Well apparently the Hawks are interested. This article states that the Hawks are interested in Troy Williamson. They must have missed the week 17 Denver game where he was wide open for a 60 yrd TD and the ball went through his hands and hit him in the face mask, thus falling incomplete. As a fan I say no way, but I will let you voice your opinions as well.
Also, this could be an agent trying to make his player seem in high demand. He was a 1st rounder two years ago, but I can't imagine his value being very high right now.
A DJack clone?
ReplyDeleteWithout any of the productive years
ReplyDeleteRuskell is an idiot when it comes to WR's. He will probably let Hackett get away, and Hackett (IF he stays healthy) will set the NFL on fire...we get Williamson and he'll be Nate Burleson with no upside.
ReplyDeleteIts funny guys still rip on D-Jack. No Hawks receiver since Blades has even close to his stats. Last year Jackson sucked--but he wasnt on our team so who cares?
Thats all we need--another Vikings castoff WR who drops passes. I bet he gets $3 million bucks a year too!
ReplyDeleteKeep ripping Nate. All he did was lead the team in receiving touchdowns last year. 9!!!!! What was the most DJack had 11 ??
ReplyDeleteJust a leverage tool against Hack.
ReplyDeleteThats all.
This guy is terrible. He makes D-Jack look like he has hands of glue.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this could even be used as leverage against Hackett, because for that to happen the Hawks would have to be using a WR that is actually better than at least one of the guys currently on the roster. Williamson doesn't fit the bill. Obamanu is much better and Taylor is probably about equal.
Nine TD's but completely inconsistent. Thats fine for a 3rd WR, but you can't have that with a number 1 or 2 WR, or you're toast, especially in WC offense.
ReplyDeleteHow many 100 yard games did Nate have last year? The answer is 1. Is that and two return TD's worth $3 million? Not to me, but I'm not Ruskell.
Nate has shown no reason in 5 years to think he can do it--23 TD's and 200 catches for 2,400 yards or so. By this point in his career, D-Jack had like 30 TD's and 330 catches for 5,000 yards recieving. jackson had almost double the production of Burleson despite missing tons of games due to two serious knee injuries.
I'll just write the obvious. . .I'd rather invest in Hack for his 8 healthy games than Williamson for his 16.
ReplyDeleteNate is getting better every year, and I tihnk we do need Hack to return. He is just too good to let go. His injury was the high ankle sprain, perhaps worse than a break.
ReplyDeleteLast year DJack sucked because the whole 49ers sucked, including their QB's. So, what can you expect from DJack.
ReplyDeleteI still say DJack was one of hawks greatest.
yeah, I agree, d-jack was one of our greatest...
ReplyDelete....@sswipes. He was and still is a MAJOR dropper of easy passes, so not unlike Williamson. Oh, and he wouldn't show for training camps and wasn't a team player at all. It was all about him. Yeah, he is one of our greatest...
...malcontents.
I would love to keep Hackett. As much as I like D.Branch, because of size and other qualties, Hackett has bigger upside.
ReplyDeleteJackson's not showing for voluntary camps and works (he was always here for the mandatory stuff) had to do with his dispute with the front office regarding promises of more money he said Whitsett made but weren't upheld by Whitsett's replacments. That's what really led to his trade. He stayed out of the voluntary stuff to show his displeasure. Not saying that was right or wrong, or that anyone was right or wrong. But some perspective is required.
ReplyDeleteMSC
Why are we looking to give up assets for a loser like Williamson, when we could have Muhsin Muhammad (for not a lot of money) or Bernard Berrian (who will not be cheap) or if we are going to trade, why not try to get Larry Fitzgerald, better yet wait for Zona to run out of cap room and not want to pay him 17mil a year. Williamson makes absolutely no sense, zero, none, not at all.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't actually looking at this guy. Why would we? Can anyone come up with a legitimate reason that we would have for going after a guy who drops the football? I don't think anyone would be able to, because I don't think there are any. This is probably to show Hackett he deserves less money, and that he isn't the only path the Seahawks could take at WR.
ReplyDelete-Griffin
only reason why teams are interested is because he is CHEAP and a former first rounder.
ReplyDelete