Jackson deal done.

freightboy · Post #1 » by **freightboy** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:33 pm

The Hawks traded him for one of the 49s 4th round draft choice, #124. They took Mansfield Wrotto, an OG with the draft choice. So basically, Jackson for an OG.

Post #2 » by **Billy** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:54 pm

Even though Wrotto sounds promising, they still dealt their most productive WR for the past 6 years for a guy that will in most likelihood be 2-3 years into his contract before he contributes.

Hopefully Wilson will be able to step in right away as obviously a division rival got much better today at WR.

Ripcity4life · Post #3 » by **Ripcity4life** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:02 pm

I have no problem trading Jackson but did it have to be to a team they will meet 2 times a year. Also this HELPS the 49ers and makes them better and this is WHY most teams usually do not trade with teams IN there own Division. This trade for that reason is a head scratcher.

Post #4 » by **KingInExile** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:19 pm

As others have said, I don't have a huge problem with moving D-Jax. Branch did a great job in making Jax expendable. But for a 4th round pick?!?! Unless his turf toe is a much bigger problem than we know, this deal just looks like a give away. He should have had a lot more value than this. THAT is the head-scratching part for me.

Post #5 » by **Sweezo** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:55 pm

Moss was dealt for a 4th round pick too today, so...maybe that's what the market is for WR right now.

Still, San Francisco? I'd rather have no pick than watch Jackson burn us twice every year.

SactownHrtBrks8 · Post #6 » by **SactownHrtBrks8** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:03 pm

Ya this trade is unfair, but i can'compalin... he'll be the Niners first receiver...

Troy McClure · Post #7 » by **Troy McClure** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:19 pm

This is such horse crap. Why trade your best reciever for a 4th? I just can't fit it into my paradigm at all. I hope for his sake Ruskell makes me look dumb for being this upset.

Post #8 » by **Sweezo** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:16 am

If you listen to Holmgren's interview over on Sando's blog, he lets slip that Jackson had requested a trade quite some time ago. He tried to backpedal, but he realized the cat was out of the bag and then clarified his statements a bit.

He also didn't sound pleased about the leak about trade discussions, rather pointedly explaining that there's only so much trade value you can get when someone like an agent tells the world you're looking to trade Jackson for a 4th round pick. Sounds like someone sort of forced the 'Hawks hand and screwed them over...

vegas_runnin_rebel · Post #9 » by **vegas_runnin_rebel** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:07 am

I tend to agree with Ruskell's stance that every player on the team should *want* to be playing for the Seahawks...

And I'm not even convinced that we will suffer a dropoff at WR with Jackson gone. Branch is only going to get better. Hackett is poised for stardom, Engram just needs to stay healthy, and Burleson should be able to contribute occasionally in the passing game as well.

That being said, I would go as far to say that I would rather the Seahawks have traded Jackson for a 7th round pick to an AFC team than trade him to the 49ers (or any other team in the NFC West). Hell, I would have even cut Jackson if it meant keeping Jackson out of their hands.

I'd be far more satisfied with Baraka Atkins, no 124th pick (Mansfield Wrotto), and watching Jackson play for the Kansas City Chiefs next year.

Post #10 » by **Billy** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:23 pm

I agree completely. Obviously the compensation wasn't too far off base (although he was worth more to Seattle). But the biggest issue for me (and it appears everyone else) is the fact he was dealt to SF.

Post #11 » by **kdawg32086** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:39 pm

Honestly, I don't understand this move. They traded him to a team in their division for just a 4th round pick. I think the should have held out for a better pick, given the fact that they'll be facing the Niners twice a year.

Post #12 » by **Sweezo** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:56 pm

kdawg32086 wrote:Honestly, I don't understand this move. They traded him to a team in their division for just a 4th round pick. I think the should have held out for a better pick, given the fact that they'll be facing the Niners twice a year.

They've been trying to trade Jackson for two years...I don't see that holding out any longer would've netted us better compensation.

Like everyone else, I'm fine with trading him...just not to San Francisco. Take lesser compensation and move him to Tennessee or New Orleans if you can.

myELFboy · Post #13 » by **myELFboy** » Tue May 1, 2007 12:11 am

I hate to sound evil, BUT, I love this deal if he blows his knee out in preseason...heheheh :devil:

.

richboy · Post #14 » by **richboy** » Tue May 1, 2007 7:04 am

Dont mind the 4th round pick if that the value. Only way I trade him to SF is this means I hand pick the WR they add to there roster. Not happy he is playing with them but would have been less happy if they added a even better receiver. Still trading within your division. I have a feeling this trade will cost them atleast 1 game against the 49ers.

Post #15 » by **Sweezo** » Sat May 5, 2007 7:16 am

Prepare to be shocked...

WR Darrell Jackson is being held out of minicamp with the turf toe injury that sidelined him for three games at the end of the regular season. The 49ers passed him on their physical Sunday before the deal with Seattle went through. Coach Mike Nolan said he expects Jackson to be ready for training camp and hopes he'll be ready for the OTAs at the end of the month.

http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/default.asp?item=591447

Post #16 » by **Sweezo** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:28 am

Sweezo wrote:Moss was dealt for a 4th round pick too today, so...maybe that's what the market is for WR right now.

Still, San Francisco? I'd rather have no pick than watch Jackson burn us twice every year.

...as it turned out, Jackson didn't burn us at all, and while we still have that 4th round pick on the roster...D-Jack supposedly was waived today. I wonder where he goes from here?

Troy McClure · Post #17 » by **Troy McClure** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:23 am

seriously?

http://www.nfl.com/freeagency/story?id= ... nfirm=true

:cry:

Post #18 » by **Sweezo** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:56 am

Gotta wonder how he's taking it. I mean, this was a guy who basically forced a trade because he felt like he wasn't getting paid like a #1 reciever, so he gets the trade he wants, to a division rival of the team he believed slighted him no less, and it works so poorly for him that he ends up without a job.

Troy McClure · Post #19 » by **Troy McClure** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:51 am

What would you think of the Seahawks bringing him back? He's been on the team just about as long as i've been interested in football and would be happy if they brought him back.

Ex-hippie · Post #20 » by **Ex-hippie** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 3:29 pm

Troy McClure wrote:What would you think of the Seahawks bringing him back? He's been on the team just about as long as i've been interested in football and would be happy if they brought him back.

I'd be happy with that, though he'll definitely be demoted on the depth chart relative to where he was before. I wonder if bridges have been burned, however.