MClem06 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 The NFL and the players union have agreed that Jackson can play in Week 5 if he's traded by next Wednesday. The agreement helps clear the way for Jackson to be traded, provided the Chargers can agree to terms with another team. The agreement essentially rolls what could have been a six-game suspension into four games. Jackson currently is serving a three-game NFL suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy. Additionally, the Chargers placed him on the roster exempt list, meaning he'd be suspended for three games once he signed with San Diego. Jackson's side felt he shouldn't have to serve that suspension if he was traded. WHY WOULDN'T WE PICK HIM UP???????? PAY THAT MAN HIS MONEY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 The NFL and the players union have agreed that Jackson can play in Week 5 if he's traded by next Wednesday. The agreement helps clear the way for Jackson to be traded, provided the Chargers can agree to terms with another team. The agreement essentially rolls what could have been a six-game suspension into four games. Jackson currently is serving a three-game NFL suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy. Additionally, the Chargers placed him on the roster exempt list, meaning he'd be suspended for three games once he signed with San Diego. Jackson's side felt he shouldn't have to serve that suspension if he was traded. WHY WOULDN'T WE PICK HIM UP???????? PAY THAT MAN HIS MONEY! BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO THROW HIM THE BALL~!!!!!!!!11!!!1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 The NFL and the players union have agreed that Jackson can play in Week 5 if he's traded by next Wednesday. The agreement helps clear the way for Jackson to be traded, provided the Chargers can agree to terms with another team. The agreement essentially rolls what could have been a six-game suspension into four games. Jackson currently is serving a three-game NFL suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy. Additionally, the Chargers placed him on the roster exempt list, meaning he'd be suspended for three games once he signed with San Diego. Jackson's side felt he shouldn't have to serve that suspension if he was traded. WHY WOULDN'T WE PICK HIM UP???????? PAY THAT MAN HIS MONEY! BECAUSE HE MAY WANT TO PLAY FOR A WINNER!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBaumer Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Minnesota just got a whole lot stronger................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 maybe S.D. will again, refuse to accept whatever is offered in a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasNootz Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 He doesn't get our team over the hump to become a playoff team, so it's not worth taking him on if it means draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MClem06 Posted September 16, 2010 Author Share Posted September 16, 2010 Nevermind I forgot we don't have any sort of leverage other than draft picks which we need for, QB, OT's, LB's... pretty much everything except CB's and K P's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 I drafted him on my fantasy team. DONT trade him to Bufffalo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Why would we overpay for a player we'd under-use? A player who gets arrested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 He doesn't get our team over the hump to become a playoff team, so it's not worth taking him on if it means draft picks. one could argue that Peyton Manning wouldn't get us to the playoffs.....we are alot more than one player away from the playoffs.... dedicating top money to a WR would be a complete waste. we need OT's, LB's and most impotanatly a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b stein 22 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 (edited) I would like the trade. He would help in the future of things and insurance to a wr corps who has yet to prove anything. I know they have no one throwing him the ball, but as of know he would be a good asset. Also nix has ties to SD so it might actually happen. I doubt it though. Edited September 16, 2010 by b stein 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 dedicating top money to a WR would be a complete waste. we need OT's, LB's and most impotanatly a QB. Because we are almost out of cap space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 one could argue that Peyton Manning wouldn't get us to the playoffs.....we are alot more than one player away from the playoffs.... dedicating top money to a WR would be a complete waste. we need OT's, LB's and most impotanatly a QB. Agreed we need to get a QB and RT out of next years draft so I wouldn't spend a #1 round or #2 round pick on him but if they'd be interested in a DB and a lower round pick then I'd think hard about it- what about Mcgee for Jackson or if that's not enough Mcgee + Parrish - not really sure about Jackson's value he strikes me as a good but not great WR, on the other hand he would seem to have many of the physical traits Evans lacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 The NFL and the players union have agreed that Jackson can play in Week 5 if he's traded by next Wednesday. The agreement helps clear the way for Jackson to be traded, provided the Chargers can agree to terms with another team. The agreement essentially rolls what could have been a six-game suspension into four games. Jackson currently is serving a three-game NFL suspension for violating the league's substance abuse policy. Additionally, the Chargers placed him on the roster exempt list, meaning he'd be suspended for three games once he signed with San Diego. Jackson's side felt he shouldn't have to serve that suspension if he was traded. WHY WOULDN'T WE PICK HIM UP???????? PAY THAT MAN HIS MONEY! Is he a quarterback? I dont care if we had Rice, Moss, and our beloved Andre Reed all in their primes with Trent at QB, he still wouldnt be able to get it done. He just doesnt have the capability to make plays...been proven over and over and over again... Que excuse makers in 3, 2, 1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Thou shalt not underestimate the douchebaggery of A.J. Smith. He may be content with letting VJ sit on his ass all year (or at least until week 10) and not even entertain trade offers. But...if he did he may be open to ship VJ to Buffalo just to f**k with us some more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 (edited) He doesn't get our team over the hump to become a playoff team, so it's not worth taking him on if it means draft picks. If you can get V-Jax for a 3rd, or even a 2nd, and get him to agree to a long-term deal why not? Would you give up an opportunity to pick another Hardy for a proven top notch NFL WR? I would in a heartbeat. We would then be able to have Lee go back to being a # 2 with Parrish in the slot and Spiller doing everything out of the backfield. All we would need is some OL help and a couple of LB's to complete the puzzle. People have this notion it's "insane" to give up a draft pick in the first two days, but it isn't if you can get a player of his caliber and get him to sign for another 5 years. If we aren't in the loop as pursuing him it's a mistake. Edited September 16, 2010 by H2o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 I agree with all of what h2o said. Just because we dont have a qb or tackle right now doesnt mean u dont go after a player like VJ because if u get him u obviously have to sign him to a long term deal. Just because the bills got a new gm and hc this year doesnt mean they turn around and solve all the teams problems in their first year - i find it highly unlikely SD trades VJ to the bills, but that doesnt mean you dont pursue the trade just because we dont have a QB to throw him the ball at the moment. VJ is looking for MONEY period. He will go anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonechiller Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) I asked this question a couple weeks ago, and got shut down immediately. I know we need to see what they want in trade and how much it would cost, But if we need: QB,OL,DL,LB's and WR why do we have to start with QB or OL? I say if this comes along take the opportunity to get a wr now and then address what we can in draft and free agency! Edited September 17, 2010 by bonechiller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I asked this question a couple weeks ago, and got shut down immediately. I know we need to see what they want in trade and how much it would cost, But if we need: QB,OL,DL,LB's and WR why do we have to start with QB or OL? I say if this comes along take the opportunity to get a wr now and then address what we can in draft and free agency! I guess it's because all those other positions get stale waiting for the O-line and QB to get it's feces together. You can get more done with mediocre WRs but a great QB and Oline than visa-versa. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 one could argue that Peyton Manning wouldn't get us to the playoffs.....we are alot more than one player away from the playoffs.... dedicating top money to a WR would be a complete waste. we need OT's, LB's and most impotanatly a QB. Peyton Manning would get us to the playoffs and then we would be talking about how great our offensive players are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts