RUMOR: Seattle still "very interested" in Vincent Jackson (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

 

[nola]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

 

[kylechoffman]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...not-impossible/"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

 

[CrossEyed]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...not-impossible/"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

 

[footballnerd]

"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

Sounds like the perfect set up for a trade to NE

 

[BoltBacker]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...not-impossible/"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

No, but I think anyone trading for his rights are expecting him to be on their team for several seasons, not just this one.

 

[Ditka is God]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...not-impossible/"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

No, but I think anyone trading for his rights are expecting him to be on their team for several seasons, not just this one.

Or at least until he drives drunk again.

 

[CrossEyed]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...not-impossible/"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

No, but I think anyone trading for his rights are expecting him to be on their team for several seasons, not just this one.

But they could pursue him after this season and give up no picks.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

Correct. He can sign today, and he can be traded as soon as he signs. But he's not eligible to play until the fourth game after he signs. (He has to miss three games after he signs.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

No, but for 58 games they might.

 

[BoltBacker]

It's hard to argue because neither one of us knows if that's true or not.

If I was AJ and if VJ held value in the open market I don't know why they wouldn't franchise him. I don't see the players in a position to get rid of the franchise tag.

All that we know for sure is VJ and his agents said all summer that they were willing to sit out the season. As events unfolded it looks like... he may be sitting out the entire season. Now he and his agents are crying because he may sit out the entire season. So far they haven't planned this very well and don't be surprised if next off season doesn't go quite like they plan either. The players have a pretty poor bargaining position in the next CBA. The owners can sit back and cash network TV checks while the players watch the sands of their playing career wind down through the hour glass. VJ's in an even worse situation because his sand started before all the rest of the players.

 

[craxie]

If I was AJ and if VJ held value in the open market I don't know why they wouldn't franchise him.

If they can't get the price they want now, why would someone offer more after he sat out a year?plus the chargers are going to have a TON of UFAs next season. they might want to save the franchise tag for someone who will actually play for them

The owners can sit back and cash network TV checks

that is being challenged in court and i wouldn't be at all surprised to see it overturned

 

[BoltBacker]

If I was AJ and if VJ held value in the open market I don't know why they wouldn't franchise him.

If they can't get the price they want now, why would someone offer more after he sat out a year?plus the chargers are going to have a TON of UFAs next season. they might want to save the franchise tag for someone who will actually play for them

So you're saying Vincent Jackson is losing market value by sitting out the season? He and his agents are looking smarter and smarter with each passing day.If VJ chooses not to play for the franchise salary for one season that's his choice. In that case it wouldn't cost SD anything to franchise him because he wouldn't report.Who are the UFA that SD should fear losing that would be worth a franchise tag?

 

[geoff8695]

Sorry Charger fans - the chance to sell high on VJ has passed...

NE isn't going to give up anything close to what Min/Stl/Sea were reportedly willing to give up in order to acquire him (considering they valued having him ready to play as soon as week 5 or 6); and now his trade value is plummeting with every passing week, because the most he can possibly help a team for is 1/2 the season IF he were signed this week. Given the high asking price, missing at minimum 1/2 the 2010 season, and the fact that he's a FA going into 2011, and you've got several teams more than happy to wait until the offseason to bid on VJ without having to give up ANY precious draft picks at all. Minnesota solved their emergency and NE isn't facing the prospect of losing their franchise QB after this season to re-re-re-retirement. The market has dried up and the tables have turned on AJ. I guess he could lower his demands (and look pretty foolish for turning away better offers when he had the chance), but does anyone expect him to do that now, given his track record?

This all but guarantees that VJ is going to walk, and there isn't much AJ can do about it. MAYBE SD will get a compensatory pick in the 97-110 range in 2012 if they are lucky. However, VJ and his agent have already publicly stated they will go out of their way to structure his next contract in such a way to purposely ensure that any possible compensation will be MUCH lower than that.

But look on the bright side! Now that AJ has shown everyone his ginormous brass balls, I'm sure what the bolts have gained in future players not daring to challenge the front office's future contract offers, will ease the pain of missing out on a return of any significant value for Jackson.

 

[That Little Voice]

Sorry Charger fans - the chance to sell high on VJ has passed...NE isn't going to give up anything close to what Min/Stl/Sea were reportedly willing to give up in order to acquire him (considering they valued having him ready to play as soon as week 5 or 6); and now his trade value is plummeting with every passing week, because the most he can possibly help a team for is 1/2 the season IF he were signed this week. Given the high asking price, missing at minimum 1/2 the 2010 season, and the fact that he's a FA going into 2011, and you've got several teams more than happy to wait until the offseason to bid on VJ without having to give up ANY precious draft picks at all. Minnesota solved their emergency and NE isn't facing the prospect of losing their franchise QB after this season to re-re-re-retirement. The market has dried up and the tables have turned on AJ. I guess he could lower his demands (and look pretty foolish for turning away better offers when he had the chance), but does anyone expect him to do that now, given his track record?This all but guarantees that VJ is going to walk, and there isn't much AJ can do about it. MAYBE SD will get a compensatory pick in the 97-110 range in 2012 if they are lucky. However, VJ and his agent have already publicly stated they will go out of their way to structure his next contract in such a way to purposely ensure that any possible compensation will be MUCH lower than that.But look on the bright side! Now that AJ has shown everyone his ginormous brass balls, I'm sure what the bolts have gained in future players not daring to challenge the front office's future contract offers, will ease the pain of missing out on a return of any significant value for Jackson.

This is an outstanding post.

 

[craxie]

So you're saying Vincent Jackson is losing market value by sitting out the season? He and his agents are looking smarter and smarter with each passing day.

some, but much less than if he were injured this yearit's a risk vs reward thing

If VJ chooses not to play for the franchise salary for one season that's his choice. In that case it wouldn't cost SD anything to franchise him because he wouldn't report.

VJ would play for franchise money, which is yet another reason SD won't offer it to him

Who are the UFA that SD should fear losing that would be worth a franchise tag?

well considering they're willing to franchise Sproles, just about everyone VJ (probably won't be tagged)Merriman (probably won't be tagged)Sproles (better not be tagged again)ApplewhiteBurnettCesaireClaryCooperDombrowskiFloydTravis JohnsonRandy McMichaelMruczkowskiNaaneeNwagbuoJ.T. O'SullivanOliverSilerSpillmanVolekWeddleWilson

 

[Loan Sharks]

But look on the bright side! Now that AJ has shown everyone his ginormous brass balls, I'm sure what the bolts have gained in future players not daring to challenge the front office's future contract offers, will ease the pain of missing out on a return of any significant value for Jackson.

This is an outstanding post.

Vincent Jackson literally committed career suicide. Of course he will likely sign somewhere else down the road but a guy with 2 decent seasons in a system to be determined, without Philip Rivers where I seriously doubt he will be handed a #1 Wr role given his propensity for suspension and toolishness. = Fantasy Career OverNo one is going to entrust their livelyhood to this fool. The payoff to the SD management is money. AJ destroyed Jackson. I seriously doubt any player would ever ever challenge him in the future, as Vincent Jackson will become a cautionary tale that agents and players tell at mixers for years to come.

 

[craxie]

Vincent Jackson literally committed career suicide. Of course he will likely sign somewhere else down the road but a guy with 2 decent seasons in a system to be determined, without Philip Rivers where I seriously doubt he will be handed a #1 Wr role given his propensity for suspension and toolishness. = Fantasy Career Over

way to overreact VJ is tall, fast, strong, is a good blocker and has good hands, he'll be fine wherever he goesand of course he'll be free to sign with the situation that suits him best

The payoff to the SD management is money. AJ destroyed Jackson. I seriously doubt any player would ever ever challenge him in the future, as Vincent Jackson will become a cautionary tale that agents and players tell at mixers for years to come.

b/c as we know, SD cares far more about money than winning

 

[Loan Sharks]

Vincent Jackson literally committed career suicide. Of course he will likely sign somewhere else down the road but a guy with 2 decent seasons in a system to be determined, without Philip Rivers where I seriously doubt he will be handed a #1 Wr role given his propensity for suspension and toolishness. = Fantasy Career Over

way to overreact VJ is tall, fast, strong, is a good blocker and has good hands, he'll be fine wherever he goesand of course he'll be free to sign with the situation that suits him best

The payoff to the SD management is money. AJ destroyed Jackson. I seriously doubt any player would ever ever challenge him in the future, as Vincent Jackson will become a cautionary tale that agents and players tell at mixers for years to come.

b/c as we know, SD cares far more about money than winning

Vincent Jackson fantasy relevance is over, mark it down.

 

[craxie]

Vincent Jackson fantasy relevance is over, mark it down.

define fantasy relevance and we may have a betRicky Williams was fantasy relevant last year despite being a 32 year-old running back who had missed an entire season TWICEVJ will be a 28 year-old WR, don't see any problem at all

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

Vincent Jackson literally committed career suicide. Of course he will likely sign somewhere else down the road but a guy with 2 decent seasons in a system to be determined, without Philip Rivers where I seriously doubt he will be handed a #1 Wr role given his propensity for suspension and toolishness. = Fantasy Career Over

way to overreact VJ is tall, fast, strong, is a good blocker and has good hands, he'll be fine wherever he goesand of course he'll be free to sign with the situation that suits him best

The payoff to the SD management is money. AJ destroyed Jackson. I seriously doubt any player would ever ever challenge him in the future, as Vincent Jackson will become a cautionary tale that agents and players tell at mixers for years to come.

b/c as we know, SD cares far more about money than winning

Vincent Jackson fantasy relevance is over, mark it down.

I can't agree with that. He's just too gifted to be held down. He can fit in any system. He may not be a top 10 guy unless he's in the right system but he'll PROBABLY be fantasy relevent.

 

[menobrown]

Vincent Jackson fantasy relevance is over, mark it down.

He may play with a worse QB but I think he'll actually be better on a new team just due to targets. Put it this way. The last two years Brandon Marshall got 154 and 181 targets and finished as WR #9 and #11. Over those last two years VJ got 101 and 107 targets and finished one spot behind Marshall at #10 and #12. So one spot behind Marshall on 60% of the targets. That's in non-PPR leagues but you get the idea. It's rare for a teams #1 WR to only get a little over 100 targets. When VJ gets up to that 130+ range he's got a ton of room for growth in terms of fantasy numbers.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Ok... tried to sort this out earlier. I don't think Jackson will sign with the Chargers, but if he did it probably wouldn't be until after the trade deadline. So...

If he signs and is traded before Sunday (before Week 5) he'll miss Weeks 5,6,7 and be eligible Week 8.

If he signs and is traded between Sunday the 10th and Sunday 17th (before Week 6) he'll miss Weeks 6,7,8 and be eligible in Week 9.

If he signs and is traded on the 18th or 19th (the trade deadline) he'll miss Weeks 7,8,9 and be eligible in Week 10.

If he's not traded he'll most likely sit the whole season.

But if he doesn't sit out the rest of the season he'd need to sign with the Chargers prior to Week 8 (October 31st) in order to be credited with a year of service. Signing before Week 8 would result in him missing Weeks 8,9 and 11 (since the Chargers are on a bye Week 10) - allowing him to play Weeks 12-17 (the six games he needs to be credited for a year of service).

It's hard to imagine that he'd sign with the Chargers after Week 8.

 

[Deaddawg]

CBS is reporting that NE may be trying to trade OL Mankins to San Diego, who is holding out himself. This is a bit of a twist and would actually help both teams. It is kind of a even swap that could balance things in a way that satisfies all involved. I am sure some picks maybe swapped as well if it is done. Food for thought.

 

[The_Underachiever]

CBS is reporting that NE may be trying to trade OL Mankins to San Diego, who is holding out himself. This is a bit of a twist and would actually help both teams. It is kind of a even swap that could balance things in a way that satisfies all involved. I am sure some picks maybe swapped as well if it is done. Food for thought.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...still-unlikely/VJ to Patriots still unlikely

By Kevin Acee

Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 6:47 p.m.

I love blogs. It's where something that isn't a story can be made into a story. No sarcasm. It's the perfect venue.

Comcast Sports' Tom Curran, as usual, is right when he reports that the Chargers and New England Patriots have talked about Vincent Jackson.

However, I am told it is highly unlikely anything comes of these conversations. The Chargers would require a first- and second-round pick from New England over the next two drafts. While the Patriots can afford that -- with its two picks in each of those rounds in 2011 -- they are not expected to do so.

Any trade (and new contract for Jackson) would have to be done by the Oct. 19 trade deadline. And Jackson, who is on the Roster Exempt List, would have to sit out three games after he signs.

A straight-up trade of Jackson for guard Logan Mankins , another Pro Bowler sitting out unhappy with his restricted free agent tender, is even more unlikely. The Chargers are set at guard. While Mankins played tackle in college, most NFL people do not see him as one.

 

[plyka]

After your last heads up I'm certainly paying attention to any rumors you report.

Let's see how many of these we can get in a row before some system measure disallows it!

 

[Steed]

However, I am told it is highly unlikely anything comes of these conversations. The Chargers would require a first- and second-round pick from New England over the next two drafts. While the Patriots can afford that -- with its two picks in each of those rounds in 2011 -- they are not expected to do so.

So the price has gone up from a 2nd & 3rd to a 1st & 2nd for VJax now?

 

[plyka]

He's not suspended, he's roster exempt. Which means he's not eligible to play in the first three games after he signs. So if he signs before Sunday's games he'd miss Weeks 5-7 and be eligible for week eight. And he has to sign with the Chargers before he's traded (IIRC).

So a team trading for him knows today they won't have him until week eight at the earliest.

I think this is wrong. The three weeks started when his drunk driving suspension ended.ETA: Its been reported both ways, beginning in week 4, and not beginning until he signs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oc...not-impossible/"The NFL trading deadline is Oct. 19. Any team trading for Jackson would have to wait three games after he signed for him to come off the Roster Exempt List. That means if he signed before this Sunday, he would not be eligible to play until the week after the Patriots' Oct. 24 game in San Diego."

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

No, but I think anyone trading for his rights are expecting him to be on their team for several seasons, not just this one.

But then why not simply wait and sign him as a free agent over the offseason? For a team like Seattle which has little to no shot at winning anything this year, forget that, at even making the playoffs this year in the worst division in NFL history, why would they give up draft picks to get him earlier? Why not simply wait until the offseason and then trade for him. Makes more sense from the Seahawks perspective. The only teams that should be willing to give up draft picks are teams that have a chance to win something this year, like the Vikings or the Patriots. For the Seahawks, it would be mighty stupid to trade a draft pick for Vjax now, when they can simply wait and sign him as a free agent over the offseason.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Depending on the new/old CBA he may not be a free agent. At least not unless he signs his tender.

 

[MarcO]

But then why not simply wait and sign him as a free agent over the offseason? For a team like Seattle which has little to no shot at winning anything this year, forget that, at even making the playoffs this year in the worst division in NFL history, why would they give up draft picks to get him earlier? Why not simply wait until the offseason and then trade for him. Makes more sense from the Seahawks perspective. The only teams that should be willing to give up draft picks are teams that have a chance to win something this year, like the Vikings or the Patriots. For the Seahawks, it would be mighty stupid to trade a draft pick for Vjax now, when they can simply wait and sign him as a free agent over the offseason.

Last I checked, updated Vegas odds had Seattle as the favorite to win the NFC West.

 

[Whizzinator]

Would anyone seriously consider giving up a 1st and a 2nd to get a guy for 8 games?

No, but for 58 games they might.

It would really stun me if anyone pays a 1 and a 2 for any number of games of Vincent Jackson. He's an upper-tier receiver but the market for WR simply doesn't support that price, imo, and hasn't in the recent past, either. The closest is Roy Williams, a deal universally thought of as an overpay at the time and (in hindsight) a complete bust.It only takes one team, of course, so anything is possible but even seeking a 2 + something else seems like an aggressive ask; something like a 3 and a late-round pick seems like a more realistic ask to me.

 

[BoltBacker]

So you're saying Vincent Jackson is losing market value by sitting out the season? He and his agents are looking smarter and smarter with each passing day.

some, but much less than if he were injured this yearit's a risk vs reward thing

If VJ chooses not to play for the franchise salary for one season that's his choice. In that case it wouldn't cost SD anything to franchise him because he wouldn't report.

VJ would play for franchise money, which is yet another reason SD won't offer it to him

Who are the UFA that SD should fear losing that would be worth a franchise tag?

well considering they're willing to franchise Sproles, just about everyone VJ (probably won't be tagged)Merriman (probably won't be tagged)Sproles (better not be tagged again)ApplewhiteBurnettCesaireClaryCooperDombrowskiFloydTravis JohnsonRandy McMichaelMruczkowskiNaaneeNwagbuoJ.T. O'SullivanOliverSilerSpillmanVolekWeddleWilson

If you would be willing to franchise any of those guys I don't think you've seen a Charger game in years. Which is my point. The only players worth franchising on this roster are Rivers, Gates and VJ. They don't have to use the franchise tag on either Rivers or Gates. Any talk of using the franchise tag on anyone else is a big mistake imo.I'm not privy to the contract negotiations between SD and VJ BEFORE the second DUI. I can't say what he was offered and what he was not. Reports were this summer he wanted a contract similar to Marshall. That is very different than the franchise tag... I don't know how you're so sure he would have accepted the franchise tag $ for a single season had it been offered. SD didn't offer him franchise $ because they didn't have to. Next year they would have to give him franchise $ for one year to keep him. Seems simple.Lastly, if we are going to proceed with the premise that when VJ signs he's going to get hurt so he shouldn't get on the field without a big contract, then SD shouldn't sign a WR to add to a passing game that obviously isn't broken because he would likely get hurt after being signed(or get yet another DUI and another, longer suspension). Injury is a risk for both sides, not just the player.

 

[Polish Hammer]

 

[craxie]

If you would be willing to franchise any of those guys I don't think you've seen a Charger game in years.

I wasn't willing to franchise Sproles last year, but there you go. Just pointing out that the team's perception of player values often seems slightly . . . odd

I don't know how you're so sure he would have accepted the franchise tag $ for a single season had it been offered.

because the deal with the Vikings was for less than franchise money

SD didn't offer him franchise $ because they didn't have to.

they didn't have to to retain his rightsthey DO if they actually want him to play, important distinction

Next year they would have to give him franchise $ for one year to keep him. Seems simple.

if they're willing to pay franchise money next year after he's sat out a year, why not pay him this year and have him actually play?

Lastly, if we are going to proceed with the premise that when VJ signs he's going to get hurt so he shouldn't get on the field without a big contract, then SD shouldn't sign a WR to add to a passing game that obviously isn't broken because he would likely get hurt after being signed(or get yet another DUI and another, longer suspension). Injury is a risk for both sides, not just the player.

huh?

 

[The_Underachiever]

Just my personal opinion... but if BB was going to get VJax, he would have been signed about a day after Moss left giving them the most time to work together. They had the Moss thing planned and would most likely have a VJax deal in place if the plan was to get him. It pains me to say it, but BB is too smart to not already have this in place if it were to happen.

 

[Insein]

Just my personal opinion... but if BB was going to get VJax, he would have been signed about a day after Moss left giving them the most time to work together. They had the Moss thing planned and would most likely have a VJax deal in place if the plan was to get him. It pains me to say it, but BB is too smart to not already have this in place if it were to happen.

Doesn't really matter since VJax will be suspended 3 games right away. If its like the Roethlesberger situation, then he won't be allowed to practice with the team till its done.

 

[craxie]

If its like the Roethlesberger situation, then he won't be allowed to practice with the team till its done.

he will be allowed to practice with the team while on roster exempt

 

[Insein]

If its like the Roethlesberger situation, then he won't be allowed to practice with the team till its done.

he will be allowed to practice with the team while on roster exempt

Ah. Good to know.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If its like the Roethlesberger situation, then he won't be allowed to practice with the team till its done.

he will be allowed to practice with the team while on roster exempt

Yeah, that's actually the whole point of the roster-exempt list: to let a guy (who missed training camp) practice for a few weeks before he starts taking up a roster spot.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Vincent Jackson fantasy relevance is over, mark it down.

define fantasy relevance and we may have a betRicky Williams was fantasy relevant last year despite being a 32 year-old running back who had missed an entire season TWICEVJ will be a 28 year-old WR, don't see any problem at all

Taking his best 2 seasons of about 1000 yards and 7 and 9 tds, and his career sucide, I would think he will never exceed 1000 yards or 6tds again.

 

[Fullback Fro]

McNeil breaks down and signs his tendor, then he gets a new deal. It seems like Smith is playing hard ball but then hooks up his guys. He should just sign his tendor, get his but in camp, and who knows, maybe he gets a new deal as well. Play some football dammit.

 

[Max Power]

McNeil breaks down and signs his tendor, then he gets a new deal. It seems like Smith is playing hard ball but then hooks up his guys. He should just sign his tendor, get his but in camp, and who knows, maybe he gets a new deal as well. Play some football dammit.

Im pretty sure SD made it clear that VJax isn't in their future plans.

 

[Ray_T]

But then why not simply wait and sign him as a free agent over the offseason? For a team like Seattle which has little to no shot at winning anything this year, forget that, at even making the playoffs this year in the worst division in NFL history, why would they give up draft picks to get him earlier? Why not simply wait until the offseason and then trade for him. Makes more sense from the Seahawks perspective. The only teams that should be willing to give up draft picks are teams that have a chance to win something this year, like the Vikings or the Patriots. For the Seahawks, it would be mighty stupid to trade a draft pick for Vjax now, when they can simply wait and sign him as a free agent over the offseason.

I would agree with this logic except for one thing.....

Seattle is 2-2 and appears to have a shot at the playoffs in what looks to be a very weak NFC West division. an Impact WR could be the difference between making the playoffs and waiting another year.

I also wouldnt be surprised to see the rams make another pitch for him. They suddenly find themselves in need of another WR.

Either way, the Chargers clearly are punishing him for not signing because they could have unloaded him earlier. VJ had apparently come to terms with a couple teams (rumoured to be Seattle and St. Louis) and the Chargers said 'No Way'

I dont think this is about business anymore. I think it has gotten personal and it would not surprise me if the chargers let him sit even if the result is they let him go for nothing.

 

[Rockchild]

It's hard to argue because neither one of us knows if that's true or not.If I was AJ and if VJ held value in the open market I don't know why they wouldn't franchise him. I don't see the players in a position to get rid of the franchise tag. All that we know for sure is VJ and his agents said all summer that they were willing to sit out the season. As events unfolded it looks like... he may be sitting out the entire season. Now he and his agents are crying because he may sit out the entire season. So far they haven't planned this very well and don't be surprised if next off season doesn't go quite like they plan either. The players have a pretty poor bargaining position in the next CBA. The owners can sit back and cash network TV checks while the players watch the sands of their playing career wind down through the hour glass. VJ's in an even worse situation because his sand started before all the rest of the players.

If the players decertify the union they can use the threat of suing the NFL for a multiple of issues including franchise tags and would have a good shot at winning a good portion of their claims. I think the real issue of the CBA isn't between the owners and the players but between the owners themselves and they don't or won't deal with it. Rather, it seems 'easier' for them to get the players to knuckle under. I'm not sure the players have the resolve to actually go through with the their threats but they are making more money than the last time these issues came up so should be in a better position overall to make it through a lockout.