Desean Jackson is an idiot

I always wished TO would score a touchdown and a professional waiter steps out in full tux with a silver platter, and serves him a glass of champagne. That would have been the ultimate prank.

As for Desean, the fact that he wanted to attend Berkeley already spoke to his douchiness.
 
(1) That the Eagles could live with Cooper and cut Jackson says a whole lot more about the Eagles than it does about Jackson.

Yeah, it says they know who the locker room cancer is.

(2) What does the fact that the 'Skins signed him should tell you about Jackson's locker room presence?

That they are hoping his reputation is wrong, because he is a highly skilled player.

(3) Just because a reason "is being discussed" doesn't mean that it is an actual reason why the Eagles released him. I'm not aware of any public comment from the Eagles on the reasons they cut him. It's all speculation at this point. And, yes, my opinion is that the locker room thing is bullshit, not least because they extended his contract in 2012 knowing full well about work ethic and the rest.

Yeah because no player has ever become a worse presence in the locker room and with work ethic after signing a big contract. Albert Haynesworth anyone?

(4) Do you think that they would have cut him if he was set to earn, say, $3.5 million in 2014 instead of $10.5? Doubtful.

I am sure financials had something to do with it. But the point is that they made a big deal about Avant being a team guy and that they just couldn't afford him. They went above and beyond to let teams know they were getting quality. Didn't do that for Jackson did they? Nope.
 
Yeah, it says they know who the locker room cancer is.

That's possible. It's also possible that they don't really give a shit so long as the production to salary ratio meets their needs.


That they are hoping his reputation is wrong, because he is a highly skilled player.

Alternatively, they too don't give a shit so long as the production to salary ratio meets their needs.


Yeah because no player has ever become a worse presence in the locker room and with work ethic after signing a big contract. Albert Haynesworth anyone?

The assertion that Jackson because a worse person in the locker room and his work ethic worsened (aside: you've yet to establish (1) that Jackson was a negative locker room presence or that his work ethic was poor in the first instance) from the time he signed his extension to the time of his release is the kind of thing that you should have evidence of. And the Haynesworth and Jackson situtations are not comparable. Haynesworth became an unrestricted free agent, signed with a new team for a long-term deal and then tanked. Jackson restructured his contract in 2012 with the same team and posted carreer high stats the following season.


I am sure financials had something to do with it. But the point is that they made a big deal about Avant being a team guy and that they just couldn't afford him. They went above and beyond to let teams know they were getting quality. Didn't do that for Jackson did they? Nope.

Of course they didn't. While the Eagles didn't value Jackson at his salary level, they recognize that he is incredibly talented and will be picked up by an opposing team. They also recognize that Jackosn will no doubt look to punish them for cutting him. No need to enhance his market value and make him more attractive to opposing teams. Avant's nice guy and all, but he's not apt to burn them.
 
Yeah, Jerrico Cotchery, Marvin McNutt and that other guy are superior talents.

I'm thinking he was speaking from the perspective of a Saints fan who's glad his defense doesn't have to face Jackson twice a season in divisional games.
 
Dude's a Saints fan. He doesn't want Desean in his division. Now Carolina will have to draft a WR and hope he has a standout rookie season.
 
That's possible. It's also possible that they don't really give a shit so long as the production to salary ratio meets their needs.
Alternatively, they too don't give a shit so long as the production to salary ratio meets their needs.

Ok Dung


The assertion that Jackson because a worse person in the locker room and his work ethic worsened (aside: you've yet to establish (1) that Jackson was a negative locker room presence or that his work ethic was poor in the first instance) from the time he signed his extension to the time of his release is the kind of thing that you should have evidence of. And the Haynesworth and Jackson situtations are not comparable. Haynesworth became an unrestricted free agent, signed with a new team for a long-term deal and then tanked. Jackson restructured his contract in 2012 with the same team and posted carreer high stats the following season.

Learn to write in English, it will help with communication.

The two ARE comparable. The fact that Jackson was with the same team is irrelevant. The relevancy is that they both signed big contracts, then became problems. While Jackson did still produce on the field, that doesn't mean he didn't become a nightmare off the field. Again, look at the support Avant got when cut for monetary reasons. While Jackson was also monetary in nature, clearly there was more to his release given they did not give him similar glowing recommendations.



Of course they didn't. While the Eagles didn't value Jackson at his salary level, they recognize that he is incredibly talented and will be picked up by an opposing team. They also recognize that Jackosn will no doubt look to punish them for cutting him. No need to enhance his market value and make him more attractive to opposing teams. Avant's nice guy and all, but he's not apt to burn them.

LMAO... ok Dung

He was going to be picked up regardless. The fact that they gave an endorsement to Avant and not to him is MORE of a reason to hammer them every time he plays them. If they were thinking about that, they would have done two things...

1) Praised Jackson to potentially reduce the chip on his shoulder

2) Hoped to INCREASE his market value so that an opposing team would over pay. Why would they try to hurt the market value? To give their opponent a BETTER deal?
 
Learn to write in English, it will help with communication.

The two ARE comparable. The fact that Jackson was with the same team is irrelevant. The relevancy is that they both signed big contracts, then became problems. While Jackson did still produce on the field, that doesn't mean he didn't become a nightmare off the field. Again, look at the support Avant got when cut for monetary reasons. While Jackson was also monetary in nature, clearly there was more to his release given they did not give him similar glowing recommendations.

How are they comparable, again? Haynesworth signed a big contract as a free agent and his performance tanked. Jackson signed a big contract and had a career year. Maybe he became a nightmare off the field, but where's the evidence of that?


LMAO... ok Dung

He was going to be picked up regardless. The fact that they gave an endorsement to Avant and not to him is MORE of a reason to hammer them every time he plays them. If they were thinking about that, they would have done two things...

1) Praised Jackson to potentially reduce the chip on his shoulder

2) Hoped to INCREASE his market value so that an opposing team would over pay. Why would they try to hurt the market value? To give their opponent a BETTER deal?

Bottom line is that your reading the tea leaves about how awful Jackson must have been since X, Y and Z. Well, what is there to support the idea that Jackson's behavior became much more of an issue between the time they signed him and the time that he was cut? There isn't much. (And before you cite to the NJ.com story check the dates).

And thinking about it a bit more, I think the Eagles didn't speak out and allowed Jackson to get trashed in the media because they couldn't work out a trade for him and get something in value in return. It's easier to say that Jackson is damaged goods than to admit you overpaid him and couldn't trade him as a result.
 
To make an extreme case, Dung, should NE resign Hernandez if he's fully acquitted? He's a damn good TE...


Hernandez and Jacksn aren't really comprable. To take another case, should the Ravens cut Ray Rice?

I agree that off the field issues can prevent teams from contracting with talented players. I just haven't seen anything showing that Jackson's "off the field issues" changed at all between his extension in 2012 and his release in 2014 that
 
I'm not a real big fan of Jason Whitlock but I think he writes this article well regarding Desean and the Eagles. A guy may put up numbers but if he f's up the team...?



A Question Of Character

Eagles had plenty of work-related reasons to release DeSean Jackson


It's my belief Chip Kelly and the Philadelphia Eagles wanted to trade DeSean Jackson because the diminutive receiver is -- and always has been -- a massive headache for a coaching staff.

It's my belief Chip Kelly and the Philadelphia Eagles cut DeSean Jackson because they realized a sensationalized media report tying together the diminutive receiver's "gang ties" would eviscerate Jackson's trade value.

The people, including two-mouths-and-one-ear All-Pro cornerback Richard Sherman, screaming that Kelly and the Eagles have acted in a racist manner have chosen the wrong target.

If any group has been unfair to Jackson, if any group has judged Jackson without nuance and given in to stereotypes about black men from a certain background, it is us, the media. We are the group benefiting from a mischaracterization of Jackson's relationship with his friends and the Philadelphia Eagles. We are the group filling broadcast airtime and driving Internet clicks with analysis focused on the belief the Eagles cut Jackson because of his "gang ties" and Aaron Hernandez backlash.

I include myself in this media criticism; I participated in a "Pardon the Interruption" discussion on the day the Eagles released Jackson that could've been more substantive and accurate with additional time to reflect and research.

There is no proof and virtually no reason to believe Kelly and the Eagles released Jackson because he is friends with Los Angeles Crips. I've reread a half-dozen times the original NJ.com story that sparked the controversial narrative and set the tone for coverage of Jackson's release.

As it relates to justifying the narrative, the story is thin at best. In its own words, it contradicts the engine driving the Eagles' decision. NJ.com wrote:

"Rather, sources close to Jackson and within the Eagles' organization say, it originally was Jackson's off-field behavior that concerned the front office. A bad attitude, an inconsistent work ethic, missed meetings and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly were the original reasons for his fall from grace, sources told NJ.com."

In the old-school journalism world, this would be considered the "nut graph," the summary of what the story would explore or prove. What caused the Eagles to sour on and decide to jettison their top receiver? His problems with Kelly? Or Jackson's unsavory friends?

This nut graph lets the reader decide, and then the story paints a weak case that Jackson's friends did him in.

From the story:

"Then, suddenly, the Eagles had even more serious concerns when they were revealed by NJ.com -- Jackson's continued association with reputed Los Angeles street gang members who have been connected to two homicides since 2010. ... Before Jackson was released, a source within the Eagles organization, who requested anonymity, put it: 'They are concerned about having him around the younger players.'"

Words matter, particularly when you're writing a story that could significantly damage a person's or an organization's reputation. "Then, suddenly, the Eagles had even more serious concerns when they were revealed by NJ.com..."

What? This makes no sense. "They" in the sentence refers to "concerns."

The Eagles could very easily want to keep Jackson away from younger players because of his lack of work ethic and lack of professionalism unrelated to his LOS ANGELES friends. The Eagles play in PHILADELPHIA. There is no professional football team in Los Angeles.

What is indisputable, based on reports of others and my own reporting, is that Jackson has been a major headache for every coaching staff since his days at Cal. He is selfish and unreliable. He has difficulty committing to a team concept. He is uninterested in practicing hard. He coasted through an entire season because he didn't want to risk injury in a contract year.

You can't be Allen Iverson on a football team. And even Iverson got run out of Philadelphia when he was still a spectacular talent because the Sixers got tired of the headache and his bad attitude.

What the Eagles did to Jackson isn't remotely unprecedented, racist or unfair. Coaches don't like lazy, disrespectful, cancerous massive headaches. Daniel Snyder does. That's why he learned nothing from his Albert Haynesworth experience and Washington was first in line to sign Jackson. Snyder is a billionaire fan with a team. Kelly is a football coach.

Kelly made his name coaching at Oregon and, like most Pac-12 coaches, routinely recruited kids from Los Angeles, kids with "gang ties." This was not his first rodeo with a young player with unscrupulous friends. Every NFL and college football coach on the planet deals with this issue.

Let me expand it. America's drug war and subsequent mass incarceration of black and brown men have made it virtually impossible for the average black man to not have friends and/or family members who are gang-affiliated. Incarceration breeds gangs and gang culture. The pervasiveness of gangs is directly connected to America's decision to be the world's leader in incarceration. It's all connected.

Let me be transparent. I have friends who are in gangs. If you search hard enough on Google, you can find pictures of me socializing with them. I'm friends with gang-affiliated gangsta rappers. I've gone to dinner with them. I've made it rain with them at the club. I've made music with them. I've made no secret I'm friends with the rapper Tech N9ne. I've appeared on one of his albums.

I'm not a thug or a wannabe gangsta. I don't own a gun. I'm a pacifist. I am a critic of commercial gangsta rap music. I don't believe you change people or their flawed perspectives from a distance. You open their minds from up close, when they realize you respect and love them.

Coaches, at their core, understand this. Yes, coaches are in the profession for the fame, the winning and the money. But they also realize they can help misguided young people find a better direction. It's a process, a procedure all coaches realize oftentimes includes sticking by players with non-choirboy friends.

Jackson isn't the first supertalented athlete to reject guidance, refuse help. There are a handful of knuckleheads in every locker room who run with the wrong crowd all the time. Coaches tolerate them as long as they're relatively responsible when it comes to football activities. Practice hard, show up to meetings on time, embrace team concepts, stay out of trouble, interact respectfully with teammates, coaches and staff and a player can spend his free time kicking it with Suge Knight and Rick Ross at King of Diamonds five nights a week.

That's a fact of life in professional athletics. It's no secret.

It's irresponsible to paint Kelly and the Eagles as racist in their dealings with Jackson. It ignores obvious facts. Sherman and others have criticized the Eagles for releasing Jackson and signing Riley Cooper to a new contract. Sherman wrote that Cooper, who was caught on video saying the N-word, has ties to "racist activities."

Sherman's argument is specious. If Cooper's actions are the standard, I'd argue the overwhelming majority of us have ties to racist activity. Sherman's argument is nothing more than faux outrage to fuel his column on Sports Illustrated's Monday Morning Quarterback site. He's allegedly incensed by Cooper's use of the word, but thinks it's racist for the NFL to ask black players to quit using the word in a work environment.

Someone please tell Richard Sherman the Creator gave us two ears, two eyes and one mouth for a reason. We are supposed to do four times as much listening and observing as talking, especially when we are young. Our hearing and vision diminish as we age. We can always talk. Think about it.

Rather than having an unsophisticated discussion revolving around DeSean Jackson's friends, people who care about Jackson should be telling the receiver the cliché philosophy football coaches have been trying to beat into his head for a decade:

There's no "I" in team.



http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10721431/eagles-had-other-issues-desean-jackson
 
I'm not a real big fan of Jason Whitlock but I think he writes this article well regarding Desean and the Eagles. A guy may put up numbers but if he f's up the team...?



A Question Of Character

Eagles had plenty of work-related reasons to release DeSean Jackson


It's my belief Chip Kelly and the Philadelphia Eagles wanted to trade DeSean Jackson because the diminutive receiver is -- and always has been -- a massive headache for a coaching staff.

It's my belief Chip Kelly and the Philadelphia Eagles cut DeSean Jackson because they realized a sensationalized media report tying together the diminutive receiver's "gang ties" would eviscerate Jackson's trade value.

The people, including two-mouths-and-one-ear All-Pro cornerback Richard Sherman, screaming that Kelly and the Eagles have acted in a racist manner have chosen the wrong target.

If any group has been unfair to Jackson, if any group has judged Jackson without nuance and given in to stereotypes about black men from a certain background, it is us, the media. We are the group benefiting from a mischaracterization of Jackson's relationship with his friends and the Philadelphia Eagles. We are the group filling broadcast airtime and driving Internet clicks with analysis focused on the belief the Eagles cut Jackson because of his "gang ties" and Aaron Hernandez backlash.

I include myself in this media criticism; I participated in a "Pardon the Interruption" discussion on the day the Eagles released Jackson that could've been more substantive and accurate with additional time to reflect and research.

There is no proof and virtually no reason to believe Kelly and the Eagles released Jackson because he is friends with Los Angeles Crips. I've reread a half-dozen times the original NJ.com story that sparked the controversial narrative and set the tone for coverage of Jackson's release.

As it relates to justifying the narrative, the story is thin at best. In its own words, it contradicts the engine driving the Eagles' decision. NJ.com wrote:

"Rather, sources close to Jackson and within the Eagles' organization say, it originally was Jackson's off-field behavior that concerned the front office. A bad attitude, an inconsistent work ethic, missed meetings and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly were the original reasons for his fall from grace, sources told NJ.com."

In the old-school journalism world, this would be considered the "nut graph," the summary of what the story would explore or prove. What caused the Eagles to sour on and decide to jettison their top receiver? His problems with Kelly? Or Jackson's unsavory friends?

This nut graph lets the reader decide, and then the story paints a weak case that Jackson's friends did him in.

From the story:

"Then, suddenly, the Eagles had even more serious concerns when they were revealed by NJ.com -- Jackson's continued association with reputed Los Angeles street gang members who have been connected to two homicides since 2010. ... Before Jackson was released, a source within the Eagles organization, who requested anonymity, put it: 'They are concerned about having him around the younger players.'"

Words matter, particularly when you're writing a story that could significantly damage a person's or an organization's reputation. "Then, suddenly, the Eagles had even more serious concerns when they were revealed by NJ.com..."

What? This makes no sense. "They" in the sentence refers to "concerns."

The Eagles could very easily want to keep Jackson away from younger players because of his lack of work ethic and lack of professionalism unrelated to his LOS ANGELES friends. The Eagles play in PHILADELPHIA. There is no professional football team in Los Angeles.

What is indisputable, based on reports of others and my own reporting, is that Jackson has been a major headache for every coaching staff since his days at Cal. He is selfish and unreliable. He has difficulty committing to a team concept. He is uninterested in practicing hard. He coasted through an entire season because he didn't want to risk injury in a contract year.

You can't be Allen Iverson on a football team. And even Iverson got run out of Philadelphia when he was still a spectacular talent because the Sixers got tired of the headache and his bad attitude.

What the Eagles did to Jackson isn't remotely unprecedented, racist or unfair. Coaches don't like lazy, disrespectful, cancerous massive headaches. Daniel Snyder does. That's why he learned nothing from his Albert Haynesworth experience and Washington was first in line to sign Jackson. Snyder is a billionaire fan with a team. Kelly is a football coach.

Kelly made his name coaching at Oregon and, like most Pac-12 coaches, routinely recruited kids from Los Angeles, kids with "gang ties." This was not his first rodeo with a young player with unscrupulous friends. Every NFL and college football coach on the planet deals with this issue.

Let me expand it. America's drug war and subsequent mass incarceration of black and brown men have made it virtually impossible for the average black man to not have friends and/or family members who are gang-affiliated. Incarceration breeds gangs and gang culture. The pervasiveness of gangs is directly connected to America's decision to be the world's leader in incarceration. It's all connected.

Let me be transparent. I have friends who are in gangs. If you search hard enough on Google, you can find pictures of me socializing with them. I'm friends with gang-affiliated gangsta rappers. I've gone to dinner with them. I've made it rain with them at the club. I've made music with them. I've made no secret I'm friends with the rapper Tech N9ne. I've appeared on one of his albums.

I'm not a thug or a wannabe gangsta. I don't own a gun. I'm a pacifist. I am a critic of commercial gangsta rap music. I don't believe you change people or their flawed perspectives from a distance. You open their minds from up close, when they realize you respect and love them.

Coaches, at their core, understand this. Yes, coaches are in the profession for the fame, the winning and the money. But they also realize they can help misguided young people find a better direction. It's a process, a procedure all coaches realize oftentimes includes sticking by players with non-choirboy friends.

Jackson isn't the first supertalented athlete to reject guidance, refuse help. There are a handful of knuckleheads in every locker room who run with the wrong crowd all the time. Coaches tolerate them as long as they're relatively responsible when it comes to football activities. Practice hard, show up to meetings on time, embrace team concepts, stay out of trouble, interact respectfully with teammates, coaches and staff and a player can spend his free time kicking it with Suge Knight and Rick Ross at King of Diamonds five nights a week.

That's a fact of life in professional athletics. It's no secret.

It's irresponsible to paint Kelly and the Eagles as racist in their dealings with Jackson. It ignores obvious facts. Sherman and others have criticized the Eagles for releasing Jackson and signing Riley Cooper to a new contract. Sherman wrote that Cooper, who was caught on video saying the N-word, has ties to "racist activities."

Sherman's argument is specious. If Cooper's actions are the standard, I'd argue the overwhelming majority of us have ties to racist activity. Sherman's argument is nothing more than faux outrage to fuel his column on Sports Illustrated's Monday Morning Quarterback site. He's allegedly incensed by Cooper's use of the word, but thinks it's racist for the NFL to ask black players to quit using the word in a work environment.

Someone please tell Richard Sherman the Creator gave us two ears, two eyes and one mouth for a reason. We are supposed to do four times as much listening and observing as talking, especially when we are young. Our hearing and vision diminish as we age. We can always talk. Think about it.

Rather than having an unsophisticated discussion revolving around DeSean Jackson's friends, people who care about Jackson should be telling the receiver the cliché philosophy football coaches have been trying to beat into his head for a decade:

There's no "I" in team.



http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10721431/eagles-had-other-issues-desean-jackson

While I don't always agree with him, I have always liked his writing. As a Chiefs fan, he was our reporter for the KC Star. He always tells you where he stands and doesn't tend to sugar coat anything. Again, that doesn't mean I always agree with him, but I respect the way he writes.
 
Shernan can rattle on all he wants so long as he drive my Seahawk defense to super bowls. Its not his opinions im interested in.
 
Back
Top