Pats show interest in this WR...

[BRiZ]

sounds like he is gunna move up the draft boards, i wouldnt mind spending a 3rd or 4th on him i think he can really help us. Two Welkers is better than one plus his return ability.

 

[DaBruinz]

sorry buddy, you always correct ppl, so i gotta do it
it's devin, not devon

Actually, I only correct spelling on the ignorant trolls or on someone who is just being totally pig-headed with their rants (see Danny88 or NSA).

 

[patsfan-1982]

sounds like a kick returner so hobbs and welker dont have to return i guess we will see on draft day

 

[dryheat44]

sounds like he is gunna move up the draft boards, i wouldnt mind spending a 3rd or 4th on him i think he can really help us. Two Welkers is better than one plus his return ability.

Not really, because you don't want them on the field at the same time. They'd be working the same area of the field, plus you'd have to go without a tight end and blocking back, so you're leaving Brady open to big hits.

Two Welkers is better than only if the first Welker gets hurt.

 

[DaBruinz]

Not really, because you don't want them on the field at the same time. They'd be working the same area of the field, plus you'd have to go without a tight end and blocking back, so you're leaving Brady open to big hits.

Two Welkers is better than only if the first Welker gets hurt.

This is absolutely not true, dryheat. The Pats could go with either a blocking back OR a TE in a 4 WR set. And they did that quite a bit this year with plenty of success.

Also, they don't have to be working the same areas of the field. Welker could be working the short inside and Jackson could work the deeper middle or work the short outside after having cut behind the outside receiver on his side.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I can't see BB drafting this guy, it goes against his mandate on versatility.

That mandate goes like this:
(1) I want players that can do more than one thing, but . . .
(2) If they can only do one thing, they better be DAMN GOOD at it.

I'm not saying Jackson's skills as a return man justify picking him, but it's not as clear-cut as "do more than one thing."

 

[dryheat44]

This is absolutely not true, dryheat. The Pats could go with either a blocking back OR a TE in a 4 WR set. And they did that quite a bit this year with plenty of success.

Also, they don't have to be working the same areas of the field. Welker could be working the short inside and Jackson could work the deeper middle or work the short outside after having cut behind the outside receiver on his side.

Let's see.....5 lineman + Brady = 6. Add 4 WRs = 10. That leaves room for one RB, which I would assume is Faulk most of the time. Show me where my math is wrong. If the Pats are using Welker and Jackson in the slots, which is what has been proposed, where do we put a tight end? Lining up Watson out wide doesn't mean we have a tight end on the field to help block. I suppose we could go empty backfield with a wing back, but that would come at the expense of a running back in the backfield to pick up a blitzer.

Yes, I realize the Pats used a four wide formation many times this year....I'm not saying they can't or won't. But unless you want to use it as a base offense and run the hurry-up full-time (which I'm not opposed to), I don't see the value of picking up a Welker clone in the first four rounds, which everybody in this thread seems to be calling Jackson. I'd rather see Watson on the field full-time, and shift between TE and slot, as the situation calls for.

I like the WR corps of Moss, Gaffney (or another vet WR like Booker), Welker, and Jackson. Troy Brown and Kelly Washington could still be around for depth. I'm not opposed to adding a young WR, but if I'm using a choice in the top 80 picks, I want one who's been successful in a pro-style offense and has had success against NFL caliber cornerbacks. That's why Andre Caldwell is at the top of my list.

Again, perhaps Dexter Jackson is a special player. I just don't know that he is. I would have to watch 4-5 of his games and see him absolutely dominate against D1-AA competition to consider him. Maybe he did.

 

[bradmahn]

Let's see.....5 lineman + Brady = 6. Add 4 WRs = 10. That leaves room for one RB, which I would assume is Faulk most of the time. Show me where my math is wrong. If the Pats are using Welker and Jackson in the slots, which is what has been proposed, where do we put a tight end? Lining up Watson out wide doesn't mean we have a tight end on the field to help block. I suppose we could go empty backfield with a wing back, but that would come at the expense of a running back in the backfield to pick up a blitzer.

Yes, I realize the Pats used a four wide formation many times this year....I'm not saying they can't or won't. But unless you want to use it as a base offense and run the hurry-up full-time (which I'm not opposed to), I don't see the value of picking up a Welker clone in the first four rounds, which everybody in this thread seems to be calling Jackson. I'd rather see Watson on the field full-time, and shift between TE and slot, as the situation calls for.

I like the WR corps of Moss, Gaffney (or another vet WR like Booker), Welker, and Jackson. Troy Brown and Kelly Washington could still be around for depth. I'm not opposed to adding a young WR, but if I'm using a choice in the top 80 picks, I want one who's been successful in a pro-style offense and has had success against NFL caliber cornerbacks. That's why Andre Caldwell is at the top of my list.

Again, perhaps Dexter Jackson is a special player. I just don't know that he is. I would have to watch 4-5 of his games and see him absolutely dominate against D1-AA competition to consider him. Maybe he did.

With the second of the Pats picks in the third round, a premier returner (which I don't know if Jackson is or not, but 4.2 speed is sure to help) is not a reach, in my most humble opinion. And if Jackson can provide the kind of spark on special teams that a primo return man can (Hester, Hall of year's past, Cribbs, etc.), then I don't see his being the fifth or sixth WR on the depth chart as being a waste. He'd be the return man equivalent of Washington, who was a special teams stud that never saw the field (save a few "goal line" snaps).

And if he provides potential to develop into a good receiver (slot or otherwise), I don't understand the risk in that situation. The Patriots have shown a propensity to play in four wide receiver sets (Welker, Moss, Gaffney, Stallworth) with some semblance of success (ha). If he can be that fourth receiver part time (it does not have to be a base set) and provide excellent play as a returner, a late third round pick (especially when the Pats have two third rounders) is not too much for a selection like that. I'd make that decision in the fourth round in a heartbeat (again, I don't know enough of Jackson to deem him that player, but it's a possibility, no?).

That being said, I'd feel better if he was selected in the fourth round.

 

[BRiZ]

Let's see.....5 lineman + Brady = 6. Add 4 WRs = 10. That leaves room for one RB, which I would assume is Faulk most of the time. Show me where my math is wrong. If the Pats are using Welker and Jackson in the slots, which is what has been proposed, where do we put a tight end? Lining up Watson out wide doesn't mean we have a tight end on the field to help block. I suppose we could go empty backfield with a wing back, but that would come at the expense of a running back in the backfield to pick up a blitzer.

Yes, I realize the Pats used a four wide formation many times this year....I'm not saying they can't or won't. But unless you want to use it as a base offense and run the hurry-up full-time (which I'm not opposed to), I don't see the value of picking up a Welker clone in the first four rounds, which everybody in this thread seems to be calling Jackson. I'd rather see Watson on the field full-time, and shift between TE and slot, as the situation calls for.

I like the WR corps of Moss, Gaffney (or another vet WR like Booker), Welker, and Jackson. Troy Brown and Kelly Washington could still be around for depth. I'm not opposed to adding a young WR, but if I'm using a choice in the top 80 picks, I want one who's been successful in a pro-style offense and has had success against NFL caliber cornerbacks. That's why Andre Caldwell is at the top of my list.

Again, perhaps Dexter Jackson is a special player. I just don't know that he is. I would have to watch 4-5 of his games and see him absolutely dominate against D1-AA competition to consider him. Maybe he did.

The whole point is to get Jackson and Welker on the field at the same time, because then you cant double team everyone. Say its 3rd and 5 you go spread with Welker in the slot on one side and Jackson in the slot on the other side and Moss on the field too, you cant double team all of them. Brady would just have to look who is getting doubled, Welker is getting doubled so throw it to Jackson, 1st down. Watson isnt a reliable 3rd down target we dont throw it to him hardly anyway.

Jackson probably wouldnt be starting, Gaffney doesnt start. But he comes in on certain situations like 4-5 wide receiver sets. Watson wouldnt be impacted much by Jackson. Neither would Welker he will still be starting. But i could see Jackson giving Welker a breather every now and again. With Stallworth and Washington gone we need another WR, Jackson would be a great 4th-5th WR and give us some return ability too.

 

[Seneschal2]

Well, Jackson just ran the Combine's fastest 40 time thus far -- 4.27. And to think he's more than just a speed guy.

 

[PatDaPatriot]

With his combine times, Jackson will probably now go in the second round...

 

[dryheat44]

The whole point is to get Jackson and Welker on the field at the same time, because then you cant double team everyone. Say its 3rd and 5 you go spread with Welker in the slot on one side and Jackson in the slot on the other side and Moss on the field too, you cant double team all of them. Brady would just have to look who is getting doubled, Welker is getting doubled so throw it to Jackson, 1st down. Watson isnt a reliable 3rd down target we dont throw it to him hardly anyway.

In the "No Sh!t Sherlock" department, or the "rampant cliche" department, you could replace "Jackson" with the name of any other wide receiver in the draft, free agency, or the Pats roster, and this would still be 100% true. Try it.

There's nothing (to me) that indicates Jackson is a unique, or even rare, player, and that he can do these things, but other guys can't.

 

[BRiZ]

In the "No Sh!t Sherlock" department, or the "rampant cliche" department, you could replace "Jackson" with the name of any other wide receiver in the draft, free agency, or the Pats roster, and this would still be 100% true. Try it.

There's nothing (to me) that indicates Jackson is a unique, or even rare, player, and that he can do these things, but other guys can't.

Just like anyone can be as good as Welker in the slot right? Jackson is a SLOT wr, no you cannot stick anyone in there and get the same results. Jackson would be just as difficult to cover as Welker is. His quickness and speed is off the charts. You think anyone is gunna double cover Gaffney in the slot? Moss isnt a slot WR hes a wideout, and Welker is a slot WR hes not a wideout. The reason Welker is so good in the slot is because hes small and quick. Jackson is just like that hes 5'9 and super quick, plus has a 4.27 40-yard time and can return kicks. The guy is unique and special. Pats probably will have to take him with their 2nd round pick now or one of their two 3rds.

 

[sebman2112]

In the "No Sh!t Sherlock" department, or the "rampant cliche" department, you could replace "Jackson" with the name of any other wide receiver in the draft, free agency, or the Pats roster, and this would still be 100% true. Try it.

There's nothing (to me) that indicates Jackson is a unique, or even rare, player, and that he can do these things, but other guys can't.

You've already admitted to hardly watching anything he's done throughout his college career. So, how could he show you anything that indicates he could be a special player? What's the sense of even arguing over this player, if you haven't watched him play?

I don't understand you're arguments or points concerning Jackson either, as he has looked good when I've watched him, and some of the things you've said about NE's offense, their ability to use him, and his value to the Patriots don't really make sense to me. Also, his 4.27 speed is rare for a WR, especially when combined with his quickness.

 

[Keegs]

i'm sure it's been posted already, but today Dexter Jackson ran a 4.27.

Now he is going to go higher than he should and the pats will be forced to pass b/c someone will reach for him.

I always feel like whenever a player the pats are interested in has a great combine workout, they never get him b/c someone always reaches.

edit: (whoops, didn't Chad Jackson have a great combine?)

 

[ATippett56]

i'm sure it's been posted already, but today Dexter Jackson ran a 4.27.

Now he is going to go higher than he should and the pats will be forced to pass b/c someone will reach for him.

I always feel like whenever a player the pats are interested in has a great combine workout, they never get him b/c someone always reaches.

edit: (whoops, didn't Chad Jackson have a great combine?)

Also, the New England Patriots traded up for Chad Jackson in the 2006 NFL Draft.

 

[sebman2112]

Also, the New England Patriots traded up for Chad Jackson in the 2006 NFL Draft.

Yea, but some scouts considered Chad Jackson the best WR in the draft, and some of those same scouts projected him as going something like 14th overall (I believe to the Vikings?). He was durable, fast, a good route runner, had size, great hands, played in multiple offenses with multiple roles, and had top level production (88 recepts in one season). So, if anything he slipped a little, and NE traded up because they believed he was very talented, and the best WR in the draft (BB even said this).

Remember, they almost took him at 21st overall, but decided on Maroney instead.

You're correct about his workouts though, he was impressive. I believe he ran a 4.32 forty.

 

[ATippett56]

Yea, but some scouts considered Chad Jackson the best WR in the draft, and some of those same scouts projected him as going something like 14th overall (I believe to the Falcons). He was durable, fast, a good route runner, had size, great hands, played in multiple offense with multiple roles, and had top level production (88 recepts in one season). So, if anything he slipped a little, and NE traded up because they believed he was very talented, and the best WR in the draft (BB even said this).

Remember, they almost took him at 21st overall, but decided on Maroney instead.

You're correct about his workouts though, he was impressive. I believe he ran a 4.32 forty.

I hope injuries have not zapped Jackson of that precious speed since he did not look "fast" on kickoff returns late this past season.

 

[bradmahn]

I hope injuries have not zapped Jackson of that precious speed since he did not look "fast" on kickoff returns late this past season.

There were a few where he looked to have some jets. I think it was more the returning, though, he seemed real apprehensive waiting for the wedge and blockers to set up.

 

[sebman2112]

I hope injuries have not zapped Jackson of that precious speed since he did not look "fast" on kickoff returns late this past season.

He didn't get many chances though, and that was still coming off said injury. He should be able to enter NE's 2008 training camp fully healthy. Also, I thought he looked pretty fast on that 39-40 (?) yard Kick Return.