Image

Seahawks trade Lo Jack

Moderator: Cactus Jack

User avatar
Danny Darko
Forum Mod - Lakers
Forum Mod - Lakers
Posts: 18,590
And1: 5,947
Joined: Jun 24, 2005
         

Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#1 » by Danny Darko » Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:17 pm

Two days after acquiring defensive lineman Kentwan Balmer from San Francisco, the Seahawks have traded Lawrence Jackson, their own 2008 first-round draft disappointment, to the Detroit Lions.

In return, the Seahawks will receive an undisclosed 2011 draft choice from the Lions, likely similar compensation to the sixth-round pick they sent to the 49ers for Balmer.

Though head coach Pete Carroll said Monday that Balmer's acquisition had nothing to do with Jackson since the two don't play the same spot in Seattle's new defensive scheme, the two trades turn into a flip-flop of players who have failed to live up to their expected potential.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/archives/218545.asp

And there goes the other domino. Balmer for Jackson and moving up in the sixth with the Lions pick? That's not too shabby consider Lo Jack didn't fit with us at all.
Image
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

Re: Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#2 » by Sweezo » Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:42 pm

Jackson for a 6th is, essentially, a loss in terms of value. But big picture it basically was as you put it...Jackson for Balmer and [hopefully] moving up in the sixth round.

Jackson was a poor fit on this defensive scheme, and it made little sense to bury him on the depth chart if he couldn't be used. I wish Jackson well...he certainly seemed to handle his demotion better than Balmer did.
Bulltalk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 37,842
And1: 9,277
Joined: Jun 25, 2002
Location: Seattle Area
       

Re: Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#3 » by Bulltalk » Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:25 am

Bad pick for the Hawks/Ruskell. This guy just had nothing exceptional at all about him as a player. You know that if Carroll unloaded him, too.
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth."

(Donald Trump - 8/11/16)
Ex-hippie
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,213
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 17, 2003

Re: Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#4 » by Ex-hippie » Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:28 am

I don't like it. At all. Scheme aside, Jackson has to have more value than Balmer right now. If you asked me "what is the absolute lowest rock-bottom trade value a player can have two years after being a late first-rounder?" I would use as my benchmark the guy who couldn't even get into his team's rotation, then got hurt, then went AWOL from camp. Jackson didn't do those things. And yet he has essentially the trade value as the guy who did. Either the Seahawks overpaid for Balmer or they accepted too little for Jackson.

And while it's possible that Balmer is a better fit for the scheme and can contribute more to the Seahawks, trade value is supposed to be determined on the open market where the supply curve meets the demand curve, not based on how this particular team values the player. Tossing players aside for a questionable return just continues the offseason pattern of the Sims and Tapp trades.
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

Re: Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#5 » by Sweezo » Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:35 am

Same with Whitehurst...while he looked good in the last preseason, we certainly paid a premium for another team's 3rd stringer. The front office has some high points, but their ability to get premium value back when trading seems iffy at the very least.

I'm not thrilled with what we got back for Jackson, and if you look back at the 2008 draft it's pretty much flamed out in the span of two years. We still have Carlson and Bryant [and Schmitt...for now] but that's it. And Bryant looked like roster filler up until position change this season [which is far from certain to succeed]. Technically we drafted Forsett...but we also lost him soon thereafter, and we only got him back from the Colts when they tried to move him to their practice squad.
Bulltalk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 37,842
And1: 9,277
Joined: Jun 25, 2002
Location: Seattle Area
       

Re: Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#6 » by Bulltalk » Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:37 am

I'm not THAT bummed out about the Jackson deal. Wasn't Balmer the pick right after Jackson, or thereabouts? Wasn't Balmer viewed as having more upside potential than Jackson going into the draft, though he definitely had lower character/work ethic issues?

I don't know. Jackson was a bust for a 1st round pick. They rolled the dice on trying to amend it. A lateral move/risk at this point, IMO.

Now the Whitehurst trade doesn't sit well with me. That's another story.
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth."

(Donald Trump - 8/11/16)
User avatar
TTown
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,464
And1: 11
Joined: Apr 04, 2009
Location: Oregon

Re: Seahawks trade Lo Jack 

Post#7 » by TTown » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:12 am

The Whitehurst deal is puzzling because the Hawks will likely be in decent position to take Jake Locker, Andrew Luck, or Ryan Mallett in next year's draft... and one would assume they'll select one of them. Why spend so much money and take such a nosedive in the 2nd round of the '10 draft for a back-up QB when you could have just held onto Seneca? I thought Seneca was the perfect back-up QB, especially for this team, who won't be in contention for anything anyway. He's cheap, reliable, and knows his place. Now we have an expensive, completely unproven, ambiguous back-up who probably has actual hopes of taking over the top job.
ImageImageImageImage

Return to Seattle Seahawks