Why the Chargers Should Trade Vincent Jackson and Darren Sproles
Free agency is upon us, and teams are already wheeling and dealing left and right. The Chargers find themselves with a lot of holes to fill this year, most glaringly at running back and defensive tackle. The releases of LaDainian Tomlinson and Jamal Williams have exacerbated these needs. Unfortunately, they've got a limited number of top draft picks to work with. As it stands, the Chargers have one pick in each round (except the 6th), and each pick is towards the end of each round. Below, I will explain why the Chargers should explore trading both Vincent Jackson and Darren Sproles, to acquire more high draft picks and help fill more pressing needs.
Right now, the Chargers pick at #28 in both the first and second rounds. That means they won't get chances at the top prospects at the positions they need to fill. I've felt for a while the Chargers need to find a way to produce another first round pick, preferably without trading their other picks like AJ has done in the past. Players like Vincent Jackson and Darren Sproles provide that opportunity.
There are several teams who need help at wide receiver in the middle of the first round. Jacksonville (#10), Miami (#12), San Francisco (#13), and Seattle (#14) all fit this bill. Jacksonville and Miami, while in possession of higher draft picks, are less appealing trade partners given that they are fellow AFC teams. They are also in position to draft this year's #1 WR prospect, Dez Bryant, and will probably be less likely to try and trade for a receiver. San Francisco and Seattle would be preferable, because they're NFC teams. Just for the sake of argument, I'm going to go with Seattle as the most likely trade partner, because of rumors floating that they're interested in acquiring a new wideout.
Vincent Jackson is an elite wide receiver who is in the middle of his prime. He can immediately contribute to a new team, as opposed to a rookie wide receiver that will likely take time to develop. He should be valued at least as much as a mid-first round pick. The Chargers should approach Seattle with the idea of trading Vincent for the #14 pick.
NOTE: After this post was first written, reports began to surface that Seattle is actively trying to sign Brandon Marshall to an offer sheet. Marshall has a first round tender on him, and if Seattle signed him and Denver chose not to match, then Seattle would owe the Broncos their first round draft pick, the #6 overall choice (they could not send them the #14 choice, because that pick they acquired via trade). Vincent Jackson is a better receiver than Marshall, and less of a head case (so far) and is therefore more valuable. Seattle signing away Marshall would effectively drive up the price for Jackson, so a mid-first round pick would no longer be acceptable.
If this happened, I would shift focus to the the top five picks and target one of those teams for a trade. I believe Tampa Bay, owners of the #3 pick, would be an ideal partner. Especially with Antonio Bryant leaving, they have a dearth of talent at wide receiver, and a young quarterback they are trying to build around. Most of the mock drafts I have seen project them as taking the best player available at #3 rather than trying to fill a specific need. Therefore, I think it's reasonable that they would be receptive to spending that pick to acquire an elite talent at WR to pair with Josh Freeman. With the #3 overall pick, the Chargers could take the BPA, or trade down to the mid-first round and take any of the options I outline below. Attaining the 3rd overall pick would give the Chargers even more flexibility than getting the 14th pick straight up, as well as even more mid-round picks to work with.
Darren Sproles was recently tendered with first and third round draft picks. Despite this, it's being reported that the Chargers will entertain offers for less than that. The rest of the league seems to understand that Darren is pretty valuable as a third down back, kick returner, and receiver out of the backfield. Reportedly, he was set to visit Kansas City, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Washington in free agency. Now that the Chargers have retained his rights, they should explore trading him to one of those teams for a 2nd round draft choice.
The ideal spot would be St. Louis. Again, they're an NFC team so the Chargers wouldn't have to worry about facing Sproles more than once every four years. St. Louis is clearly interested in him, as they appeared to plan on making him an offer in free agency. Most appealing about the Rams is that they possess the first pick in the second round. Therefore, the Chargers should aggressively pursue sending St. Louis Darren Sproles for their high 2nd round choice.
If both these trades came to pass, it would leave the Chargers with a multitude of options. They'd pick #14 and #28 in the first round, as well as holding the #1 and #28 picks in the second round. At the 14th spot, the Chargers would have realistic chances at both CJ Spiller should he fall a bit, and Dan Williams, the top NT prospect in the draft. If neither player was available, and there was no one else the Chargers liked at that spot, they could trade down and acquire even more picks.
At #28 the Chargers could select Jahvid Best or Ryan Matthews, or any other player they value at the spot. Then with the first pick in the second round, the Chargers could fill whatever need they didn't in the first--a second tier NT or RB prospect. With the #28 pick in the second round, they could select a wide receiver to fill out the WR corps, or another player they value at that place. If they didn't take a receiver here, they could do so in the 3rd or 4th round.
This way, the Chargers would have a wide range of options to address their most glaring needs, and would be able to re-stock key positions with young talent. As for losing Jackson and Sproles, there are significant chances neither player will be here long-term anyway. As much as we like Vincent, it seems like the team will have a difficult time signing him to a new contract after 2010. For one, he's got a plethora of legal issues which will lead to at least one suspension in 2010. The Chargers' front office does not like players who are trouble off the field. Also, if he continues to produce as he has, he will command a mammoth salary in the 2011 off-season. I cannot recall the last time the Chargers gave a mammoth salary to a player who wasn't named Philip Rivers (who took a discount to stay--Jackson probably won't). Perhaps Kris Dielman counts, but still that's only two players in 6+ years who have been given large contracts. As for signing Sproles, the team has been trying to do that for some time and hasn't been able to. If the two sides haven't been able to reach an agreement by now, it seems unlikely they ever will.
As a result, the Chargers' backfield would likely be a rookie (Spiller, Best, or Matthews) combined with a veteran acquired in free agency. The wide receiver corps would have Floyd and Naannee starting, with Buster Davis and a 2nd or 3rd round selection filling the #3 and #4 spots. Davis could return punts, and the rookie RB could return kicks.
I realize fan reaction to this will likely be similar to the news that the team wouldn't be retaining Shawne Merriman long-term--"We can't lose Jackson/Sproles, he's too valuable!" I don't believe either player is indispensable to the Chargers. Sproles is a nice luxury, but he isn't a necessity, especially with a first round running back coming in. True, Jackson is an elite wideout, but remember Rivers produced very well in 2006 when his starting WRs were Eric Parker and Keenan McCardell. The Chargers would also still have Antonio Gates. Philip is an elite QB, who should perform well so long as he has at least decent receivers at his disposal, which he would.
Despite what public perception/reaction would be, the Chargers should seriously consider trading both players, as the team would likely still be able to perform at a high level, and it would put them in a much better position for the future.
0 recs |
127 comments
|
Comments
It’s amazing the degree to which people continue to over-value draft picks. Sproles is one thing and I’d be fully open to exploring trade possibilities, but Jackson? Rivers and Jackson have something special together, and it rings shades of Peyton Manning to Marvin Harrison. I think you’re going to be hard pressed to find someone in the first round that you can say with absolute certainty will be more valuable to the team next year than Vincent Jackson will be. You don’t trade away a key piece to the puzzle like Jackson when you’re trying to make a run at a superbowl right now.
Even if I were to agree with your point that Vincent is more valuable than anybody you’d be able to get in the beginning of the draft (I don’t, we already have enough firepower in the passing game), Zach’s point that Jackson will be almost impossible to sign long-term after 2010 still remains. Rivers, Gates, Dielman and (probably) McNeill will be paid like one of the best players at their position…and rightfully so….which squeezes the cap a little bit. I think every one of those players is more valuable than Jackson, who would demand a salary higher than all of them except Philip. Not to mention all the off-the-field nonsense with him.
Manning-Harrison is a very good comparison because logic dictates that Harrison’s success was based on Manning’s incredible talent. Disagree? Tell me why he was so easily replaced by Reggie Wayne (and why Wayne was so easily replaced by Garcon/Collie/Gonzalez). Did Tom Brady need an elite WR to win Super Bowls? No (Deion Branch!). Did Peyton Manning? Nope (notice the drop in Stokley’s performance when he left). I don’t think Rivers, or any great QB, is made by their WRs.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I’ll agree with you on both Rivers and Gates, but I don’t think McNeill and especially Dielman are more valuable than Jackson is. Maybe they were at one point, but going by their most recent performances? Dielman struggled terrible in the running game this year, and while he was solid in pass protection, are you really going to say that a one dimensional guard is more valuable than an elite WR? As for McNeill, he’s a good tackle, but he isn’t a top five tackle in the league at this point. He’s only gone down from the amazing rookie year he had.
Your point about the cap is unfounded. We may disagree on this point, but I don’t think the salary cap is ever coming back to the NFL. The owners are far too greedy to ever put it back in place now that it’s gone away, and I could get into that argument but it’s a different topic. Cap value won’t matter when it comes to upcoming extensions, since there’s no cap.
It’s hard to replace an elite WR. San Diego hasn’t had one since the early 80s, and now that they have one with Jackson, I think it’s imperative that they keep him, even if they need to break the bank to do so. Not only does he have phenomenal athleticism, soft hands, and decent speed, but he’s also a great blocker. Guys like that don’t grow on trees, and you have to ask yourself, do off the field issues that don’t affect the team at all outweigh all he can bring to the team on Sundays? I could care less about Jackson’s off the field issues.
And no, Rivers isn’t made by Jackson. But he’s made BETTER by Jackson. I think Rivers could succeed with a lesser group of wideouts, but why try and make him? For a crapshoot of a draft, when you yourself have commented that AJ hasn’t really shined in recent seasons?
by SteelAngel2000 on Mar 6, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
The cap will be back for the simple fact that it’s helped the NFL become the best sports league in the world. Just my opinion.
I think Rivers could succeed with a lesser group of wideouts, but why try and make him?
Because it makes the rest of the team better.
For a crapshoot of a draft, when you yourself have commented that AJ hasn’t really shined in recent seasons?
Never said that.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
You don’t KNOW it will make the team better. You’re betting on the draft which by its own nature is a crapshoot. You’re gambling.
by SteelAngel2000 on Mar 6, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
Keeping Jackson is a gamble as well. We have no idea if he can stay out of trouble (I know some people don’t care, but suspensions will make them care) and we have even less idea of if the Chargers want to, or can, sign him to a long-term contract after 2010.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
Via Acee
As one GM put it this past week — they all think the draft picks they make are going to turn out to be Pro Bowlers. Draft picks are precious, for sure. But I’m with you. I’d at least try to make a deal, like a first this year and second next year … A.J. Smith loves Jackson. The off-field stuff troubles him, but the Chargers believe Jackson is going to stay straight. The guy works really hard and plays right and is immensely gifted. If Jackson wants to, I think he’ll be a Charger for a long time.
by Natrone Bomb on Mar 6, 2010 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
This.
VJ for a first? Eh….
VJ for a mid-first and a 2011 second? OK.
But yeah, any first-day pick for Sproles is a good deal.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Mar 6, 2010 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
A 1st and a next years 2nd
That is getting into the territory where its worth consideration at least
agreed.
Gary Potter: Harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. It's like a carousel. You put the quarter in, you get on the horse, it goes up and down, and around. Circular, circle. Feel it. Go with the flow.
Happy Gilmore: Psycho.
That's what AJ needs to determine
Can he sign VJ long term? If not, then I agree he should be traded.
by SJO on Mar 8, 2010 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
I agree here
I haven’t been Jackson’s biggest fan, but I think it is a mistake to believe the other receivers will fill his shoes. He draws the best coverage and doubles, the others feed off of the lesser defensive backs. To presume that Floyd is going to do that well is all moonshine in my opinion; and I really like Floyd.
Plus it looks like we have him this year, there will be a strike next year, we can franchise him the year after that. Beyond that, maybe we get a third for him as a comp and it gives us room to develop a replacement, or maybe we open up the bank. This is a passing league now, you don’t give up a premier target for a handful of magic beans that may or may not sprout.
Sproles I would trade for a number one, it’s hard to imagine a team giving that up and giving him a fat contract though.
"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman
by Brian (DaBolts) on Mar 6, 2010 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
agree with this too.
also, the fact that jackson is such a deep threat allowed gates to have an awesome year using short routes.
Gary Potter: Harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. It's like a carousel. You put the quarter in, you get on the horse, it goes up and down, and around. Circular, circle. Feel it. Go with the flow.
Happy Gilmore: Psycho.
yeah
u are right john but with V Jackson u cant double him and gates u can never have too much
okay i have cerebral palsy arthris and chronic fatigue as well i have a great life and loveing folks some days are better than other days i got a make-a-wish in 2001 and saw my favorite team the broncos it was the trip of a lifetime i wish everyone couild have gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that okay but i bleed organ and bule for my mnr fans but i bleed orange and blue denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos for stampede bule thanks shvd98z24
Elite WR?
Brady didn’t have the elite WRs and won superbowls yes, but look what happened when he was paired up with an elite WR Randy Moss? NFL Records in TD passes, TD receptions, and 16-0 record.
by SJO on Mar 8, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
My only point is that
Adding an elite receiver wasn’t a bad thing for Brady/NE. You CAN win the superbowl with Brady and a bunch of average Joes, but Moss amplifies that offense to a new level.
"It’s amazing the degree to which people continue to over-value draft picks."
Absolutely. I find this extremely peculiar and extremely annoying.
QFT.
"I sawed a woman in the park today"
Not bad grammar. Just recollections of a deranged killer.
wait what?
your saying get rid of one weakness to fill in two, But this makes no sense, Right now we need a RB and NT but we dont need a wideout. So with our first round pick Keep Jackson and get a RB or a NT and we will still only have One weakness. So what were you trying to say?
Mark Souza Jr.
The plan above allows us to get a NT and an RB in the first round, where the players are much more likely to contribute and be good in year 1.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
I think you are vastly overrating the RB position. Id argue we should draft a NT/S/CB/OT before we draft a 1st round back.
RB is obviously the biggest weakness on the team right now, which is why I’m valuing it so high. Taking our running game from the worst in the league and making it better makes the whole team a lot better.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
I realize we are thin at RB, but we hardly need a first round back to fix our running game.
by AirNorval on Mar 6, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Agree. We can plug in a 2nd or 3rd rounder to moderate effect.
Add a good vet and that’s a recipe to do better than we did last year, at least.
Yup, I'm the nut who believes Mark Loretta is a possible future Hall of Famer.
by StrangeBroP25 on Mar 6, 2010 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
See, this is why I think trading Sproles would be good.
The only way I’d want to see VJ go is if some team offers us the farm for him, including a pick that could easily lead to Dan Williams or some other top player, and one or more additional early picks. Sproles, OTOH, is worth enough somewhere that we can get a couple of high-grade rookies in the draft, or move up in the first.
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the cheerleaders!
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Mar 8, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
I agree completely. I believe NT and CB are the biggest needs right now. We had what, the second worst running attack in the league last year and went 13 – 3? I’m pretty sure there will be a big power back in round 3 (Tate, Hardesty, Gerhart, etc.) who can plow between the tackles for at least 3.3 ypc.
Indy has had a horrible running attack year in and out
And still makes the playoffs. Our running game while leaving something to be desired is hardly detrimental. I’m looking for Plug and Play, another one of AJs 3rd, 4th or 5th round picks.
by SJO on Mar 8, 2010 5:00 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with Zach and John...
If you remove the emotional response to this and key on the benefits this could bring, the team could see a substantial upgrade. We are deep in receivers and VJ is a hot commodity right now.
Of course, this is all supposition at this point, as nobody has done very well at anticipating AJ’s moves.
by Bolt Bob on Mar 6, 2010 10:14 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Interesting thoughts
Definitely some interesting thoughts….I agree to a point that in that Jackson might be difficult to keep long term. I also that the draft is a bit of crapshoot. Sproles could be traded, if you could get a 2nd this year remains to be seen. I would think a 3rd or 4th more likely because the rest of the league knows we don’t have him locked down. I personally don’t value rb or wr as high as QB or NT
Honestly
I could never trust a guy like Bust Davis to be a replacement for the likes of Vincent Jackson. He just can’t stay healthy even though he’s not even playing in actual games. Imagine what would happen if he was a starter?
This statement made sense a year ago. Buster is a different guy/player now. It makes even less sense to let a former first-round pick rot on the bench because he wasn’t able to succeed early on.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
So
they should trade Buster then. I’m sorry but I don’t think they should trust a guy who despite his youth and lack of playing time, managed to be injured for as long as he was. I don’t think they should trust someone like that to replace Jackson who has, as long as I can recall, not miss any game or any major game for that matter, even if he is as good as he’s been projected to be – what does it matter if you’re out for nearly the entire season like Hardwick and Williams?
The Chargers are deep with wide recivers but they are not deep with #1 type wide reicvers
I don’t think Floyd can come in and stretch the field like Jackson does and I don’t think he is as good at finding holes in the defensive cover assignment. Floyd is a great position receiver and he can get you tough yardage and beat a coverage by going up for the ball but he really is not a homerun threat. Also Floyd is use to facing the teams second or third best corner if he is the Chargers #1 receiver he will be facing the defenses best cover corner and may not have the same opportunities to go up for a ball or use his body to shield the corner. While Naanee has shown flashes of greatness he has hardly been consistent enough to be a #2 receiver.
Will the Chargers passing game go completely in the toilet if Jackson is traded absolutely not, as long as Rivers and Gates are healthy they will still be a top 10 passing offence but will it be as productive? Absolutely not, unless they can get another homerun threat to stretch the field and make the safeties choose either give deep help against the wideouts or come up and help the LBs with Gates. Without a true deep threat on the field you allow the safeties to play a little closer and key in on the running game a little more since they don’t have to worry as much about the deep ball.
By making this move your basically gambling that the new rookie running back can pick up the slack left behind from Jackson’s departure and also carry the same load that LT and Sproles did last season and your basically complete changing an offensive strategy for a top 5 offence last year. I just think that’s a lot to ask of a rookie running back.
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Mar 6, 2010 10:40 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Will the Chargers passing game go completely in the toilet if Jackson is traded absolutely not, as long as Rivers and Gates are healthy they will still be a top 10 passing offence but will it be as productive? Absolutely not, unless they can get another homerun threat to stretch the field and make the safeties choose either give deep help against the wideouts or come up and help the LBs with Gates. Without a true deep threat on the field you allow the safeties to play a little closer and key in on the running game a little more since they don’t have to worry as much about the deep ball.
Would you rather have a top 3 passing offense and a league-worst running offense, or a top 10 passing offense and top 15 rushing offense? I’d take the latter, because then you can play to your opponent’s weakness rather than always trying to beat them with your strength (trying to beat the Jets with no running game was a silly plan to begin with).
Stats dictate that Jackson and Floyd are just about as good as each other as down-field targets. They both averaged 17.2 yards per catch in 2009. Also, Buster Davis is a down-field threat (as the fastest WR on the team) when healthy.
This would not be a move that necessarily improves the team in 2010. It might be a lateral short-term move. However, it’s a move that makes the team more versatile (on both sides of the ball) and makes for a better future (without having to worry about the headache and/or possible salary-cap burden of Jackson).
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
trying to beat the Jets with no running game was a silly plan to begin with
You’re right what were the colts thinking?
(The Chargers actually had more yards on the gound against the Jets in thier loss than the Colts did in thier win)
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Mar 6, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
^^ rec
Gary Potter: Harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. It's like a carousel. You put the quarter in, you get on the horse, it goes up and down, and around. Circular, circle. Feel it. Go with the flow.
Happy Gilmore: Psycho.
The Jets D
was a lot more banged up against the Colts.
I may be old but I... oh d*mn, I forgot what I was going to say.
by Cold_Old_Steelers_Fan on Mar 7, 2010 6:42 PM PST up reply actions
It would be a short-term move considering Floyd would be a FA in 2011
(assuming a new CBA would be worked out)
John do you honestly think floyd is as much as a deep threat as Jackson is?
by Steve (Grey Suit) on Mar 6, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
whats saying that we cant have a mix of both options?
A top 3 passing offense and top 15 rushing offense is entirely possible.
What if the Chargers end up drafting a 1st round running back, it seems that your already ruling out Jahvid Best, Ryan Matthews or Jonathan Dwyer being productive. Who says that C.J Spiller is going to be better then any of them?
I dont understand how there is even an argument in getting rid of a top 5 receiver for draft picks. The draft is a crapshoot, who knows if the player the Chargers pick to replace vincent jackson would even come close to replacing his production. Whats saying that jackson doesnt get resigned?
I usually agree with most posts on this website, but the idea of trading away vincent jackson should not have even been brought up.
by jordanmowbray on Mar 6, 2010 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
You were making some sense until I heard the name Buster Davis. You shouldnt invoke this guys names in any opinion until he actually does something. I remember the scrubs we had for a WR core just a few years ago.
So trade VJ, no thank you. He’s a top 5 receiver in his prime, and as much as I like Floyd there’s a difference between him and Jackson.
Stats may say Jackson and Floyd are just about as good as each other
but from an objective standpoint, VJ makes some ridiculous catches in cases where Philip trusts that he can just throw the ball up. I’m not sure Floyd or any other receiver is coming down with a lot of the deep sideline catches VJ comes up with.
Math doesn't add up
I’m going to have to go with the trading away expensive proven talent to draft expensive unproven younger talent is not a good idea crowd.
I agree that it's definitely a viable option to consider
but I don’t believe the risks have been appropriately considered. Suppose the Chargers trade Jackson for the #3 pick straight up as you suggested. What happens if the first two picks are Suh and McCoy? Someone may want to jump in front of Washington to grab a QB but they may be just as keen to wait for someone to take Clausen or Bradford and then trade up for whoever is left. Eric Berry? Now you’ve got an expensive rookie safety and you’re still looking to take NT and RB with 28 and 62nd picks. Same thing with the 14th pick. What happens if Williams, Spiller, and McClain are gone? Who’s there that is worth giving up Jackson?
Rams have pretty much stated publicly that they’re picking Bradford
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
I know it's not the Rams
but Adam Schefter has guaranteed that the Rams will take Bradford.
http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/2/25/1326699/espns-adam-schefter-says-rams-will
But he also states
that he hasn’t even talked to anyone in the Rams organization… So i wouldn’t put too much weight into him saying that.
No they haven't
That would make no sense. They will be waiting at least until they see his shoulder at his Pro Day.
Darren Sproles, sure. Vincent Jackson, no thank you.
If some team is willing to overpay (2nd or 3rd round pick) for Darren Sproles then sure, it makes sense.. We have players that can replace, or at least come close to matching is production.
This argument of trading Vincent Jackson is just plain stupid. I know theres always the factor of money, but if your not willing to pony up a large contract for a top tier player then something is seriously wrong with this franchise. You build your team by trying to get quality players. You dont trade away a all-around top 5 wide reciever for draft picks. Who knows if the players drafted with those picks even come close to replacing his production. The draft is truly a crapshoot, i dont understand why you would be willing to give up a proven #1 receiver for potential. Hell, Charles Rogers had all the potential in the world and look how that turned out. I know Jackson has had a couple off-field problems but its nothing serious… hes not messed up like Brandon Marshall
sorry, i just read that over and I probably shouldnt have called ur argument stupid. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.. its just that the idea of trading vincent jackson away truly pisses me off
by jordanmowbray on Mar 6, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Why the Chargers SHOULDN'T trade Vincent Jackson:
He’s VIncent Jackson! People reading way too into the off-field stuff give it a rest.
I don’t think you can say that when he’s going to be suspended in the upcoming season for off-field stuff.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
true, but I feel trading him is a bit harsh.
I don’t think he’d be that easily replaceable.
Let’s ask Arizona if they will trade Fitzgerald, or Houstin for Andre Johnson. Does that sound reasonable? If not, then VJ is also out of the question. Now if AJ knows he is not going to pay him, then he does need to find a trading partner.
by SJO on Mar 8, 2010 5:07 PM PST up reply actions
Neither of those teams have a quarterback the caliber of Philip Rivers.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Mar 8, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
Kurt Warner retired and Matt Schaub is not on par with Rivers.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Mar 10, 2010 3:15 PM PST up reply actions
Not to mention
Both were awesome before they played with Warner and Schaub.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
That’s besides the point.
No, it’s not. That is the point.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Mar 10, 2010 11:12 PM PST up reply actions
Chargers are not that desperate for picks
I can live with Sproles being traded but I don’t see the same depth at WR that others do and I would hate to see VJ traded.
Zach says: “The Chargers find themselves with lots of holes to fill” and that “the release of LT and Jamal have exacerbated these needs”.
I don’t think the Chargers have all that many holes to fill, sure they have some weak spots like almost any team but I don’t think they need to panic for extra picks at this point. I also don’t see the release of LT or Jamal making them any weaker, or less productive, at RB or NT than they were last season. LT’s production will be equaled or bettered by anyone that plays RB next year and while I think Jamal is great he only played in one game. Do they need help at those positions, sure but they don’t need to panic.
by JeromeB on Mar 6, 2010 12:53 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Trading VJ is laughable
Yep I can agree with this for sure. The release of Jamal and LT hasnt exacerbated any need at these positions that we didnt already have. Both these guys hardly contributed anything of significance on the field in 2009, I mean Jwall was on the sideline and LT was tripping himself.
Flawed argument
Moving Jackson is not justifiable. If you base your argument on his value never being higher, by your logic we should trade Rivers and Gates to fill our needs. Not a good idea. Trades should only be made in order to make the team better. If you trade a key piece of our team as you suggest, you got to be certain, or very, very close to certain, the transaction will improve the team. You haven’t come close to making a convincing argument.
by your logic we should trade Rivers and Gates to fill our needs
1. Rivers is signed long term. Gates is about to be signed long term.
2. They have never been off-the-field issues and at least one of them has taken a discount to stay here.
3. There is no depth behind either one of them.
4. Rivers is the #1 QB and Gates is the #1 TE (and #1 receiver). Jackson is the 2nd best/2nd most important receiver on the team.
"When they come for me I'll be sitting at my desk, with a gun in my hand wearing a bullet-proof vest, singing 'My, my, my, how the time does fly when you know you're going to die by the end of the night.'" - Catch 22
by John Gennaro on Mar 6, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I’d say its debatable whether Jackson(1,167 yd, 9 td) or Gates(1,157 yd, 8 td) is the #1 receiver on the team. Especially since Jackson edges out Gates in yards and touchdowns (granted, Gates beats Jackson in receptions). Jackson plays like an all-pro wide receiver and so it would be hard for me to say that he is a #2. Also keep in mind that their production is synergistic, so if you trade one the other’s production goes down.
You’re ignoring the fact that Acee confirmed AJ will offer Jackson a lucrative long term contract. There’s a very good chance he could be a charger for a long time.
I disagree with you saying there is no depth behind either one of them. Volek could start on other NFL teams, and is a solid backup. Kris Wilson has also showed a bunch of potential. This is a similar drop off between Jackson and Floyd and near match between Jackson and Naanee.
I also think you need to put a little perspective on off field issues. Jackson’s are pretty minor in this league of diva-filled wide receivers.
The fact is that AJ loves Jackson and he isn’t going to get traded. That’s not to say your concerns about our holes are unwarranted. The problem is that you’re using too big of a gun to fix the problem. What we should do is trade Malcolm Floyd. That could net us a second round pick. We use that and our second rounder to trade up into the first round. With our two first rounders we select a DT and a RB.
Our wide receiver lineup would then be Jackson/Davis/Naanee which is much stronger than Floyd/Davis/Naanee and we still fix our holes.
"I sawed a woman in the park today"
Not bad grammar. Just recollections of a deranged killer.
I agree with pretty much everything you say…
Jackson and Gates are both equally valuable, but Jackson has really spread the field for Gates (and the whole chargers offense) the last couple of years. V-jack’s off-field issues are small compared to some of the other nutcases in the NFL and im sure some of them were caused by him just being in the wrong place at the wrong time… hes a smart dude.
I would definitly be down to trade Floyd instead of Jackson, im sure someone would pony up a 2nd rounder. Definitly a better option then trading V-jack
by jordanmowbray on Mar 6, 2010 6:23 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
VJ was as important to us as Gates was last year. Might even give VJ the edge. Gates is slowing down.
by Bluelightning on Mar 6, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
Gates just had the best season of his career
and the best season every by a tight end since at least 1993.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 6, 2010 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yards
after catch. Gates used to be a lot tougher to bring down. I don’t deny Gates had an awesome season. Simply my impression of his burst and toughness has suffered.
by Bluelightning on Mar 7, 2010 3:02 AM PST up reply actions
Jackson getting a couple traffic tickets
for his registration is relatively minor in todays NFL. Repeated DUI arrests are most definitely not a minor offense. 37,261 Americans lost their lives to drunk driving last year, only the second time since 1982 it’s been below 40,000. The Chargers have to decide if he’s going to become another Jared Allen and keep his act together or become another Donte Stallworth.
by Natrone Bomb on Mar 7, 2010 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
Flawed retort
You either over looked or chose to ignore the part of John’s logic that views Rivers and Gates as safety nets for the departure of VJ. Also, your comparing VJ’s value to Rivers’ makes little sense. VJ is seen as expendable (while Rivers is not) because: 1) the passing game relies much more on to quarterback than the receivers (see Rivers 2006), 2) our roster depth at the receiver position and the talent of our TE make it so, and 3) It is a distinct possibility that VJ will spend his last year under contract with us without being offered a long term deal, meaning whatever irreplaceable value you see VJ bringing this team will only assuredly be here short term. In contrast to VJ, Rivers’ value is locked up in a long term contract, meaning we will reap the benefits from him for much longer.
Nonsense
VJ is not expendable. No one on our roster can replace him. If the length of a contract is how you determine a player’s value then sign VJ to a multiyear deal. Simple. Before River’s signed his multiyear contract should we have tried to trade him too?
I don’t agree with the idea Rivers and Gates are adequate safety nets for the departure of VJ. If you believe that, you could argue VJ and Gates are safety nets for the departure of Rivers. It’s a poor argument. And a misguided notion. WR is WR, QB is QB. Completely separate positions.
by Bluelightning on Mar 6, 2010 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
I feel like you’re taking my safety net logic, stretching it to apply to your own example, and then disproving that instead. So I still don’t quite agree with you there, but I don’t think it’s all that important.
However, the suggestion above of trading Floyd for a second and then combining our two seconds to potentially trade up for another first does seem safer and more agreeable to me. To be honest, I’d be okay with either move here as long as we’re able to get a quality NT and RB.
Where you're having trouble with the argument
You’re placing as much value on VJ as you do on Rivers. Rivers is far more valuable to the offense than the wide receivers. John pointed out above the passer is far more valuable than the receivers hauling in his passes, and provided some fairly decent examples:
Manning-Harrison is a very good comparison because logic dictates that Harrison’s success was based on Manning’s incredible talent. Disagree? Tell me why he was so easily replaced by Reggie Wayne (and why Wayne was so easily replaced by Garcon/Collie/Gonzalez). Did Tom Brady need an elite WR to win Super Bowls? No (Deion Branch!). Did Peyton Manning? Nope (notice the drop in Stokley’s performance when he left). I don’t think Rivers, or any great QB, is made by their WRs.
Irrelevant
to my point. Lose Rivers, Gates, or VJ and there will be a dropoff with our passing efficiency, barring a very large expenditure of draft picks in another trade to replace what we just lost. The arguments in favor of trading VJ just kill me. It just doesn’t make sense to downgrade the one area we cause huge matchup problems with opponents to patch a hole. Find another way to patch the hole, without sacrificing our passing game. The Rivers, Gates, VJ combo destroys secondaries. Leave it alone.
by Bluelightning on Mar 7, 2010 3:42 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You do when it brings two key pieces to the rest of your team (a running game and a solid D line). Whatever deep threat ability you think VJ has that can’t be replaced with Floyd and Nannee is matched when the running game keeps the opponent’s secondary honest, thus allowing a marginally less talented CB to stretch the field as productively as VJ has without such a luxury (not to mention having a back that can do what Norv asks him to do without tripping and causing the fans to want to shoot somebody).
Rubbish
There’s no gurantee, as one other poster pointed out, the magic beans you pick up will sprout. Additionally, if you trade VJ we will have to draft or sign another WR. You may patch 2 holes but you forgot you have a third to patch. You don’t seem to realize this. Osgood was released, so we will probably be getting 1 WR. Trading VJ bumps this to 2 new WRs for depth. Manu was released, we will be getting 1 TE for depth. So now the tally is 2 WRs + 1 TE. Trade VJ and we will be paper thin at our recieving corps. We will have “I can’t stay healthy” Buster Davis, Floyd, and Nanee, backed up by 2 rookie WRs. Gates and Wilson at TE backed up by a rookie. We just downgraded our passing attack from elite to good, so we can improve DL and RB from horrible to bad. How does this improve the team?
by Bluelightning on Mar 7, 2010 7:29 PM PST up reply actions
Youre forgetting Demetrius Byrd.
He didn’t play and was projected a 3rd rounder last year pre-car accident. I am VERY interested to see him this year. Though he could just be another one of AJ’s LSU love stories.
by Its Mikey!! on Mar 8, 2010 1:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I wouldn't expect him to ever play again.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 8, 2010 2:48 PM PST up reply actions
We seen it before with many athletes
Where doctors told them they would never walk let alone play again, I’m hoping that he will be able to overcome his injuires and return to professional form.
by Herbs.n.Sm!les on Mar 8, 2010 6:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I hope you're right
But considering there hasnt been a feel good story about him, I’m getting concerned.
Basically you’ve misunderstood the rationale and are disagreeing based on your flawed understanding of it.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Mar 6, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
No
My arguments are sound. You do not move a key piece of your team which cannot be replaced if you intend to be competitive. These pieces being: Gates, Rivers, and VJ. We’re not shopping VJ around like Cromartie so I’m glad at least AJ understands such a basic rationale.
by Bluelightning on Mar 7, 2010 3:22 AM PST up reply actions
I'm glad to see my proposal has garnered so much discussion.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 6, 2010 5:17 PM PST reply actions
Weak
I stand by my point you are simply trying to create controversy and increase site traffic by proposing a highly speculative trade no GM in his right mind would do, just to get a rise out of bolt fans. You could do better by proposing a trade of Rivers for 3 first round draft picks. You can delete this post too and ban me, there are plenty of other forums for true charger fans where you can speak your mind
by Bluelightning on Mar 8, 2010 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
It's a pretty easy rule to follow...
If you’re going to insult people, do it somewhere else.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Mar 8, 2010 10:14 PM PST up reply actions
Come on now
There’s nobody more paranoid than me; heck I’m willing to consider any conspiracy theory. But you are going to have to bring a better nugget than this.
dude
you have plenty of other opinions contrary to Zach’s on this very post, and none of them were removed. Only the comment that was just an insult was removed. Figure it out…
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 9, 2010 8:11 AM PST up reply actions
I'm curious as to where you got the idea that I posted this solely for shock value.
All I said was I was glad people were talking about it.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 9, 2010 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
I didn't get the impression
you honestly believe trading VJ would be in the team’s best interest. You would be much more active within this thread promoting the idea. You would also follow the idea to its logical conclusion, and pick out a group of draftees (NTs, RBs, WRs) which you would target with the proceeds from the trade. Instead you post a very self satsified statement declaring your pleasure at the high level of responses while doing neither.
There are some very good posts on milehighreport analyzing the worth of B marshall. Any serious discussion of trading VJ would start with a similar valuation.
by Bluelightning on Mar 10, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
call me nuts
but u guys are close to win it all i am real no joke dont trade V Jackson D Spoles unless they gey crazy signing bouns
okay i have cerebral palsy arthris and chronic fatigue as well i have a great life and loveing folks some days are better than other days i got a make-a-wish in 2001 and saw my favorite team the broncos it was the trip of a lifetime i wish everyone couild have gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that okay but i bleed organ and bule for my mnr fans but i bleed orange and blue denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos for stampede bule thanks shvd98z24
i agree with u man
its win it all mode for the Chargers now. Everything move a team makes is to try and get to the superbowl, and thats where the Chargers are. Theres no point in trading away some of the team’s best talent. We cant go fire sale like the Cardinals
by jordanmowbray on Mar 6, 2010 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
don't trade VJ
he’s too valuable as a #1 receiver. we’re not in rebuilding mode, so we don’t need more draft picks (i agree with the comments above with over-valuing draft picks). we just need a replacement NT and rookie RB.
we should and will give VJ a long term contract.
all the arguments pro-VJ staying is made above. good read, interesting propositions, but trading VJ is the stupidest move the chargers could make. I would trade any other player on the team. Also, even if Rivers is a great QB, you need receivers can catch the ball with consistency (chambers was released because he has butter hands, and i even remember gates dropping the ball a several times that were easy catches 2009 season).
moreover, we don’t need a good RB. i don’t even think we should pick one up 1st round. you just need someone to not fumble the ball and set up play actions.
i think we should beef up our defense and go with NT, OLB, SS, or CB.
Gary Potter: Harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. It's like a carousel. You put the quarter in, you get on the horse, it goes up and down, and around. Circular, circle. Feel it. Go with the flow.
Happy Gilmore: Psycho.
I agree with everything
Except with OLB. That’s the one position I believe we are set on. Even if/when merriman leaves. Holt really came on and will probably replace Osgood as our special teams ace. Not to mention the team loves Applewhite who went on IR last year. Just drafted English, Phillips and Tucker are still on the roster. I’d like more depth at ILB.
by Its Mikey!! on Mar 8, 2010 1:53 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
also.
i think i’m good with giving up sproles.
p.s. i was away from BFTB for 4 days. and this crazy sh*t started happening.
cro traded – figured
osgood out – figured x2
jwall released – wtf? i guess
i guess the next thing i’m waiting for is for teams to start picking up all our tendered players. lets try to get 12 picks and collect them like monopoly money.
Gary Potter: Harness in the good energy, block out the bad. Harness. Energy. Block. Bad. It's like a carousel. You put the quarter in, you get on the horse, it goes up and down, and around. Circular, circle. Feel it. Go with the flow.
Happy Gilmore: Psycho.
Build some
Hotels on boardwalk and park place.
by Its Mikey!! on Mar 8, 2010 1:55 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
In light of the early offseason happenings...
We have already released two running backs. It does not make sense that we would not keep the other one, to hell with the cost. However, Sproles is extremely likely to be traded and I would be perfectly fine with getting St. Lou’s 2nd or 3rd rounder in return.
As far as trading Vince, I think that’s a bad idea. We could find a player or players who have his raw physical talent (Maurice Covington comes to mind, as do multiple players in this year’s draft) but history has shown that when you trade away your gamebreaking superstars you are in to catch some hell for it. And what would we take at #3 overall? Our needs aren’t pressing enough to draft anyone in that position. However, if we traded down a few spots (hell, let’s say like #9) we would receive likely another pick and still be in the perfect spot to draft CJ Spiller. However, drafting Spiller would negate the need to resign Sproles.
Also, if we go RB first, who do we draft at NT in the next two rounds? Cody? Thomas? Troup?
Yup, I'm the nut who believes Mark Loretta is a possible future Hall of Famer.
VJ is still unrated
I’m not of this poster has heard of Rashaun Woods, Buster Davis, Ray Etheridge, Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, Matt Jones or a myriad of first and second round receivers that the Chargers or others have wasted first round picks on. An NFL receiver takes at least 3 years to develop — Vincent took longer than that. He’s an elite talent who has actually worked to get better, has a relationship with Rivers, isn’t a team cancer and knows the system. Every year there is some stud like Dez who has great physical tools – less than 30% ever become stars.
Lottery balls land on DeMarcus Cousins baby.
by bringbackbuddytrees on Mar 7, 2010 5:21 PM PST reply actions
Keep Jackson. Shop Floyd.
I disagree with shopping Jackson. He’s a playmaker who just reached the top of his game. Floyd on the otherhand is an ascending player with very good upside, and while he might not be as attractive as Jackson, he’d be a good deal for a second round pick in a good draft. We have receivers who could step in and play his role – the third option at WR behind Gates & Jackson. Time for Buster Davis and Naanee to earn their money. Sproles is a tough one. He’s not worth the money we’re paying at the present but what option do we have. He’s all we got. I’d reluctantly trade him for a late-first early second round pick. Under this scenario, we’d have 4 picks in the first two rounds and could fill some needs or make some moves without killing ourselves. Let’s not forget we could also trade next years two or three thanks to the Cromartie deal. To trade Jackson would be to hurt Rivers.
This conversation has developed into something like beating my head against a wall...repeatedly
Not much more can be said on this topic, but if we do keep Jackson I am interested in seeing how our offense performs during the first four weeks (assuming that’s his suspension period). Short of actually trading him it’ll be the best stick by which to measure whose logic is more “right” in this debate.
I went back and tried to find your own opinion. And I think I understand where you yourself are coming from. The problem I have is presuming that trading VJ will actually result in a pick(s) that will fix either our running game and or Dline.
That could happen yes. But that pick (those picks) could just as likely turn out to be a waste of a good roster spot. It’s my opinion that trading him at this point makes no sense because there’s no indication (even with his off field accomplishments) that he’s not in the Chargers longterm plans and he’s really good.
I personally think it makes more sense for a team to trade a guy when the players value to his team is much lower than his value to someone else’s team. The only condition (that I personally) feel results in this, is when a player doesnt fit into the longterm plans of an organization; for whatever reasons financial, off the field, scheme, or otherwise.
Using the assumption that the depth at WR creates the condition where VJs value to us is significantly less than it would be to another interested party, I just dont agree with.
The more I’ve thought about it the closer I’ve found myself in agreement you. At this point VJ would fit very nicely in our long term plans and keeping him would be ideal, although not at the expense of our D front and running game failing to improve. I do realize these are not mutually exclusive and see there are many ways in which our Chargers should be able to meet our needs both in the short and long runs and hold onto our key pieces such as Jackson. I trust AJ to make the best decision for the team, whatever that ends up being, but I really, really don’t want to see a team with the same problems as ’09 take the field in ’10.
Its my opinion that you will see an improved run game; I re watched all the games (except two that my girlfriend erased) and I think a young back will change a lot even with the same Oline. With the defense I have no clue, watching the Chargers D in 2009 was just strange. It did seem to get better towards the end, but something was very much lacking.
A play maker I guess, even though its a over used term. All I really want from the 2010 draft is a difference maker on defense, I dont care if its a ILB, S, DT or DE.
Trading VJ a mistake
Mostly because I don’t see anyone on the roster now that can adequately replace him and draft picks you just never know (see Buster’s inability to stay on the field). And like others have said, the connection between him and the best QB in the game is just too hot right now to mess with.
I also think AJ believes he drafted Jamaal’s replacement last year, so I doubt we’ll see a high pick used at DT. Love Jamaal, but at 34 with bad knees, can’t keep that number on the payroll. Get ready to see lots of Martin.
Sproles, if they can get a couple draft picks for him I’d make that trade in a heart beat. $7.2 is a lot of money to pay a bit player. That’s every down very good RB money. Love the guy, but from a business stand point, no way he’s worth that.
My bet is, we’ll see the RB draft that AJ has already admitted to or possibly a DB in the Jammer mold that won’t pull a Deion Sanders ole move on anyone coming near him (yeah, I’m one of the ones who applauded Cro’s departure). Maybe a RT in the 3rd or 4th and then reloading the back up depth with the later rounds.
Is the VJ suspension a done deal? Or is this just some speculation going on?
Martin is a DE.
Not a nose tackle.
"I aim to misbehave." - Mal Reynolds
by Zach (maestro876) on Mar 8, 2010 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
That could change, it’ll be interesting to possibly see the continuation of the rotating scrub fest that it our Dline. I also dont believe we will draft a Dlinemen high.
true
Martin does (did) have the size for NT, although the Chargers have always said he is a DE. I agree that there is a chance he will be an NT before long.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 9, 2010 8:05 AM PST up reply actions
VJ's suspension is a very strong possibility
almost for sure. Only real question is 2 or 4 games.
by Stephen (shaynes41) on Mar 8, 2010 3:40 PM PST up reply actions
I would be very surprised
if it is more than 2 games. In fact I am predicting a one game suspension (yes, I said one). But then again I have been surprised before.
The Allen suspension
was originally anounced as four games, but the NFL later reduced it to a two game suspension. He did have to miss two games though, so time will tell.
To reduce it
VJ will have to enter an alcohol treatment program, I assume. Can’t imagine why he wouldn’t though.
I'm the first person to admit that I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I'm going to be the last person to admit I'm wrong about what we're currently talking about.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
Winner.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
by Richard Wade on Mar 10, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions




















