's 6-3 215, only 26, and a 1st round talent. Plus he's only missed 3 games total in his 5 year career.

Hackett is slightly smaller at 6-2 208. He and Johnson are the same age, although Johnson has far more experience.

Despite only being 4 months apart in age, Johnson has played in 77 games, has 210 catches for almost 2700 yards and 9tds, while Hackett has only played in only 27 games. Although despite playing in 50 less games, he has as many TDs as Johnson, and his yards and catches per game numbers are better, plus he knows Zorn's stuff.

This is a tough call. I think Bryant Johnson is the more durable, more talented player who has been buried behind two pro-bowlers in Arizona. Hackett is probably the safer play though.

I see people saying that but looking at what he actually did I'm not very impressed. Here is what he did when he started:

Pit: 4-40
Stl: 6-80
Car: 4-29
Cle: 6-56-1
Sea: 1-5-1
No: 2-35
Atl: 3-46

Pretty ho-hum numbers to me.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I see people saying that but looking at what he actually did I'm not very impressed. Here is what he did when he started:

Pit: 4-40
Stl: 6-80
Car: 4-29
Cle: 6-56-1
Sea: 1-5-1
No: 2-35
Atl: 3-46

Pretty ho-hum numbers to me.

Keep in mind he was the #2 WR during all of those games, because either Boldin or Fitz was always healthy and occupying the #1 position. Those are decent #2 WR numbers.

If anybody thinks they're getting a stud #1 WR with either Hackett (big games, but inconsistent) or Johnson (no big games, but consistent) then they're wrong. So you won't see better than #2 WR numbers from either of these guys.

Likewise, they would get paid like #2s: $12 million guaranteed, 6 years, $35 million total

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Keep in mind he was the #2 WR during all of those games, because either Boldin or Fitz was always healthy and occupying the #1 position. Those are decent #2 WR numbers.

If anybody thinks they're getting a stud #1 WR with either Hackett (big games, but inconsistent) or Johnson (no big games, but consistent) then they're wrong. So you won't see better than #2 WR numbers from either of these guys.

Likewise, they would get paid like #2s: $12 million guaranteed, 6 years, $35 million total

Actually Boldin and Fitz sat out the Cleveland game, and both of them battled injuries most of the year and weren't 100% even when starting.

Johnson hasn't done much over the course of his career to show that he's capable of stepping in and being a big time guy, while Hackett has proved he's capable.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Actually Boldin and Fitz sat out the Cleveland game, and both of them battled injuries most of the year and weren't 100% even when starting.

Johnson hasn't done much over the course of his career to show that he's capable of stepping in and being a big time guy, while Hackett has proved he's capable.

I don't know about that.

Hackett missed all but 6 games last year. In the two years before that, he also didn't manage to play a full season despite being used much more sparingly than he was last season.

He's had a few huge games. I see a few over 100 yard games on his resume. Of course he had Matt Hasselbeck throwing to him instead of the very green Matt Leinart and the very old Kurt Warner.

He toasted us for 101 yards on 6 catches in our playoff game against Seattle. But then when he went up against Al Harris and Charles Woodson, he was held to 2 catches for 15 yards against the Pack in the divisional round. That's indicative of his all-or-nothing kind of play. He's either way up or way down.

I'm of the mindset we need someone pretty consistent to give us a big target in the red zone, first and foremost, and help us move the chains. I think we've already got two big play guys.

For the record, and all that said, I'd still prefer Hackett simply because he knows Zorn and will know the playbook, which is huge when it comes to making an immediate impact. But I don't see a huge difference between him and Bryant Johnson from a talent perspective. We should get Hackett because of the familiarity with our coach, but I won't be disappointed with Bryant Johnson.

[bertoskins2]

I would go with bryant for the reason the DJ cannot stay healthy. what the heck if this guy knows the system but cannot step on the field. we don't what another player to fill our IR room like last year.

[erik2680]

Originally Posted by bertoskins2

I would go with bryant for the reason the DJ cannot stay healthy. what the heck if this guy knows the system but cannot step on the field. we don't what another player to fill our IR room like last year.

I think he has only been hurt once

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by erik2680

I think he has only been hurt once

He's been hurt each of his 3 seasons. Although his first two seasons they were just small nagging injuries.

[HOGTIMUS PRIME]

New coach same old personnel philosophy, here we are making a big deal about 2 WR's who are nothing special, did we learn nothing from the Brandon Lloyd signing? I find it hard to believe we can't find a WR in the draft to at least come close to the talent level of these NFL giants? I guess Anthony Mix is nothing more than a special teams guy.

Hackett is an average WR in a very good offensive scheme, the west coast offense has made average WR's look good, and very good WR's look great. But at last we have to have this guy, why? Because Vinny and co. couldnt spot a talented player beyond the top 10 of the draft if their lives depended on it!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by HOGTIMUS PRIME

New coach same old personnel philosophy, here we are making a big deal about 2 WR's who are nothing special, did we learn nothing from the Brandon Lloyd signing? I find it hard to believe we can't find a WR in the draft to at least come close to the talent level of these NFL giants? I guess Anthony Mix is nothing more than a special teams guy.

Hackett is an average WR in a very good offensive scheme, the west coast offense has made average WR's look good, and very good WR's look great. But at last we have to have this guy, why? Because Vinny and co. couldnt spot a talented player beyond the top 10 of the draft if their lives depended on it!

No one is saying we have to have this guy. And as for your last sentence about Vinny and co. not being able to spot a talented player beyond the top 10, several of us have pointed out enough times the complete fallacy in that statement that it doesn't need to be repeated.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I see people saying that but looking at what he actually did I'm not very impressed. Here is what he did when he started:

Pit: 4-40
Stl: 6-80
Car: 4-29
Cle: 6-56-1
Sea: 1-5-1
No: 2-35
Atl: 3-46

Pretty ho-hum numbers to me.

Huh, I felt like his numbers were better than that. Well, like Schneed said, he was never a #1 in that system. At least Johnson was healthy the whole year. Hackett missed 10 games due to injury. Santana can't seem to stay healthy, so getting a guy with Johnson's durability could really help.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I see people saying that but looking at what he actually did I'm not very impressed. Here is what he did when he started:

Pit: 4-40
Stl: 6-80
Car: 4-29
Cle: 6-56-1
Sea: 1-5-1
No: 2-35
Atl: 3-46

Pretty ho-hum numbers to me.

While I myself am not enamored with Johnson, you have to look closer at what constitutes a start. I'm confused as to if its counted as a start if the team opens up with a 3-Receiver set. Does a start mean that a player was in on the first snap of the game on thier respective side of the ball.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

While I myself am not enamored with Johnson, you have to look closer at what constitutes a start. I'm confused as to if its counted as a start if the team opens up with a 3-Receiver set. Does a start mean that a player was in on the first snap of the game on thier respective side of the ball.

I personally doubt that Boldin and Fitzgerald missed a combined 7 games and still put up 1,400 yards each.

Boldin missed 4 starts, Fitzgerald missed 1 start.

Both of them battled nagging injuries all year.

Boldin didn't put up 1400 yards, try 853.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Boldin missed 4 starts, Fitzgerald missed 1 start.

Both of them battled nagging injuries all year.

Boldin didn't put up 1400 yards, try 853.

Lol, I realized that after I posted it. I tried to change it but you probably have access to all my edits. Thats what I get for trying to sound like a know-it-all

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Lol, I realized that after I posted it. I tried to change it but you probably have access to all my edits. Thats what I get for trying to sound like a know-it-all

LOL looks I just quoted your post before you edited it.

[DGreene28]

Just a side note... In the 2003 combine Hackett was one of the top performers at WR

Vertical 41" (Would be the best overall in this years draft, one of the best all-time probably)

Broad Jump 10'11" (Would be 1 or 2 in this years draft)

40 yard dash 4.53

3-cone drill 6.80 (Would be 2nd in this years combine among WR)

D.J. Hackett, WR, Colorado - 2004 NFL Draft Scout Profile, Powered by The SportsXchange


Bryant ran a 4.57 40 and didn't do any agility or jumping

Wonderlic results:
16 Johnson
24 Hackett

Take what you want from all this... I'm impressed with Hackett's athleticism... did not know he was that kind of explosive athlete