Darrell Jackson?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

Jackson is a pretty good receiver. The only real issue with him has always been injuries. He would definitely add some quality to our WR corps and seeing how he knows the West Coast offence it wouldn't hurt to bring him in. He isn't dirt old yet so he might command a bit more money than a vets minimum. Oh and he runs great routes and has sure hands (except for that awful 2003 season when the entire Hawks WR corps had butter on their fingers).

I give bringing him in two thumbs up. I would certainly take Jackson over D.J. Hackett.

He's not the "big" receiver we're rumored to want, but overall I agree that he's a better receiver than DJ (the other DJ)

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

He's not the "big" receiver we're rumored to want, but overall I agree that he's a better receiver than DJ (the other DJ)

Smootsmack,
I value your opinion here, but I'm suprised by this statement.
Why would you say Jackson is better than Hackett?
I hear Jackson has had issues with drops throughout his career...even last year, and we are looking for a sure handed 2nd or 3rd receiver that can take a hit.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Smootsmack,
I value your opinion here, but I'm suprised by this statement.
Why would you say Jackson is better than Hackett?
I hear Jackson has had issues with drops throughout his career...even last year, and we are looking for a sure handed 2nd or 3rd receiver that can take a hit.

Well what I believe is that Jackson has shown to be more durable and productive over the course of his career than Hackett has. I think Hackett may have a brighter future, but he has yet to really turn potential into productivity.

Honestly, I don't know that I take either one. I tend to lean toward re-signing Caldwell and then drafting a WR; but not a high pick more like somewhere between rounds 3-5 (Bennett? Hubbard? Hocker?)

[SeanTaylor21]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well what I believe is that Jackson has shown to be more durable and productive over the course of his career than Hackett has. I think Hackett may have a brighter future, but he has yet to really turn potential into productivity.

Honestly, I don't know that I take either one. I tend to lean toward re-signing Caldwell and then drafting a WR; but not a high pick more like somewhere between rounds 3-5 (Bennett? Hubbard? Hocker?)

Not even gonna mention Jordy Nelson, I really hope he drops to the third round, wherever he goes hes gonna be something special.

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Well what I believe is that Jackson has shown to be more durable and productive over the course of his career than Hackett has. I think Hackett may have a brighter future, but he has yet to really turn potential into productivity.

Honestly, I don't know that I take either one. I tend to lean toward re-signing Caldwell and then drafting a WR; but not a high pick more like somewhere between rounds 3-5 (Bennett? Hubbard? Hocker?)

Excellent points...but due to risk and time involved with drafting rookie WR, I do see the need to try to score a potentially solid Red Zone and 3rd down receiving threat without using and picks....we have tons of top level needs to fill. (DE DT OL CB)
That's why I'm hoping the Hackett thing goes through...lower risk and you get a solid draft prospect at a position in greater need.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Excellent points...but due to risk and time involved with drafting rookie WR, I do see the need to try to score a potentially solid Red Zone and 3rd down receiving threat without using and picks....we have tons of top level needs to fill. (DE DT OL CB)
That's why I'm hoping the Hackett thing goes through...lower risk and you get a solid draft prospect at a position in greater need.

Great points as well.