Seahawks Insider

Leave a comment Comments → 39
  1. Good job, Redskins. You win the off-season almost every year. You have it so “good.”

  2. Dan Snyder is the jester, except he still thinks he’s the King. lol

  3. Better than to the Niners . . .

  4. Ray_Maines says:

    I’m not so sure. This DJack seems to be a total head case and perfectly capable of screwing up a locker room. Imagine if he doesn’t get his touches in SF (and he wouldn’t), then got splattered my #31 when he did catch a ball, and got all cranky. The niners might implode by mid season. That could work for me.

  5. He’s fun to watch, but not sure he would have fit in here. That’ll be a lot of speed off the edge if RG3 regains his. Already dreaming up bootleg plays for the ‘Skins for some dastardly reason.

    I really do hope we can find one of those tall/fast/athletic redzone target type WR’s for R’Dub. I’d rather design rollouts for that kind of combination anyway. Like most here; would like a top tier OT to slip to us, but more fun to think about a threat like that. Any chance Jordan Matthews slips to 32?

  6. surelyyoujest says:

    I’m curious as to how Lockette will continue to develop next year. The man became a demon on special teams towards the end of the year, and made a few tough catches. He has the size and speed, I just don’t know how his routes are, and if he has the hands…..but he flashed enough late in the season to get me wondering.

    Harvin, Kearse, Baldwin, & Lockette isn’t a bad place to start. We have 3 TE’s that can all catch. We still have 3 very solid RB’s. JS can really let the draft come to him….as long as he adds a couple of pieces to the o-line somewhere in there. I think losing Bruno and McQuistan was addition by subtraction….given that Bowie and Bailey appear ready.

  7. Really glad that DeSean didn’t go to the 49ers – whew!

    I am also interested to see how Lockette progresses this year – he did improve noticeably last year. Would still like to bring back Sidney for some veteran WR depth.

    Not sure that a team with serious SuperBowl intentions should count on Alvin Bailey and Michael Bowie to be quality starters. It could happen – but should the Seahawks count on it? Ebon Britton is a young o-line FA who plays RT and both guard spots – would really make sense from a depth standpoint.

  8. Dukeshire says:

    As others have said: classic Snyder signing. enjoy 8-8

  9. seahawkNJ says:

    Watched this 3 times on my commute this morning.

    You’re welcome.

  10. montanamike2 says:

    I’m so glad we didn’t get him, or the Whiners,Cards. This year we see more C.Michael and the rest of last years draft class. Only 5 weeks until the draft!

  11. montanamike2 says:

    I think Jackson has buku talent but i also think he’s a total cancer, we don’t need that.

  12. djbargelt says:

    I’ve read that RG3 is a “my way or the highway” QB. Given D Jacksons history, that should be a oil and water mix for Snyders sorry ass team!!!

  13. Have fun losing in D.C. Dijon Hackson.

  14. easy enough to pile on Jackson from afar – but worth pointing out that he’s 27, healthy, and just had more yards receiving in a single year, than any Seahawk receiver . . ever. And he did it while averaging over 16 yds per catch, which is very rare these days.

    was talking w/my Eagles fan friend, and thinking about how it went down, and wondering if it points to a difference in coaches and coaching styles. Meaning that, I can’t imagine that Carroll wouldn’t have figured out a way to make things work with a player as obviously talented as Jackson.

  15. chuck_easton says:

    I’m not overly impressed with Sherman bringing the race card into the Jackson saga. Article in MMQB from Sherman inferring that the Eagles let the black guy go while keeping the white guy (Cooper) who was seen on video to use the N word.

    At the surface Sherman has a point. But both Jackson and Cooper are/were idiots. The deciding factor of which idiot do you keep wasn’t race related as Sherman is trying to imply.

    The decision came down to one guy is a team first guy. He shows up for meetings on time. He hasn’t had a history of dogging it to try and get a new bigger contract claiming he was afraid of injury while being paid so little. He didn’t just make references to already being underpaid at 10 million, a mere two years after signing this big new contract.

    Sherman, we love you here with the Seahawks. But this time I’m going to have to call you out. It has nothing to do with your childhood friend, Jackson, being black and Cooper being white. It has everything to do with your childhood friend, Jackson, being a me first guy and having a reputation of poor work ethic, poor locker room presence, and not being well received by his own team mates.

    Case in point, Michael Vick (you know the black QB) came out in support of Cooper while acknowledging he did a stupid thing.

    Not one current Eagle player has come out in support of Jackson.

    That tells me more about the situation than just looking at the colour of the player’s skin, Sherman.

    Oh, and for someone who is going to be trying to get a big raise in the next year or so, starting down the NAACP path, might not be the best move here Sherman. Unless you are setting us up for your future departure by claiming the Seahawks wouldn’t pay you because you are black. Just sayin…

  16. Screensmoke says:

    That’s some good points chuck- especially about eagle players not saying anything – ths says a lot-as for Sherman He knows what he’s doing – he has a motive for everything he does !

  17. Southendzone says:

    Since we don’t know exactly why PHI released DJ, it’s hard to gauge the merit of Sherm’s argument.

    If it’s due to work ethic, arguments with Chip Kelly, salary, then yeah, I see Chuck’s point.

    If it’s due to reported gang connections that aren’t well supported by evidence, then I think Sherman has a point and there could be some evidence of unequal treatment due to his race or background.

    I don’t get the point of your last paragraph though, Sherman shouldn’t speak his mind on racial issues now because it will impact his future contract negotiations? That doesn’t make sense.

  18. ChrisHolmes says:

    I think Sherman’s point could very well be spot-on. Thing is, we’re not on the inside, so we’ll likely never know.

    The way I see this… Eagles look like mud either way. If they released Jackson for rumored “gang ties” and the folks he hung out with, that’s really lame and just wrong. That’s a preemptive move that is rooted in the Aaron Hernandez story, and it speaks to the Eagles ignorance as an organization. You don’t fire a guy because of his friends. You don’t do anything until he actually commits a crime. We don’t condemn folks in this country for who their friends are. We certainly don’t fire people for it. You address consequence only AFTER an infraction occurs.

    If the Eagles didn’t fire Jackson due to “gang ties” , but put that story out there as a front, then they are double-lame.

    The only action that is justifiable, to me, is if Jackson really was a poor employee; i.e. he missed meetings, didn’t give proper effort, was a malcontent in the locker room, had a poor attitude, wasn’t a team player, etc. If that’s the case, a firing is justifiable (and make no mistake; he was fired).

    So far, however… I haven’t read or heard a single FACT from anyone that would merit Jackson’s release. And for a guy that productive, that young… I just think it’s foolish of the Eagles to fire him instead of trying to work it out.

    If this happened to the Seahawks – if Sherman or ET got fired/released and all we heard was rumors of gang-ties and other crap like that, I’d be pissed.

    Seems to me Eagles went about this the entire wrong way.

  19. chuck_easton says:


    The point of my last paragraph is just what it says.

    It is Sherman that is implying race is involved. There appears to be nothing remotely related to race involved in the Jackson situation.

    The Eagles were tired of his act. They were actively trying to trade him prior to the whole gang ties story hit the wire. It wasn’t the Eagles that Alleged gang ties it was a New Jersey news paper.

    The Eagles were aware the story was coming out. They had already decided to move on from Jackson anyway. They felt the article combined with Jackson’s big contract would pretty much ruin any hope for a trade, so they cut him.

    Just as you state there is no evidence of actual gang ties there is also nothing being said by the team that they cut him because of the alleged ties.

    My comment about Sherman playing the race card is just that. He played the card and he has no evidence to back his implication that the Eagles are racist. But he makes the claim.

    If there is a real and bona fida case to be made out that race has anything to do with a situation of course Sherman should raise it. But he is guilty of race baiting in this article.

    A player that is found to have improperly played the race card and attached his team to that claim might not be considered a team first kind of guy. So if the team should mention this to said player in future contract talks Sherman may not have a valid response and may find he isn’t rewarded as much as he would hope.

    That is my comment to Sherman.

  20. “Case in point, Michael Vick (you know the black QB) came out in support of Cooper while acknowledging he did a stupid thing.

    Not one current Eagle player has come out in support of Jackson.”

    This isn’t a fair or logical comparison IMO. Cooper was still on the team. Jackson isn’t anymore. Vick was pretty much forced to be at least somewhat understanding or simply give no comment when asked about Cooper by reporters. I doubt the front office would’ve liked it if he had called the guy out while he was still part of the team. Vick was competing to be the starting QB. Not really a smart time to piss off the front office. There’s no pressure for Eagles players to defend Jackson now that he’s gone.

    I don’t know if race had anything to do with the situation. The gang ties story does bring that into the equation though. We don’t know if that was a determining factor for the Eagles. If you don’t think that a minority is more likely to be branded a thug or gang member and that is CAN be, not that it always is, a coded subterfuge for bigotry then I such you study your history a little more.

  21. “Since we don’t know exactly why PHI released DJ, it’s hard to gauge the merit of Sherm’s argument.

    If it’s due to work ethic, arguments with Chip Kelly, salary, then yeah, I see Chuck’s point.

    If it’s due to reported gang connections that aren’t well supported by evidence, then I think Sherman has a point and there could be some evidence of unequal treatment due to his race or background.

    I don’t get the point of your last paragraph though, Sherman shouldn’t speak his mind on racial issues now because it will impact his future contract negotiations? That doesn’t make sense.”

    Very well said, South.

  22. “starting down the NAACP path”

    My guess is this is what is confusing about your last paragraph to some people, Chuck. Suggesting that going down a NAACP path is a bad thing. I don’t know why being in the NAACP or on their path is a bad thing?

  23. * it CAN be

  24. It doesn’t matter why the Eagles let Jackson go because either way, I think Jackson will get the last laugh torching his old team twice a year. Him, Garson, and RGIII, quite the combo. Oh yeah, Morris too.

  25. chuck_easton says:


    In the proper situation with some valid concerns going down the NAACP route would not only be acceptable, but lauded. I have no time for racism, racists, or even veiled racism. But I don’t see this particular issue being about race.

    Sherman does, and he is the one that has brought the thought of this entire incident as being some veiled racist move against Jackson simply because he is black.

    Again, the Eagles have never said they released Jackson because of alleged gang ties. The Eagles simply did not feel he fit their team concept, they where tired of him skipping meetings, they were tired of his poor work ethic, and according to a few team mates they were tired of his locker room demeanor.

    It was only when the team learned that the New Jersey article was going to be published did they make the decision that a trade wouldn’t be likely and chose to cut him rather than have him on their team.

    Sherman is an articulate man and he speaks and writes quite well. His articles are very good. And I know that he is simply opening the matter up for discussion with this current article.

    But I feel, personally at least, that the line was crossed when he segued from “the Eagles are holding the fact that he was raised in a bad neighborhood against him” to “and they wouldn’t have done this if he was white”.

  26. Just read Sherman’s article – and my takeaway isn’t that he’s hurting his negotiating position for his next deal – -it’s more that I’m proud to have him on the team I choose to root for. I can’t think of another pro athlete who combines athletic excellence and the ability to take on and intelligently articulate sports-related issues like Sherman. Period. In any sport.

    Just like he does on the field, where he talks big, and backs it up with his play. In his writing, he backs up his willingness to take on controversial issues, with cogent, reasoned words. He’s an impressive dude in my book.

  27. Sorry Chuck, you’re way off base on your NAACP comment. Sherman’s points are valid. Irsay had a bag of pills and 29G’s, that doesn’t just sound like a recreational amount of money and drugs, but like Sherman said, he has a problem, he needs help. If it was a black player, he would automatically be a thug, kinda like what Sherman was labeled after his rant. Also, his Riley Cooper comment is spot on. A white dude can yell n..ger without reprocussion, but then the rich ass white owners get a say on banning black guys from saying, c’mon, that is just ridiculous. Where does the NAACP even come into play, Sherman is just tellin’ like it is, you can’t argue that.

  28. chuck_easton says:


    I can argue that, because I see nothing even remotely racist in what the Eagles did.

    I can see that it might be viewed as classless or reactionary, but to imply that Jackson was cut because he is black is race baiting and I would expect better than that from Sherman.

    We don’t know what the punishment is going to be for Irsay. We do know that Cooper was sent home from camp and was not allowed to return until he took some form of counseling session.

  29. Who says Sherman has a motive for everything he says? Is the post 49ers game rant a good example of him ‘having a motive for everything he says’?

    More likely he gave it little thought because he believes he can say whatever he wants. As far as I can see, had no reason to imply a race issue in the DeSean Jackson situation.

  30. I can see WHY the Eagles cut Jackson – he was high priced cancer, altho a high performing cancer.

  31. freedom_X says:

    Well, I’m one person who doesn’t have sympathy for Jim Irsay. He’s a blowhard, publicity seeking, attention-chasing gloryhound who was incredibly lucky to get successive franchise QB’s.

    When the Irsay story broke, how many people said “well, that explains what he tweets on Twitter?”

    If it were possible to cut an owner, I would be all for waiving Irsay. But that’s what the difference is – you can’t take away ownership of something. There probably are bylaws in the NFL that can do it, but there are so few owners, there hasn’t been a case to invoke them.

    In this one, you have to compare apples to apples, not owners to players. If Irsay doesn’t clean up, he probably will lose control over his team (have to turn over control to his kids, etc.) I don’t think the NFL could tolerate a unreformed drug addict as part of their ownership collective.

  32. Southendzone says:

    Chuck you had some good points, the connection Sherm tries to draw between Cooper & Irsay to DJ was not particularly strong.

    I read it more as one of Sherman’s rants against the NFL in general, he’s trying to take shots at perceived inequities while at the same time defending DJ from unproven claims of gang affiliation.

    His comments to that end were pretty well said, and he’s got background & credibility in that area.

    I just disagree that him being outspoken in general, or specifically on racial issues is something that will hurt him in future contract negotiations.

  33. chuck_easton says:


    I don’t want it to come back against Sherman either. And I can agree with Sherman that the current Seattle management would not have let the Jackson situation get to the point that there appeared to be no other option but to let the player go.

    My concern, and why I bring it up in Sherman’s case in particular, is this is not the first time Sherman has brought the idea that black players are not treated the same as white players in the NFL into one of his articles.

    The first instance was when Sherman himself was labeled a ‘thug’ and Sherman felt that was code for the N word. That might very well be an appropriate argument.

    But I still feel this second article may further the idea that to Sherman everything is about race. I, for one, do not think this matter has any racial overtones at all. I feel it will diminish the power Sherman possesses in being articulate and speaking out against some of the double standards that do exist.

    This is just like the old fable about the boy who cried wolf. After so many false claims of there being a wolf the town just tuned him out. When the wolf really did appear and the boy was really in danger nobody listened, nobody cared, and nobody came to his rescue. Wolf 1 Boy 0.

    If Sherman continues to see everything as a racial issue people are going to tune him out. When he does have a valid point people are just going to say Sherman is once again playing the race card.

    I was right with Sherman when he was referencing this to a young man growing up in the ‘wrong’ neighborhood. Hey, I grew up poor. I lived in areas where it was a rarity to see a young person finish high school and the drop outs were the norm. I can relate to the idea that no matter how successful I may become, no matter what I achieve financially, I can’t forget who my friends where, who my family is, and where I came from.

    I get that part.

    I don’t accept the stretch Sherman takes that a white kid raised in Sherman’s neighborhood who was lucky enough to make it to the NFL and who acted just as Jackson apparently has would not have gotten the same treatment.

  34. Sherm didn’t flat out say that Jackson wouldn’t have been cut if he was white. He said, “Commit certain crimes in this league and be a certain color, and you get help, not scorn.”

    You can certainly argue what connotations go along with that statement. I think it’s way too general and not really accurate. But I don’t think it’s completely off base either. Many of these things are subconscious. We all have our learned biases. We may have the tendency to prejudge people of certain colors without even meaning to consciously do it.

    There have been a number of studies done that suggest that both “white” and “black” people in America tend to see the faces of people that have a darker complexion more negatively. Faces are brought up and people give their impression of them. People tended to have a more negative impression of “black” men than “white” people with the same expression. It’s not really known what real-world consequences this has. I still believe that in this day and age that a minority is more likely to be viewed negatively than a “white” person doing the same thing.

  35. tealskin says:

    Let’s discuss racial relations for a fun time. Seems to me that their shared backgrounds may have skewed Sherman’s judgment a bit. Plus Sherman still has a bit of the victim mentality that probably helps him on the field but not in a debate. I’m not condemning him just trying to understand his worldview which is probably very accurate up to a point. DJ’s personal responsibility shouldn’t be glossed over, which is what I think Richard did.

  36. And I’m not saying that the Eagles are racist for releasing Jackson. I have no problem with them releasing him for either money or behavioral issues with the team. I have yet to hear anyone in the organization say that one of those was the cause. I haven’t read a statement from them why they released him. Not saying there’s not one out there.

    And we don’t know if the gang ties story has anything to do with his release. If they released him simply because of the “gang ties” though, I think that would certainly be open to being called bigoted. We DON’T know what happened. Just a bunch of speculation. Same as it usually is.

  37. As far as Irsay goes, I think the public perception has been more kind to him than it would be for a player. Especially a black player.

    We don’t know that he won’t get some punishment from the league though. There isn’t a huge precedent for punishing owners though that I can think of. Shocking I know. I only one I can think of is Ed Debartolo Jr. being suspended for a year. That’s after pleading guilty to criminal charges that were associated with bribery and gambling. I think the ties to gambling might have been the most troubling.

  38. And Sherm didn’t say that the Eagles definitely released him because of the “gang ties” and were racists. He said, “And if it’s true the Eagles terminated his contract in part because they grew afraid of his alleged “gang ties,” then they did something worse.”

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0