Was it a good idea for the Philadelphia Eagles to let DeSean Jackson go?


Jackson was drafted by the Eagles in 2008 in the second round and spent five years in Philadelphia before his departure last week.

The NFL offseason is always one that is busy. The change in rules and free agency alone is enough to keep NFL junkies tame during the five-month layoff.

This year’s free agency period has already been hectic. Top-notch players have changed teams while some teams have remained stagnant and did not make any key offseason moves.

One free agency move that hit close to home was when the Philadelphia Eagles allowed DeSean Jackson to test the free agency waters. Jackson ended up signing with his former NFC East foe, Washington Redskins.

The question that arises now is whether it was a good decision for the Eagles to let DeSean Jackson go?

Ryan and Brendan debate whether it was a good choice or not in this week’s edition of The Hot Corner

Ryan: I do not think it was a good idea for the Eagles to let Jackson go. He has been a huge part of the Eagles since they drafted him in 2008.

Jackson produced from the start as an Eagle under Andy Reid. He grew as a player and as a crucial part of the franchise.

He had arguably his best season last year, leading the team in every receiving category except one.

Jackson recorded 82 receptions last year, 30 more than LeSean McCoy who was second on the list.

Yeah, Jackson might not have been a 100 percent team player but he was crucial to the Eagles’ success. He had minor off-field trouble, but nothing overboard.

The contract he was looking for might have been a little higher than what the Eagles would have liked, but they could have tried to talk him down.

Being that Jackson signed with Washington, a team that the Eagles play twice every year, he has the best opportunity to give the Eagles a taste of their own medicine.

Jackson is a dominant player. He will beat the best cornerback you have. He has shown that many times.

The Eagles made a huge mistake by letting Jackson go, their only hope is he does not burn them when the Eagles play the Redskins in 2014.

Brendan: I, on the other hand, do believe it was a good move for the Eagles to let Jackson go, but they shot themselves in the foot because he signed with a team that they battle for the NFC East title.

Sure, Ryan brought up valid points that he was one of the Eagles’ best players but the cost of resigning him to a new and more expensive contract would have hurt the Eagles financially.

The Eagles opened up a lot of cap space and can now focus on making the team stronger as a whole. Winning a football game is an all-around team effort. The Eagles have some weak spots in other positions and can use that money from Jackson’s possible contract to strengthen the team.

Some could argue that Jackson was too self-centered inside the locker room. A team needs players who are willing to put their teammates first and having someone like Jackson around creates too much conflict.

He also did not care whether or not the team won games. Jackson would just go out on the field and focus on himself and nothing else.

Jackson comes with too much off-field attention as well. He was a distraction to the team because of the media controversy that surrounded him. The Eagles can now regain focus on winning games and an NFL title.

Teams do not need players who have a certain stigma to them. Just like with Michael Vick before he left the Eagles, a lot of people referred to the team as that team with the dog killer. Regardless whether or not the accusations about Jackson are true, a team is better off not having that player on the roster.

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Slate.