Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Did AJ Smith "win" with the way he handled Jackson? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sabertooth
- Start date
Tau837
Footballguy
I agree.
He would have missed the Seattle game regardless due to suspension.
FFdork
Footballguy
Exactly. Arguing about whether the Chargers would have a better record with or without Jackson is kind of missing the point IMO. The point is they haven't had him for most of the season and now they will get very little in return when he goes somewhere else. It's hard to argue they're worse if they have another talented receiver on the roster (they could certainly use him this week, for instance), but more importantly they could have gotten a decent draft pick back for him.
I do honestly think that Smith is now a detriment to the Chargers getting and keeping good players. Even if he 'won' in his own little battle of wills with Jackson, he still lost because this is the latest in a long list of "stubborn jackass" moves.
Tau837
Footballguy
A lot of players like who? Tomlinson and Jackson and who else?
Brees, Sproles and Meriman
Tau837
Footballguy
As I already stated, you are asking for a short term assessment on a decision A.J. made for the long term. A decision can have poor short term results and good long term results. It's too early to tell. 2 losses are not the determining factor for whether or not it was a good decision.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Michael Turner
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
That was me and it was TOTAL speculation, but maybe you can shed some light. I was thinking of Naanee primarily. It seems like he was regarded as a special teams standout in the past. Is he playing special teams this year (or was he before he got hurt)? Did he play on special teams in 2009? Did he play well?I honestly don't know the answer to some of those questions - just basing it on my spotty memory. But if he really was on special teams in 2009 and is not in 2010, it seems like that would be a fairly clear case of ST losing a playmaker they could have really used so far in 2010.It's a bit of a stretch I admit. But not EVERY effect a player has on a team shows up in a box score (or net passing stats) - we all know that. A football team's depth DOES matter, and when you take out a guy at the top of the depth chart, you can't just look at his replacement and compare the two. You have to then look at who replaced his replacement etc, all the way down the line - which usually ends with special teams.
EasilyObviously the team has multiple problems, but even with all the problems, the team has been CLOSE.
In 3 of the 4 losses, they had a chance to tie/win the game with a 4th quarter drive and couldn't punch it in.
Might not their leading receiver have helped in such a situation?
In the end, the OFFENSE FAILED to do their job when they had to.
Last year Rivers had four 4th quarter comebacks/game-winning drives. This year he has zero.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
And again, the short-term/long-term thing isn't that simple. There were other options, like pay the guy Sproles $7M (which Gates reported agreed to play for on another team). That would be a short term decision with good short term results and NO long term results (except maybe a better reputation among FAs going forward).
Tau837
Footballguy
Unfortunately, the Chargers fumbled three times in the first half against the Seahawks. Don't see how Jackson would have changed that. Besides which, he wouldn't have played in that game.The Rams showing was definitely disappointing, but that had quite a bit to do with the OL not protecting Rivers in the first half (5 sacks IIRC) and injuries. Not sure how Jackson would have changed that.
Tau837
Footballguy
Do you have any links to Brees and Sproles saying they were treated poorly? Or is this just speculation on your part?To the contrary on Sproles, he should be the happiest guy who ever played for Smith, having gotten two consecutive unjustified franchise tags and the accompanying huge salaries.
Merriman definitely isn't happy, but don't you think Smith has been right on Merriman? He has been a bust since his injury. It's just sour grapes on Merriman's part IMO.
Aside from all that, does a few players constitute "a lot"? Don't most teams have a few players who haven't been happy with how their particular situations were handled?
Tau837
Footballguy
Link to Turner feeling he was treated poorly?
Hang 10
Footballguy
Never said he was treated poorly. But Smith definitely handled Turner's departure poorly. He could have traded him for a decent draft pick but instead wouldn't budge on a 1st & 3rd for him (sound familiar?) and then ended up getting little to nothing after Turner bolted for free agency.
At the time Sproles wasn't happy with the Franchise tag.Do you have a link saying they are or were happy with him? Or is that speculation on your part?
I bet they are happy to be out of San Deigo or will be when they are out of San Diego.
Jackson and the Chargers would both have been better off if Jackson had signed his $3.3 million tender. Jackson would also have been better off if the Chargers had given him a lot more money. I'm not sure whether the Chargers would have been.
So the fact that Jackson didn't sign his original tender means that both sides lost. The question is who was less reasonable: Smith, for making the highest qualifying RFA tender and sticking to it, or Jackson for refusing to sign it? My vote is for the second option by quite a bit.
Comparing Jackson's offer to Sproles' is inapt since Jackson is an RFA and Sproles is a UFA. That makes a huge difference.
It feels like we've had this discussion before.
So the fact that Jackson didn't sign his original tender means that both sides lost. The question is who was less reasonable: Smith, for making the highest qualifying RFA tender and sticking to it, or Jackson for refusing to sign it? My vote is for the second option by quite a bit.
Comparing Jackson's offer to Sproles' is inapt since Jackson is an RFA and Sproles is a UFA. That makes a huge difference.
It feels like we've had this discussion before.
Last edited by a moderator:
You keep posing these false dichotomies.Even if VJ couldn't have helped with the sacks, he could have helped in other areas, helped enough to overcome the sacks and still win.However in this case it's even simpler. A good number of the sacks were practically coverage sacks. If VJ could have gotten free, unlike the other receivers, Rivers would have been able to get rid of the ball in time and avoid the sack.
I suppose it depends on how much winning a game is worth to you . . .
Yes, it's a short-term vs. long-term question.
Phurfur
Footballguy
Jackson is over rated. M Floyd has shown us that. How many wins do you think Jackson would have added?Let's not forget his outrages salary demands.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Look at the series of posts. It started with Koya saying a lot of players end up feeling and/or being treated poorly. (Unfortunately not included here due to quote restrictions.) If you aren't saying Turner was treated poorly, why did you respond with his name?
Tau837
Footballguy
I didn't make the original claim, which was Koya saying a lot of players have ended feeling they were treated poorly. Since that was the claim, that is the statement that needs to be justified. In the absence of any evidence that players feel that way, it seems reasonable to say that there is no real basis for that claim.As for Sproles, I suspect he'll end up pocketing more money through two straight franchise tags and his next contract than he would have through the UFA route a few years ago. Even if he signed a bigger deal, I doubt he would have seen all the money... unless he played a lot better for that other team than he has during the past two years. He would be foolish to be unhappy about the situation IMO.
Tau837
Footballguy
I thought you were just talking about paying more for this season? (Say the $6 million the Vikes supposedly offered)I guess I'm missing the long-term impact of that.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
No, it's not. $6M or $7M would have gotten it done. One year, no long term commitment was necessary. Just one reasonable salary for one year.RFA or no RFA, two parties determine what a reasonable salary is when there is no contract. AJ didn't come with a reasonable salary. He came with enough to retain his rights according to the CBA, he didn't come with enough to make it happen when he easily could have.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Poorly treated...poorly handled. Seemed to fit into the AJ Smith discussion.
geoff8695
Footballguy
Short-term: 2010 Chargers are better with VJ than without him
Long-term: the Chargers of 2011 and beyond would have been better off by accepting guaranteed higher compensation via trade for Jackson than what they risk when he walks.
No matter how you look at this, short or long-term, I can't envision a scenario in which Chargers fans are best served by the way this ugly situation has played itself out. You are certainly justified in blaming the player and his agent for their choices, but the GM also bears scrutiny for stubbornly sticking to a course of action that appears to be a lose-lose, rather than in the best interests of the team. So call it a choice between short and long-term if you like. However, short-term or long-term the Chargers are worse off for the decisions that their GM has made concerning VJ...
Long-term: the Chargers of 2011 and beyond would have been better off by accepting guaranteed higher compensation via trade for Jackson than what they risk when he walks.
No matter how you look at this, short or long-term, I can't envision a scenario in which Chargers fans are best served by the way this ugly situation has played itself out. You are certainly justified in blaming the player and his agent for their choices, but the GM also bears scrutiny for stubbornly sticking to a course of action that appears to be a lose-lose, rather than in the best interests of the team. So call it a choice between short and long-term if you like. However, short-term or long-term the Chargers are worse off for the decisions that their GM has made concerning VJ...
Tau837
Footballguy
Well, in this case, the post you quoted was responding to the point that the Chargers scored 0 points in the first half against the Rams. I was offering reasons for that. Perhaps you believe Jackson would have made the difference in that context, but it wasn't a post related to the win/loss outcome of the game.Look, I said in my first post in the thread that I think it is very possible that Jackson would have been able to make a difference in one of the last two losses. I just think many people are overstating the likelihood of that. And other people here are really debating other issues that are different and larger scope than that narrow question of whether or not they could have won one or both of the last two losses with Jackson.
Counting the suspension? At least one.Not counting the suspension? At least two.However, you're comparing him to the wrong person. Instead of Floyd, you need to be comparing him to Naanee/Davis.
If other teams were willing to pay them, by definition they weren't outrageous.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Not sure how anyone could argue with this.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I think two games so far is what many believe might be possible, according to this thread and others.Jackson had no demands with respect to SD salary that we know of except that he wanted more than $3.2M. The reason we don't know what his demands might have been is that AJ refused to budge on the $3.2 he was required to give him to retain his rights or get a 1st and 3rd. Likely, his demands for a one year deal could have gotten down to as low as $6M which is what he agreed to become a Viking for.
Phurfur
Footballguy
It's a short-term versus long-term question. Over the long term, what is going to be your standard approach each season: to pay RFAs as if they were UFAs, or to pay them like RFAs? Once you make one exception, you'll be expected to do it again and again.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Floyd and Jackson together is better than Floyd alone...There should be no question there...This team, no matter how well the offense has done, would be better on offense with Jackson..Also, if they could have gotten by without him on offense, why not trade him for def/special teams players?AJ has made some bad decisions.. An asset that he refused to do what it took to capitalize on... wasted... That's part of the reason his team is 2-4 right now...But, for some reason, the record they had last year after 5 games means it was fate? Some Chargers Fans can come up with some ridiculous excuses.."AJ is a genius in the way he handled V-Jax"... "Boy he showed him"... "No one with question him again..."OK, so if a genius in the way he handled V-Jax, maybe just stupid in every other football decision he's made this year?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 TDAre 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?
That doesn't follow. Outrageousness is a matter of context. Other teams didn't have his RFA rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reaper
Footballguy
All goes back to my point about the Agent....
The other thing about the Agent is, it sounded to me like when/If Vjax tried to go elsewhere, his contract demands were the wrench in the deal.....
again, i can't wait to see the deal he gets, the team he goes to and how much better off he is overall by Not signing that tender.... Will he make up 3.3 Million? Answer me that Neil Schwartz.
Hang 10
Footballguy
Again, if Jackson wasn't worth what he was asking, why not trade him?
He reportedly wanted $50 million with — I forget, $28 million? — guaranteed. I.e., a bit more than Brandon Marshall money.
Because he's worth more than the $206,000 they'll end up paying him this season, so it's a good deal to keep him.And anyway, Jackson might be worth a zillion dollars as an unrestricted free agent. But since he's not an unrestricted free agent, that's immaterial. As a restricted free agent, the $3.3 million offer was quite reasonable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
You really think handling a 6th year RFA which there had never been before in the NFL and very possibly will never be again in the NFL, differently than other RFAs in more typical situations is going to drastically reduce his bargaining power with those standard RFAs in the future?The exception was already there, he doesn't have to MAKE one to pay the guy a reasonable salary (which by the way he just did with McNeill).If that's what you are gaining long-term by giving up definite draft picks in the near future and/or the services of a pro-bowl WR on 2-4 team that had high expectations, it's a pretty tough sell.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Of course he wanted that (I want it too). What we also know is what he is likely to have ACCEPTED - which was something on the level of $6M for one year. But again, we don't KNOW that, because AJ refused to budge on the $3.2M.
Correct. The Chargers would be a better team with Vincent Jackson in the lineup. They'd also be a better team with Tamba Hali, Troy Polamalu, and Damien Woody. But that doesn't mean it would be wise to do whatever it takes to get those players. There are longer-term concerns than just putting the best possible team on the field in 2010.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Brown
Footballguy
Hang 10
Footballguy
He's only a RFA because of some glitch in the collective bargaining agreement. He's a probowl WR. He's worth more than one year 3.2 million dollar deal. That's a fact.
Bargaining power isn't the right term, but yes, I think it would hurt the team's future negotiations. A team that treats RFAs like UFAs will not be successful over the long run, IMO.
Hang 10
Footballguy
That's what you think this situation was? A player demanding a raise?
Similar threads
