Did AJ Smith "win" with the way he handled Jackson? (1 Viewer)

[Sabertooth]

AJ Smith's stance on Vjax was basically we don't need you. The record certainly isn't bearing that out. He will get nothing in return for Jackson except possibly a compensatory pick which I've read Jackson is going to structure a contract to minimize this. So maybe a 5th rounder or so. This is a team that has already lost more games than last season and probably won't make the playoffs. So did he handle it properly? Is getting your way more important than wins? How does the Chargers fan base judge him? I think he royally bagged this up.

 

[JbizzleMan]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

 

[belljr]

Personally I think both sides "lost" on this issue

 

[Sabertooth]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

 

[JbizzleMan]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

 

[Sabertooth]

Personally I think both sides "lost" on this issue

I agree. A lose lose proposition if I ever saw one. At least in the short term.

 

[Donsmith753]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

"They are losing without him"

is totally different to "they are losing because they are without him."

 

[Sabertooth]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

"They are losing without him"

is totally different to "they are losing because they are without him."

Not totally different. So are you saying that they wouldn't be winning even with a stud WR?

 

[Sabertooth]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

So do you have an opinion?

 

[JbizzleMan]

 

[greenroom]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

I have watched the Chargers games and there is something missing. Is it on VJ only.. NO but it is a part of the problem. You don't think the black cloud of the missing RFA's and all the questions they had to answer about why they are no there works against the team?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

It's still a little early, but there were definitely two CLOSE games where Jackson could easily have made a difference (some of those balls Buster dropped in critical situations would probably have been thrown to Jackson). COULD be the difference between 2-4 and 4-2.

Also folks like to point out that ALL the problems are special teams (I never believe the reasons for a 2-4 are that simple), but even there, you have to wonder about the trickle down effect of not having Jackson. If Jackson is there, Nanee would not have been starting at WR for example. If he wasn't starting, would he have been playing special teams (or more special teams - not sure if he has played there this year but I know he used to be a VERY effective special teams guy). Would he have been injured?

Bottom line, the "offense" is doing well, so in that sense you can claim they don't "need" him.

The other bottom line is that the team isn't winning, and they were winning last year when they had him.

Both are solid arguments. I put more credence in the 2nd one.

 

[Sabertooth]

It's still a little early, but there were definitely two CLOSE games where Jackson could easily have made a difference (some of those balls Buster dropped in critical situations would probably have been thrown to Jackson). COULD be the difference between 2-4 and 4-2.Also folks like to point out that ALL the problems are special teams (I never believe the reasons for a 2-4 are that simple), but even there, you have to wonder about the trickle down effect of not having Jackson. If Jackson is there, Nanee would not have been starting at WR for example. If he wasn't starting, would he have been playing special teams (or more special teams - not sure if he has played there this year but I know he used to be a VERY effective special teams guy). Would he have been injured?Bottom line, the "offense" is doing well, so in that sense you can claim they don't "need" him.The other bottom line is that the team isn't winning, and they were winning last year when they had him.Both are solid arguments. I put more credence in the 2nd one.

I agree. It is all about wins. And blame. I think the blame for failing to work with Jackson falls squarely on Smith's shoulders. But my question is this "was Smith's strategy a good one and did it "work?"

 

[Football Critic]

Personally I think both sides "lost" on this issue

AJ Smith is a horrid GM however.

 

[fsufan]

may just be that recycled coach Norv

 

[habsfan]

It's still a little early, but there were definitely two CLOSE games where Jackson could easily have made a difference (some of those balls Buster dropped in critical situations would probably have been thrown to Jackson). COULD be the difference between 2-4 and 4-2.Also folks like to point out that ALL the problems are special teams (I never believe the reasons for a 2-4 are that simple), but even there, you have to wonder about the trickle down effect of not having Jackson. If Jackson is there, Nanee would not have been starting at WR for example. If he wasn't starting, would he have been playing special teams (or more special teams - not sure if he has played there this year but I know he used to be a VERY effective special teams guy). Would he have been injured?Bottom line, the "offense" is doing well, so in that sense you can claim they don't "need" him.The other bottom line is that the team isn't winning, and they were winning last year when they had him.Both are solid arguments. I put more credence in the 2nd one.

I agree. It is all about wins. And blame. I think the blame for failing to work with Jackson falls squarely on Smith's shoulders. But my question is this "was Smith's strategy a good one and did it "work?"

When I think of "did it work?", I think, "Will this reduce or eliminate the number of unhappy SD players holding out for more money in the future"? I think the answer is "no" so obviously it accomplished nothing apart from bringing scrutiny on his judgment for this and any number of other situations. LT2's rebirth in NY is another straw on the camel's back as well...

 

[Leroy Hoard]

AJ Smith is a horrid GM

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't think Smith will ever admit this, and he certainly appears to be too stubborn to learn from his mistakes, but his actions with VJax have actually made it more likely that future players will hold out IMO. If I were a player I'd be more than happy to test him again (as soon as possible in fact) knowing that his credibility with the public, press and possibly staff in SD has taken a major hit.

 

[Gopher State]

AJ Smith's stance on Vjax was basically we don't need you. The record certainly isn't bearing that out. He will get nothing in return for Jackson except possibly a compensatory pick which I've read Jackson is going to structure a contract to minimize this. So maybe a 5th rounder or so. This is a team that has already lost more games than last season and probably won't make the playoffs. So did he handle it properly? Is getting your way more important than wins? How does the Chargers fan base judge him? I think he royally bagged this up.

Lots G.M.'s stick to their guns in these matters. Look at Green Bay T.T. flushing the packers season down the toilet because he refused to trade for Lynch or any other RB. I don't think the packers make the playoffs either. Are draft picks more important then winning now? I think T.T. is above the team winning. I think T.T. and Smith are in the same boat, and I feel sorry for fans of both teams.

 

[G-Money]

Chargers are #5 in total team offense. They are #19 in team defense. Is V-Jax playing defense these days? While not having V-Jax there obviously hurts, the Chargers have bigger issues (IMO).

 

[Sabertooth]

AJ Smith's stance on Vjax was basically we don't need you. The record certainly isn't bearing that out. He will get nothing in return for Jackson except possibly a compensatory pick which I've read Jackson is going to structure a contract to minimize this. So maybe a 5th rounder or so. This is a team that has already lost more games than last season and probably won't make the playoffs. So did he handle it properly? Is getting your way more important than wins? How does the Chargers fan base judge him? I think he royally bagged this up.

Lots G.M.'s stick to their guns in these matters. Look at Green Bay T.T. flushing the packers season down the toilet because he refused to trade for Lynch or any other RB. I don't think the packers make the playoffs either. Are draft picks more important then winning now? I think T.T. is above the team winning. I think T.T. and Smith are in the same boat, and I feel sorry for fans of both teams.

Lynch may or may not have helped. The bigger issues with Green Bay is that their entire pass rush is generated by one guy. The didn't even get a hand on Henne's jersey last week, not even close. But I do agree that both GMs are similar. They have a plan and stick to it, consequences be damned. They believe their way is the "right" way. They don't really seem to care about the "most effective" way to win Super Bowls. Both have flawed plans that will eventually cost them their jobs.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's still a little early, but there were definitely two CLOSE games where Jackson could easily have made a difference (some of those balls Buster dropped in critical situations would probably have been thrown to Jackson). COULD be the difference between 2-4 and 4-2.

Wouldn't Vjax have been sitting out those two games for his suspension anyway?

The other bottom line is that the team isn't winning, and they were winning last year when they had him.

They started 2-3 last year with Vjax. And the same the year before that. And the same the year before that.

 

[Tau837]

1. VJax wouldn't have played in the first two losses, regardless, so he could only have helped in the last two losses.

2. The Chargers have started 2-3 every year under Norv, and Jackson played in those games in prior years, so that pattern suggests that it may have happened regardless. This is one reason that it would be better to wait until the season has played out to discuss this.

3. There is no way to predict in advance that Gates, Floyd, and Naanee would all get hurt at the same time and miss the majority of one of those losses. Clearly, Jackson would have helped this week because of the injuries, but hindsight is 20/20, and that IMO is a poor reason for calling out Smith on this decision.

4. The offense, and most specifically the passing offense, has played well this season.

5. This question implies that the only right answer was to sign Jackson long term to play for the Chargers (as opposed to trading him). That didn't happen because Smith doesn't believe Jackson is worth the money he wants to be signed long term. IMO it is obviously far too early to tell if Smith is right or wrong on that. It really was a long term decision but this thread is asking a short term question. Apples and oranges.

All that suggests that A.J. has not (yet) been proven wrong on how he handled this situation. Now, if the thread question was instead "would Jackson have made a difference in either of the two Chargers losses he could have played in?" I would answer that there is a very good chance he would have.

 

[Tau837]

It's still a little early, but there were definitely two CLOSE games where Jackson could easily have made a difference (some of those balls Buster dropped in critical situations would probably have been thrown to Jackson). COULD be the difference between 2-4 and 4-2.

Wouldn't Vjax have been sitting out those two games for his suspension anyway?

No. Davis dropped balls in the last two losses, not the first two. Well, maybe he dropped some in the first two as well, not sure... but I know for a fact that he dropped some critical passes in the last two losses.

 

[Tau837]

AJ Smith's stance on Vjax was basically we don't need you. The record certainly isn't bearing that out. He will get nothing in return for Jackson except possibly a compensatory pick which I've read Jackson is going to structure a contract to minimize this. So maybe a 5th rounder or so. This is a team that has already lost more games than last season and probably won't make the playoffs. So did he handle it properly? Is getting your way more important than wins? How does the Chargers fan base judge him? I think he royally bagged this up.

Lots G.M.'s stick to their guns in these matters. Look at Green Bay T.T. flushing the packers season down the toilet because he refused to trade for Lynch or any other RB. I don't think the packers make the playoffs either. Are draft picks more important then winning now? I think T.T. is above the team winning. I think T.T. and Smith are in the same boat, and I feel sorry for fans of both teams.

Lynch may or may not have helped. The bigger issues with Green Bay is that their entire pass rush is generated by one guy. The didn't even get a hand on Henne's jersey last week, not even close. But I do agree that both GMs are similar. They have a plan and stick to it, consequences be damned. They believe their way is the "right" way. They don't really seem to care about the "most effective" way to win Super Bowls. Both have flawed plans that will eventually cost them their jobs.

Interesting that you used the bolded phrase. San Diego has bigger issues than Jackson as well.

 

[Reaper]

YES, AJ WINS!!!

My opinion is that the Agents for VJ are Ball Busters and I think a lot of people in the league are catching on.....

It's one thing for the Jets to grit their teeth and hold thir noses and somewhat give in to get Darrelle Revis in the fold but, here you have a WR with off the field issues added to the mix. No way the Jets would have caved in for VJ the same way.

I'll be real curious to see the team and deal VJ get next year and what players his deal comps out to.

I think you could see through Hard Knocks the absolute frustration the Jets brass had with any conversation with Neil Schwartz and Co.... The Jets went through this before with Pete Kendall... Again, a guy with a relatively new deal where the agent all of a sudden sees the market rise and claims the team lied and made promises somehpw not in the deal they just signed.. HUH?? Why would any team do that??? ... They got Kendall out of NY and got him paid by 2 teams in the process, they saw that opportunity and got the player to believe their BS and went for the gold.

IMO, other than Revis, we will never see a significant Neil Schwartz player on the Jets again... And I'd make a small bet that San Diego won't be drafting or trading for a Schwartz player either...

When it's time for the NFL draft and doing mocks, I'll have a list of Schwartz players and I'll be betting they fall and never go to NYJ, SDC and possibly ATL with their Roddy White dealings.

Regardless of what VJ is as a player and regardless of what people think of the SD front office, I think Neil Schwartz is borderline irrational in his demands and his regard for THE PLAYER. Does he regret Revis being out of shape right now? Probably not, he got PAID.

Personally, I think SD played it right...

 

[Holy Schneikes]

5. This question implies that the only right answer was to sign Jackson long term to play for the Chargers (as opposed to trading him). That didn't happen because Smith doesn't believe Jackson is worth the money he wants to be signed long term. IMO it is obviously far too early to tell if Smith is right or wrong on that. It really was a long term decision but this thread is asking a short term question. Apples and oranges.

I actually think he could very easily have given Jackson a reasonable one year deal and none of this would have been an issue. I've never said they should have signed him to a mega-deal. He just should have received a fair offer (one year offer if that's the direction they wanted to take). Instead, AJ used a unique situation to his team's "advantage" and played hardball with Jackson, saying take or leave it. Jackson left it, and I would have too. It was a BS "offer".Instead, AJ gives Sproles $7M for one year (again). In the last two years Sproles has made over 4 times what Jackson has made in his 5 year career. Would that sit well with you if you were Jackson and you were just offered the minimum required 1st round tender of $3.2 again this year and told to take it or leave it?I picked Sproles for comparison because SD special teams are so good.

 

[Sabertooth]

AJ Smith's stance on Vjax was basically we don't need you. The record certainly isn't bearing that out. He will get nothing in return for Jackson except possibly a compensatory pick which I've read Jackson is going to structure a contract to minimize this. So maybe a 5th rounder or so. This is a team that has already lost more games than last season and probably won't make the playoffs. So did he handle it properly? Is getting your way more important than wins? How does the Chargers fan base judge him? I think he royally bagged this up.

Lots G.M.'s stick to their guns in these matters. Look at Green Bay T.T. flushing the packers season down the toilet because he refused to trade for Lynch or any other RB. I don't think the packers make the playoffs either. Are draft picks more important then winning now? I think T.T. is above the team winning. I think T.T. and Smith are in the same boat, and I feel sorry for fans of both teams.

Lynch may or may not have helped. The bigger issues with Green Bay is that their entire pass rush is generated by one guy. The didn't even get a hand on Henne's jersey last week, not even close. But I do agree that both GMs are similar. They have a plan and stick to it, consequences be damned. They believe their way is the "right" way. They don't really seem to care about the "most effective" way to win Super Bowls. Both have flawed plans that will eventually cost them their jobs.

Interesting that you used the bolded phrase. San Diego has bigger issues than Jackson as well.

Whaqt are the bigger issues. You are the second person to mention that.

 

[omahabrad]

I think AJ lost this battle. He turned it from contract negotiations into a pissing match. I believe he will feel the effects from this longer than Vincent will.

I don't see how Vincent loses in this. He gave up 3 million to make 7 million. Looks like a good business decission to me.

 

[Traders2001]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

"They are losing without him"

is totally different to "they are losing because they are without him."

They would be losing as much with him .

They have no defense..

 

[Yenrub]

Chargers are #5 in total team offense. They are #19 in team defense. Is V-Jax playing defense these days? While not having V-Jax there obviously hurts, the Chargers have bigger issues (IMO).

So maybe they should have traded VJ for some defensive or special teams help (assuming some team was willing to trade with them)

 

[Hang 10]

5. This question implies that the only right answer was to sign Jackson long term to play for the Chargers (as opposed to trading him). That didn't happen because Smith doesn't believe Jackson is worth the money he wants to be signed long term. IMO it is obviously far too early to tell if Smith is right or wrong on that. It really was a long term decision but this thread is asking a short term question. Apples and oranges.

I actually think he could very easily have given Jackson a reasonable one year deal and none of this would have been an issue. I've never said they should have signed him to a mega-deal. He just should have received a fair offer (one year offer if that's the direction they wanted to take). Instead, AJ used a unique situation to his team's "advantage" and played hardball with Jackson, saying take or leave it. Jackson left it, and I would have too. It was a BS "offer".Instead, AJ gives Sproles $7M for one year (again). In the last two years Sproles has made over 4 times what Jackson has made in his 5 year career. Would that sit well with you if you were Jackson and you were just offered the minimum required 1st round tender of $3.2 again this year and told to take it or leave it?I picked Sproles for comparison because SD special teams are so good.

 

[David Yudkin]

SD's defense has been shaky at times. SD's special teams has been HORRID at times. They are near the bottom of the league in turnover differential. And their running game has been much better than last year without Jackson in the lineup. Oh, and they are #1 in the league in passing yards and #2 in passing TD. Their expected record based on their team stats should be 4-2. I'm not sure you can pin the Chargers slow start on missing Jackson.

 

[todisco1]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

I've watched every Charger's game. I think they may have won one or more of the games they lost if VJax was in there.

 

[David Yudkin]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

I've watched every Charger's game. I think they may have won one or more of the games they lost if VJax was in there.

As others have already pointed out, Jackson would have been suspended for half their games to this point regardless if he had a new contract or not. The Chargers are have 1,000+ more yards this year than their opposition. I don't see how Jackson would have made an impact in the areas that have been a concern so far.

 

[ldizzle]

IMHO it remains to be seen. If/When he comes back and the passing offense looks unstoppable with him in the lineup then yes AJ lost. otherwise here are the stats for their first 6 games starting:

Malcom Floyd: 24/513/3 TD

Vincent Jackson: 29/561/4 TD



Are the Chargers woes because their missing VJ or because their special teams SUCK and have been giving up blocked kicks, & punt and kick off returns?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Im sure in AJs mind he won.

########

 

[Hang 10]

So, in the end, if you think the Chargers offense doesn't miss Jackson, why didn't Smith just trade him for max value a month ago? Oh, that's right...he's a stubborn jackass.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I don't think it is as simple as saying, "The Chargers are 2-4 because they don't have Vincent Jackson," but they definitely could have benefited by his presence.

Look at the end of the Seattle game. Down 27-20, the offense drove down to the red zone twice in the last five minutes, failing to score each time. Could Jackson have made a difference there? Absolutely. IIRC, Gates was double-covered there and none of the other receivers were able to make a play. Put Jackson in there and he is either facing single coverage, or he is doubled and Gates is facing single coverage. Anyone think their chances of scoring on either of those drives goes up a lot, given those possible scenarios?

I also don't think their top ranking in total offense really matters here. Racking up a lot of yards in losses because you are always playing from behind, but failing to actually score a lot despite all of those yards, makes that high ranking a bit meaningless. Dallas is top 5 in total offense AND total defense, yet are 1-4. See how meaningless those rankings can be? The Chargers 79 points in their two wins is nice, but 78 points in four losses is not.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

I've watched every Charger's game. I think they may have won one or more of the games they lost if VJax was in there.

As others have already pointed out, Jackson would have been suspended for half their games to this point regardless if he had a new contract or not. The Chargers are have 1,000+ more yards this year than their opposition. I don't see how Jackson would have made an impact in the areas that have been a concern so far.

They could have won their last two games with Jackson on the team. Nobody is talking about the early losses. Both the Rams game and the Oakland game featured dropped passes by mediocre (at best) receivers in crunch-time. One more late first 1st down could EASILY have changed the outcome of either or both of those games. There is no guarantee of course, but many homers have mentioned that having Jackson would have helped.Just because the offense hasn't been the PRIMARY problem for the team, doesn't mean having a BETTER offense wouldn't have helped them in close games. Plus, as I mentioned before, it's POSSIBLE even the special teams might have been better if Jackson was one the roster due to trickle down of the receivers.

 

[Koya]

I guess the Manning family's concerns were more than legit back when he forced SD hand to trade him away. Seems like a lot of players end up feeling and/or being treated poorly and the result is a team that had all the chance in the world to make some SB runs fighting for mediocrity. Combine how they handle players with the coaching and we are talking about a very poorly run franchise.

 

[Sabertooth]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

Watch a game before you start another thread on the subject.

I've watched every Charger's game. I think they may have won one or more of the games they lost if VJax was in there.

As others have already pointed out, Jackson would have been suspended for half their games to this point regardless if he had a new contract or not. The Chargers are have 1,000+ more yards this year than their opposition. I don't see how Jackson would have made an impact in the areas that have been a concern so far.

They are good on offense, but not good enough to compensate for their defense. Maybe having a Pro Bowl receiver in there would help them score even more points. But my question is a bit more big picture. Maybe I stated it poorly. Is this team better off for AJ having handled the situation as he did?

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Bad coaching, bad special teams, underachieving defense.

That's why they are 2-4, and VJ fixes none of it.

 

[Sabertooth]

IMHO it remains to be seen. If/When he comes back and the passing offense looks unstoppable with him in the lineup then yes AJ lost. otherwise here are the stats for their first 6 games starting:Malcom Floyd: 24/513/3 TDVincent Jackson: 29/561/4 TD Are the Chargers woes because their missing VJ or because their special teams SUCK and have been giving up blocked kicks, & punt and kick off returns?

Well, if that extra TD would have happened in this last game, they'd have one more win. Just sayin.

 

[Sabertooth]

Bad coaching, bad special teams, underachieving defense.That's why they are 2-4, and VJ fixes none of it.

No. They are 2-4 because they got outscored in 4 games. VJ could help with that. We could do this all day.

 

[JbizzleMan]

Quit feeding the troll.

 

[Tau837]

AJ Smith's stance on Vjax was basically we don't need you. The record certainly isn't bearing that out. He will get nothing in return for Jackson except possibly a compensatory pick which I've read Jackson is going to structure a contract to minimize this. So maybe a 5th rounder or so. This is a team that has already lost more games than last season and probably won't make the playoffs. So did he handle it properly? Is getting your way more important than wins? How does the Chargers fan base judge him? I think he royally bagged this up.

Lots G.M.'s stick to their guns in these matters. Look at Green Bay T.T. flushing the packers season down the toilet because he refused to trade for Lynch or any other RB. I don't think the packers make the playoffs either. Are draft picks more important then winning now? I think T.T. is above the team winning. I think T.T. and Smith are in the same boat, and I feel sorry for fans of both teams.

Lynch may or may not have helped. The bigger issues with Green Bay is that their entire pass rush is generated by one guy. The didn't even get a hand on Henne's jersey last week, not even close. But I do agree that both GMs are similar. They have a plan and stick to it, consequences be damned. They believe their way is the "right" way. They don't really seem to care about the "most effective" way to win Super Bowls. Both have flawed plans that will eventually cost them their jobs.

Interesting that you used the bolded phrase. San Diego has bigger issues than Jackson as well.

Whaqt are the bigger issues. You are the second person to mention that.

Obviously special teams was an issue in the first three losses. You speculated earlier that if Jackson was playing, the trickle down effect would have made a difference there. I think that is nothing but speculation with no real basis in fact, and is very unlikely true. And irrelevant for the first two of those losses, since they occurred in games Jackson would have missed due to suspension.Motivation/preparation appears to be an issue with the team in general, just as it has been the past three seasons under Norv. Jackson played to open those seasons and didn't keep the team from opening 2-3, so it doesn't appear that he would have had much of an effect on that.

The offense is currently #1 in yards per game and #5 in points per game, despite injuries to Mathews, Gates, Floyd, and Naanee so far. Jackson would definitely help given the injuries, but that is not foreseeable. In general, offense has not been a big problem for the Chargers thus far.

 

[Ghost Rider]

In general, offense has not been a big problem for the Chargers thus far.

19.5 points per game in losses is not exactly impressive. 3 points in the first half against the Rams.0 points in the first half against the Seahawks. That is a problem the Chargers have had for years: the offense starts off terrible, and then piles up tons of yards making a furious comeback, but this year, all of those yards aren't translating to enough points to win games they fall behind early in.

 

[Tau837]

how many times does it need to be said? Chargers are not losing because they are missing VJ.

They certainly aren't winning without him. So that leaves losing.

"They are losing without him"

is totally different to "they are losing because they are without him."

They would be losing as much with him .

They have no defense..

Their defense is currently #1 in the NFL in yards allowed per game. While I don't think they are as good as that ranking, it's not like they are horrible.The team has given up 126 points in 6 games, but 30 of those points were given up on special teams and 14 of those points were returned fumbles by the offense. So the defense has only given up 82 points in 6 games - less than 14 points per game. Part of that is due to fewer possessions for the opponent as a result of those 6 return TDs, but the truth is that the defense has played pretty well.

All of these return TDs against seem a bit unlucky, flukish, and/or correctable. So there is reason to believe the Chargers are better than their record and could still turn it around, with or without Jackson.

 

[Tau837]

Chargers are #5 in total team offense. They are #19 in team defense. Is V-Jax playing defense these days? While not having V-Jax there obviously hurts, the Chargers have bigger issues (IMO).

So maybe they should have traded VJ for some defensive or special teams help (assuming some team was willing to trade with them)

The #19 ranking is based on ppg, which as I just showed is misleading. The defense has played well enough to have a much better record.Special teams is another story.