Would you recommend cutting either Prioleau or Fudge, if the Jags could add WR Chad jackson from waivers?

The Mad Dog (8/31/2008)

jagutopia (8/31/2008)

The Mad Dog (8/31/2008)

jagutopia (8/31/2008)

The Mad Dog (8/31/2008)

jagutopia (8/31/2008)

The Mad Dog (8/31/2008)

jagutopia (8/31/2008)

The Mad Dog (8/31/2008)

I dunno, ask superbowl winning coach Tom Coughlin, who just today had to do the same thing after he added Jerome McDougle.

You act as if this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the NFL.

Bad comparison.

The Jaguar WR situation is uncertain at this time, but the Giants have a glaring need for a DE.

Maybe, maybe not.

Coughlin still had to do what that poster suggested about "messages being sent to the team". I'm sure a player who busted his arse in camp was the unfortunate casualty to McDougles addition. As a matter of fact I know one was, b/c I read Tom Coughlins response in the interview.

The Giants have no more glaring need for an additional DE than we have a glaring need to still try and find that WR1.

As OPjagsfan mentioned, there are situations that will be coming up over the next year that could make a Chad Jackson very valuable to this team.

Unlike most of the 6 WR's we currently carry, Jackson at least still has the potential of developing into a bonafide WR1. He's cheap and young, too.

I just don't see the issue that some on here do, I guess.

I'm advocating cutting spare parts players, who also don't fit into the future plans of this team, for Jackson.

OR,

dropping Thomas Williams....the 7th LB on the current roster, who could easily pass through waivers and e stashed on the PS, which we could then cut Chris Brown from with little issue.

Your point is taken, however, if he shown that much potential to date, wouldn't he be developing further on someone's roster?

I hate to use this example, because it is so played....

but,

If everyone took that view, then Jimmy Smith would never have gotten another shot post Dallas.

Sometimes you have to take chances on players.

IMO, if you take chances with players that have the kind of potential that Jimmy& Chad had (since they both were high selections/ rare speed/ good size....occasionally you are going to strike it rich.

No gaurantees, mind you....but no risk = no reward.

I thought that was what the Jags were already doing with Williamson.

True.

But until Williamson proves that he is that WR1, or not, shouldn't the search process continue?

Why the need to drop the search party when the job hasn't been completed yet?

I'm just saying....

In matters of personnel....

you're either continuously looking or ways to improve, or you're not and someone else is getting that jump on you.

There is no "status quo" in this league. If you stay "status quo" you're acually slowly falling behind, but may not/ don't realize it.

The opposite can also be true. A team could cut a player to make room for a potential upgrade, only to have it backfire.

It can work both ways you know. That's where you have to trust the team's coaches and personnel guys.

But we won't go there, Right?????? w00t

I would actually like to make an observation, but don't want to be accused of bashing Shack again.

TBH, though, I guess no, I do not trust our front office to make the right moves, by and large.

Granted, I also do think that you have a point in saying moves CAN backfire. Although, that would seem to be the result of having the confidence to at least not stand pat and make the attempt, knowing full well that if you do screw up, you have the ability to fix the area, if need be,

OK, I'll just say it....once.....

Scouring the waiver wire today, I see Indianapolis making claims, New England making claims, Philadelphia, Houston making claims, Denver, San Francisco making waiver claims.....

And yet, we sit there.

Is our roster really more bulletproof than some of those teams? I don't think so.

Where are our subtle personnel moves like some of these teams mentioned?

To me, the perception is that our FO just isn't as intricate in its exhaustion of seeking potential upgrades as other FO's. Or, as suggested above, maybe Harris doesn't have the confidence in his ability to try one of those moves. Thus, he is "comfortable" with the status quo.

IMO the status quo would be more understandable, if we were a team that has routinely been winning divisions, and have something more than one playoff win to show for our last 5 years.

While sure, some of those waiver claims I cite by those teams may backfire, to me it illustrates a deeper scouring of every potential possible improvement by those GM's.

I just feel like we're sitting here at a disadvantage with the GM we have, compared to what some of those other FO's have.

Thats all I will say, because I really want to learn how to get my points across without having to repeat the it in 50 posts.

So don't be ticked at me, JagUtopia!!!

I won't be ticked when you make a thought out, articulate, statement. You did, so don't worry.

If those teams did their job in the first place, and got the players they wanted, why would they need to scour a waiver wire.

Just to add, statements like you just made are just fine when made in context, and not abused. Where the problem arises, and where so many get rightly agressive toward you is when they are repeated ad nausium in countless posts. Remember that, and your problems with those posters will more than likely disappear.

Cool Don't Take Life Too Seriously Cool