Why Vincent Jackson to the Seattle Seahawks Will Never Happen
The dream of some Seattle fans to see Vincent Jackson in a Seahawks uniform becomes more fiction than reality by the passing day.
Neil Schwartz, Jackson's agent, believes the San Diego Chargers aren't inclined to trade the holdout receiver.
The Seattle Seahawks reported last week that they were given permission by the Chargers to talk to Jackson's representatives about a trade, putting Seahawk fans in a frenzy.
Since news broke that the Seahawks have a chance to acquire Jackson, local sports talk show airwaves have been flooded with opinions about whether Jackson should or should not be a Hawk.
While almost everyone will acknowledge that Jackson's ability on the football field makes him arguably one of the top 10 players at his position, some Seahawks fans think the guy off the field is such a detriment that he isn't worth it.
A guy with Jackson's baggage and asking price tag is a risk, but this is football, you know (the one sport where a contract is worth as much as the paper you write it on).
Have we not seen the Terrell Owens rules applied before to NFL superstars who have a checkered past?
In 2004 then-Atlanta Falcons' quarterback Michael Vick signed a 10-year, $130 million contract, assuring Falcons fans that his unique combination of running back elusiveness, speed, and rocket passing arm would lead the team for years to come.
Add dog fighting to the equation and two years later Vick was ordered to repay a significant portion of his $37 million signing bonus, which was supposedly guaranteed.
Now, do you really think the Seahawks' brain trust can't figure out a way to prevent Jackson's obsession for driving drunk from being a financial liability?
They definitely can, and would have to if Jackson playing for the Hawks was ever to become a reality.
The second excuse I've heard from Seahawks fans about why Jackson isn't a good idea is the good ole "cancer in the locker room" argument.
Vincent Jackson may be on his way to being a drunk, but you'll be hard pressed to find any reliable source that will say Jackson has ever been a detriment to a team's locker room, period.
DUIs don't equal bad guys, and if a person gets one in his early 20s, some would argue that's a kid being a kid and that Jackson simply needs to grow up, not be outcasted.
I'm a firm believer that every successful team needs a misfit, a so-called tough guy.
Almost every championship team has one. Look at the Lakers and Ron Artest, and the famed New England Patriots and Tedy Bruschi.
Who is the Hawks' intimidator? Still haven't come up with one yet?
It won't be Jackson, and for once it won't be because of the Seahawks upper management's lack of effort.
Schwartz said that news of the Hawks getting permission to talk to Jackson prompted six NFL teams to contact him, which he referred to the Chargers.
At that point, Chargers' negotiator Ed McGuire on Tuesday said the team won't give him permission to talk with teams other than the Seahawks.
Some fans might ask why. If Jackson is such bad guy, why not trade him to one of the teams interested instead of letting him walk in the offseason for nothing?
The answer is simple: Jackson is a legit top-10 receiver and the Chargers are in position with or without him to make a Super Bowl run, and the Chargers staff knows that fact very well.
That is why only the Seahawks were given permission to talk to Jackson in the first place.
The Seahawks were predicted by Sports Illustrated to finish with the worst record in the NFL. Therefore, Jackson to the Hawks provides little, if any, interference to the Chargers' goal of winning a Super Bowl.
The Chargers are in a position to tell Jackson to either play for them or no one at all. If Jackson wants to wait until the last six weeks to help San Diego push for a playoff spot and Super Bowl run at the league minimum, so be it.
I hope Seahawks fans are picking up what I'm laying down. From a competitive and business standpoint, it actually make more sense for the Chargers to sit Jackson than pay him or trade him.
Seeing Jackson in a Seattle uniform is a fantasy that won't come true this year.
I know, dreams of acquiring a marquee star dashed again. At least this time it wasn't Seattle's fault.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?