Forget Sidney Rice. Wouldn’t you rather see wide receiver Vincent Jackson on the Redskins’ roster this year? It could happen. Gregg Rosenthal’s story on Pro Football Talk says the
disgruntled Jackson will try to lever his anti-trust suit against the NFL into a release from the San Diego Chargers.
Vincent Jackson stories attracted more hits on Redskins Hog Heaven than any other topic last year. We wrote that tough-minded GM A.J. Smith would never allow Jackson to leave the team after Jackson sat out most of the season. Thus, he would never be available to Washington in spite of the fondest wishes of Redskins fans. The Chargers tagged Jackson with “non-exclusive” franchise status, meaning they have the right to match any offer Jackson receives from other teams. Offers for Jackson’s services could be in neighborhood of $10 to $11 million per year.
Jackson, you recall, refused to sign the $3 million restricted free agent contract offered in the “non-capped” year of the CBA, hoping to force the Chargers to extend his contract. He sat out the first half of the season before caving to the team, who pro rated his contract based on games played. Jackson also served a three game suspension before being eligible for the final six games in 2010.
Jackson is one of the 10 named players in the anti-trust suit against the NFL. Settlement talks between the owners and players will include terms to dismiss that suit. Jackson is indicating that he will not settle the suit unless the league declares him an unrestricted free agent or pays him $10 million for last year’s performance. Free agency is Jackson’s path to the Burgundy & Gold, if Washington is so inclined.
But should they? There is no doubt that Jackson is a playmaker who is enticing for a team that lacks them. He would be an immediate hit with fans. And yet, everything about Jackson’s story recalls Albert Haynesworth. Teamwork is not built on players like Jackson who will have his own concern about the step down from Phil Rivers to John Beck/Rex Grossman.
We’ve seen the Redskins go down this path before. So much so that the NFL Network picked “anyone signed by Washington” as No. 1 on its list of Top 10 Free Agent Busts. (I kid you not.) Big Al was Exhibit A in the indictment.
Washington should look at Jackson and factor the sideshow that comes with him. A reasonable, competitive contract makes sense. A top-heavy deal with built-in dead cap money does not. Here’s hoping Bruce Allen knows the difference.
Point after: Yeah, I know. This is a shallow, cynical attempt to boost traffic by mentioning “Vincent Jackson.” What’s a blogger to do? Labor stories are boring. The lockout is vexing. Vincent Jackson is a tonic by the very mention of his name. Vincent Jackson. Yup. I managed to say “Vincent Jackson” four times in one paragraph.
UPDATE: Mike Florio reports that Jackson and Patriots guard Logan Mankins are no longer demanding free agent status to settle their lawsuit. They do, however, want $10 million in retroactive compensation for the 2010 season. Jackson seems to have a score to settle with his team for GM A.J. Smith’s hardline response to Jackson’s holdout. Stay tuned.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
