What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why the Franchise Tag on Vincent Jackson (1 Viewer)

jacobo_moses

Footballguy
Hey I'm curious as to why the Chargers Front office would put a Franchise Tag on Vincent Jackson if they have no intention of signing him to a long term contract or trade him!!!???

Will someone enlighten me what the intentions of the front office of the Chargers might be??

Thanks

 
Hey I'm curious as to why the Chargers Front office would put a Franchise Tag on Vincent Jackson if they have no intention of signing him to a long term contract or trade him!!!???Will someone enlighten me what the intentions of the front office of the Chargers might be??Thanks
You sure they will not trade him?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welll, they're not dump enough to simply cut him when they have his rights. Signing him to a franchise deal actually makes him a bit easier to trade if that's the direction they want to go, but in reality, if you can get a top player as a franchise player for a year or even two without spending more than market rate, it makes a ton of sense. A team can basically forego the risk (in terms of large signing bonus) of a career ending or changing injury. That's why players hate the franchise tag.

 
Chargers have zero intention of trading Vincent Jackson. They only explored it last year because he was holding out, which he's not going to do this year. Giving any player a long term contract is a risk but the Chargers feel with VJAX there is an increased risk due to his two DWI's. They are simply exercising their option to keep a talented player without committing to a long term commitment.

 
The Chargers have also made noises about reopening negotiations on a long term deal. A prerequisite with A.J. for negotiations is getting the guy in to camp, so I imagine they'll try to negotiate for a long term deal once Jackson signs his tender. Given the deal Holmes just got, I doubt the Chargers will be willing to pay what Jackson will probably want though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Chargers need VJax bad. They needed to franchise him for sure
I agree he makes the team better. But to say they "need him bad" seems to ignore the fact that they threw for 4700 yards last year essentially without him... and that is exactly why the Chargers likely will not sign him to a long term deal at the money he wants.
 
Chargers have zero intention of trading Vincent Jackson. They only explored it last year because he was holding out, which he's not going to do this year. Giving any player a long term contract is a risk but the Chargers feel with VJAX there is an increased risk due to his two DWI's. They are simply exercising their option to keep a talented player without committing to a long term commitment.
0% is a pretty ballsy number considering these are two guys that do not see eye to eye. I do not think it will be long before we find out.
 
I agree he makes the team better. But to say they "need him bad" seems to ignore the fact that they threw for 4700 yards last year essentially without him... and that is exactly why the Chargers likely will not sign him to a long term deal at the money he wants.
They threw for 4700 yards and missed the playoffs, which is exactly why they need himThey showed using scrubs wasn't good enough to get it done. They got lots of yards in garbage time, but couldn't punch it in when it counted.
 
With the Chargers, I've always thought this was more of a pissing match between the agent and the GM. It cost Jackson dearly last year. But may have also cost the Chargers a spot in the playoffs. They lost a lot of close games when Jackson was sitting out. So in the end, I guess it depends on what the goal of the team is. I'm not convinced every team even cares about winning the Super Bowl. Gladly I'm a Packers fan so I have no doubts about my own team.

 
This is my own opinion and might not be the Chargers.

Jackson isnt worth the money he wants and that's why the Chargers havent signed him to a long term deal. They are willing to sign him, but not to a mega contract long term. He isnt worth the franchise tag money either BUT the Chargers need him to be a contender until they can get someone else who is at least as good. So they pay him the megabucks short term instead of long term which are their only two choices.

 
I agree he makes the team better. But to say they "need him bad" seems to ignore the fact that they threw for 4700 yards last year essentially without him... and that is exactly why the Chargers likely will not sign him to a long term deal at the money he wants.
They threw for 4700 yards and missed the playoffs, which is exactly why they need himThey showed using scrubs wasn't good enough to get it done. They got lots of yards in garbage time, but couldn't punch it in when it counted.
Had they beat the Bengals they would have made the playoffs, and Jackson was nearly invisible in that game. If Jackson could have coached or tackled on special teams he would have made a HUGE difference.I am curious... which games were the ones with all this "garbage time" last year?
 
the Chargers need him to be a contender
Meh, that's where I disagree. If SD would have been a contender last year they wouldn't have found a way to lose a ton of close games. Good teams don't lose those games. If Jackson makes SD a contender they beat CIN and are in the playoffs last year. I expect the special teams to play closer to average this year but I really felt the defense played over their heads last season and they will also play closer to average. They were a great passing team last year but despite pouring a ton of resources into the running game I'm not that impressed with what they have.
 
I agree he makes the team better. But to say they "need him bad" seems to ignore the fact that they threw for 4700 yards last year essentially without him... and that is exactly why the Chargers likely will not sign him to a long term deal at the money he wants.
They threw for 4700 yards and missed the playoffs, which is exactly why they need himThey showed using scrubs wasn't good enough to get it done. They got lots of yards in garbage time, but couldn't punch it in when it counted.
Not sure about the "garbage time" comment. It is true that Rivers threw for 1311 yards and 8 TDs while either up by 15+ or down by 15+ (mostly the latter). But is it "garbage time" if that is in the 3rd quarter or early 4th quarter? I don't think so. I agree they struggled to get in the end zone at times, and I do remember quite a few dropped TD passes.Look, I think it's likely that if Jackson played last season, he could have made the difference in at least one game they lost, which would have gotten them into the playoffs. But at the same time, the passing game and the receivers were not a problem for the Chargers. The special teams were historically bad and cost the team several losses.I'm happy they will have Jackson, and I think he improves the team. But they would be fine without him.
 
This comment

I'm happy they will have Jackson, and I think he improves the team. But they would be fine without him.

If this were true they wouldn't waste a Franchise Tag on him. They would just let him walk if they were fine without him. So I think I"m in the camp that agrees that They like him enough to pay him the good money for 1 yr but not long term unless he keeps his noise clean and stays motivated all year.

 
I am curious... which games were the ones with all this "garbage time" last year?
probably 'garbage time' was the wrong phrase, but they faced a lot of 'prevent' defense that allowed racking up the yardsquickly march down the field then stall at the 20 yard line . . . great for stats, not so great for winning games
 
the Chargers need him to be a contender
Meh, that's where I disagree. If SD would have been a contender last year they wouldn't have found a way to lose a ton of close games. Good teams don't lose those games. If Jackson makes SD a contender they beat CIN and are in the playoffs last year. I expect the special teams to play closer to average this year but I really felt the defense played over their heads last season and they will also play closer to average. They were a great passing team last year but despite pouring a ton of resources into the running game I'm not that impressed with what they have.
I never said he makes the Chargers a contender or that they are a contender. What I said in different words is that in order to be a contender they need Jackson OR somebody else at least as good as Jackson. Saying a team is or isnt a contender is a whole lot different than saying a what a team needs to try to be a contender.
 
the Chargers need him to be a contender
Meh, that's where I disagree. If SD would have been a contender last year they wouldn't have found a way to lose a ton of close games. Good teams don't lose those games. If Jackson makes SD a contender they beat CIN and are in the playoffs last year. I expect the special teams to play closer to average this year but I really felt the defense played over their heads last season and they will also play closer to average. They were a great passing team last year but despite pouring a ton of resources into the running game I'm not that impressed with what they have.
Agree with all of this, including the part about SD's defense overperforming last season. I'd expect regression as well if no changes were made and the same players were plugged back in. With the additions of Spikes and Sanders, and hopefully significant help from a draft that was defense heavy, I think SD's defense may give up more yards (causing their NFL defensive ranking to fall) but overall be more effective and make more big plays.
 
This commentI'm happy they will have Jackson, and I think he improves the team. But they would be fine without him. If this were true they wouldn't waste a Franchise Tag on him. They would just let him walk if they were fine without him. So I think I"m in the camp that agrees that They like him enough to pay him the good money for 1 yr but not long term unless he keeps his noise clean and stays motivated all year.
This year he's definitely needed since they've shed a few WRs that got a significant number of targets/reps last year and Gates is hurting. Like I said earlier I think they'll actually make attempts to sign him long term, but I'm doubtful they'll make an offer close enough to what Jackson/his agents think he's worth to get a deal done.
 
Chargers have zero intention of trading Vincent Jackson. They only explored it last year because he was holding out, which he's not going to do this year. Giving any player a long term contract is a risk but the Chargers feel with VJAX there is an increased risk due to his two DWI's. They are simply exercising their option to keep a talented player without committing to a long term commitment.
This. Jackson drinks too much, and then makes poor decisions under the influence of alcohol. He's just one more arrest away from a long NFL-mandated suspension, and he could be in for a Donte-Stallworth-type situation if Jackson doesn't straighten up and call the team's on-call cab service when he's plastered. He can play, but he could also blow up at any time. A long term contract would entail a big signing bonus - money gone up in smoke if he gets a suspension. My .02.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top