Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Who got the better receiver?


Who got the better receiver?  

148 members have voted

  1. 1. Who got the better receiver?

    • Colts Hakeem nicks
      95
    • redskins desean jackson
      53


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not a big fan of Desean Jackson. He's electric, and makes big plays because of his speed, but I prefer a more technical receiver, even if he's not as fast. I thought the Eagles overpaid Jackson, and figured he wouldn't finish his deal in Philly. His new deal with Washington seems more in range, and I think they get a good player. But then there's his attitude and off-field issues (or rumors about issues; who knows what the truth is....)

 

I prefer Nicks' attributes as a player, including his size and body type. All things being equal, I'd take Nicks over Jackson, and that was the case a month ago. Throw in the price difference, and the way either player would fit on our roster, and it's a no-brainer for me. I don't even need the other distractions to feel that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly those voting are doing so based off a ton of things OTHER than football talent...because the production isn't even close. Jackson is a home run threat everytime he is on the field and produces. I like Nicks and hope he bounces back but I don't see how people can even imagine choosing Nicks if they knew nothing of Jacksons recent headlines....(which we don't have any clue the truth of).

 

Also funny how people LOOOOVE them some Richard Sherman who had friends in gangs growing up as well but Jackson somehow is a problem. I might think Jackson has issues in the locker room and wanting paid but so does a lot of guys...but come time to watch him on sunday...he produces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of Desean Jackson. He's electric, and makes big plays because of his speed, but I prefer a more technical receiver, even if he's not as fast. I thought the Eagles overpaid Jackson, and figured he wouldn't finish his deal in Philly. His new deal with Washington seems more in range, and I think they get a good player. But then there's his attitude and off-field issues (or rumors about issues; who knows what the truth is....)

 

I prefer Nicks' attributes as a player, including his size and body type. All things being equal, I'd take Nicks over Jackson, and that was the case a month ago. Throw in the price difference, and the way either player would fit on our roster, and it's a no-brainer for me. I don't even need the other distractions to feel that way.

I get at what you say...there was nothing said about price or attitudes...I figured this was just purely about football. I would love that size and skill combo but I think people overrate it somewhat. Few big guys are like Calvin Johnson/Randy Moss that can jump and have size and hands and add track star speed to the equation. I will say I don't care what the size if the guy gets open and catches the ball and scores tds...thats the guy I want. We discount the littler guys too much imo....after all Marvin wasn't the biggest receiver yet he is the best Colts receiver of all time. However I am more than happy with Nicks...I think he is motivated and set up to have a career year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get at what you say...there was nothing said about price or attitudes...I figured this was just purely about football. I would love that size and skill combo but I think people overrate it somewhat. Few big guys are like Calvin Johnson/Randy Moss that can jump and have size and hands and add track star speed to the equation. I will say I don't care what the size if the guy gets open and catches the ball and scores tds...thats the guy I want. We discount the littler guys too much imo....after all Marvin wasn't the biggest receiver yet he is the best Colts receiver of all time. However I am more than happy with Nicks...I think he is motivated and set up to have a career year.

I like Nicks but I don't think he will come close to having a career year. I don't think the Colts will target him enough to do that because they will continue to try and be a smash mouth running team. They won't be, of course, but they will keep trying to ram the ball up the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before last season I would have said Nicks. He was shaky in 2013, though, while Jackson had a career year which muddied the waters considerably. Both guys are fairly high risk/high reward for their own reasons. I'd say that they both complement their respective teams well. I like TY/Nicks and Pierre/Jax better than TY/Jax and Pierre/Nicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly those voting are doing so based off a ton of things OTHER than football talent...because the production isn't even close. Jackson is a home run threat everytime he is on the field and produces. I like Nicks and hope he bounces back but I don't see how people can even imagine choosing Nicks if they knew nothing of Jacksons recent headlines....(which we don't have any clue the truth of).

 

Also funny how people LOOOOVE them some Richard Sherman who had friends in gangs growing up as well but Jackson somehow is a problem. I might think Jackson has issues in the locker room and wanting paid but so does a lot of guys...but come time to watch him on sunday...he produces.

 

I think who is better is debatable (DJ has definitely been more consistent of late) .... but, I think people are voting from the "Colts perspective".  From that perspective Nicks is a much better player for the Colts needs since we basically already have DJ without the issues in TY; Nicks potentially brings something we may not already have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get at what you say...there was nothing said about price or attitudes...I figured this was just purely about football. I would love that size and skill combo but I think people overrate it somewhat. Few big guys are like Calvin Johnson/Randy Moss that can jump and have size and hands and add track star speed to the equation. I will say I don't care what the size if the guy gets open and catches the ball and scores tds...thats the guy I want. We discount the littler guys too much imo....after all Marvin wasn't the biggest receiver yet he is the best Colts receiver of all time. However I am more than happy with Nicks...I think he is motivated and set up to have a career year.

 

Maybe I talked too much in that post for it to stand out, but I said that I all things being equal, I'd prefer Nicks. That's strictly football. 

 

I also said I think Jackson is a good player. I'm not trying to discount him at all. Like you say, what matters is how they play, how they produce, etc. But there's a big difference between Marvin Harrison and mostly anyone else, especially the smaller speedsters. He was a route-running savant, had incredible hands, and used his body as well as anyone, ever. Didn't just rely on his speed, though he could burn mostly any corner. His only downside was he struggled against some of the more physical, more grabby corners. Jackson is a decent route-runner and has decent hands, but nowhere near the level of Marvin. Marvin was one of the most technically proficient receivers ever.

 

Nicks has more of a Pierre Garcon type of body -- not extra tall, but solid and sturdy. But unlike Garcon, Nicks runs a full route tree, and has more reliable hands than Garcon. He's not a track star; Garcon is definitely faster, but I think the technical attributes are more desirable. I'd call Nicks 50% Garcon and 50% Reggie Wayne, which is very intriguing. And I'd call Jackson a mix between Garcon and Harrison, but more like 65% Garcon and 35% Harrison. We've seen what both can do, and I'd take either, from a strictly football standpoint. But I prefer Nicks, for the reasons stated.

 

The peripheral issues are just that: peripheral. But they lead to me being even more satisfied with our acquisition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I talked too much in that post for it to stand out, but I said that I all things being equal, I'd prefer Nicks. That's strictly football. 

 

I also said I think Jackson is a good player. I'm not trying to discount him at all. Like you say, what matters is how they play, how they produce, etc. But there's a big difference between Marvin Harrison and mostly anyone else, especially the smaller speedsters. He was a route-running savant, had incredible hands, and used his body as well as anyone, ever. Didn't just rely on his speed, though he could burn mostly any corner. His only downside was he struggled against some of the more physical, more grabby corners. Jackson is a decent route-runner and has decent hands, but nowhere near the level of Marvin. Marvin was one of the most technically proficient receivers ever.

 

Nicks has more of a Pierre Garcon type of body -- not extra tall, but solid and sturdy. But unlike Garcon, Nicks runs a full route tree, and has more reliable hands than Garcon. He's not a track star; Garcon is definitely faster, but I think the technical attributes are more desirable. I'd call Nicks 50% Garcon and 50% Reggie Wayne, which is very intriguing. And I'd call Jackson a mix between Garcon and Harrison, but more like 65% Garcon and 35% Harrison. We've seen what both can do, and I'd take either, from a strictly football standpoint. But I prefer Nicks, for the reasons stated.

 

The peripheral issues are just that: peripheral. But they lead to me being even more satisfied with our acquisition.

Oh I'm not trying to compare Jackson to Harrison in anything other than size...but what I do look at is production on the field...and no matter what they are asked to do Jackson gets it done....and well...and just on the field he is more productive and it isn't close. If you were to say Nicks at his best...I might give you that...but on the field I don't know what I will get...healthy or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think who is better is debatable (DJ has definitely been more consistent of late) .... but, I think people are voting from the "Colts perspective".  From that perspective Nicks is a much better player for the Colts needs since we basically already have DJ without the issues in TY; Nicks potentially brings something we may not already have.

I agree...just that wasn't the poll question...from an NFL evaluator...Jackson I think would win every time. Size or not...he gets open and catches the ball...makes big plays...moves the chain...he just simply performs at a higher level...and also puts more pressure on the defense to open up other receivers...you have to roll safety coverage and so much more. Jackson is more dangerous...and more productive...and to me..better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't what the point of this poll is??

 

DJax wasn't even available when we signed H. Nicks.

 

So.....   who cares who got the better WR?

 

Is Jackson better than Nicks?    Probably.      But that's ON the field.

 

I wouldn't want him anywhere near my locker-room.   He's not an Indy-type guy.

 

I really, really, really don't care who got the better receiver.

 

If Washington is happy -- good for them.

 

I'm glad the Colts got the receiver they got.    And that's ALL I care about.

 

Sorry,  I don't mean to be a buzz kill......   just having an old fuddy-duddy moment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TY will be every bit as good as Jackson, without the drama. Nicks gives us a big, physical receiver we need. Jackson is getting to an age where he could start to slow down, we'll see if he's picked up the technical skills to still get open. He's electrifying, but his career numbers haven't been THAT impressive. Very similar to Nicks in spite of his two year slump.

Jackson does seem like a great fit for Washington if Griffen has his speed back. They have lots of athletic players to stretch the defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before last season I would have said Nicks. He was shaky in 2013, though, while Jackson had a career year which muddied the waters considerably. Both guys are fairly high risk/high reward for their own reasons. I'd say that they both complement their respective teams well. I like TY/Nicks and Pierre/Jax better than TY/Jax and Pierre/Nicks.

i was about to say that. For the colts, nicks made much more sense. For the redskins it made more sense Jax

Link to post
Share on other sites

Desean Jackson isn't on any decline. He's 27 turning 28 in December. We won't see any signs until he's 30. Unless there is some sort of injury to him, I have to give him the nod. So until Nick's produces and stays healthy the Redskins got a great WR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...just that wasn't the poll question...from an NFL evaluator...Jackson I think would win every time. Size or not...he gets open and catches the ball...makes big plays...moves the chain...he just simply performs at a higher level...and also puts more pressure on the defense to open up other receivers...you have to roll safety coverage and so much more. Jackson is more dangerous...and more productive...and to me..better.

 

I don't really agree. The difference is that Jackson has been healthy and Nicks has not, but I was operating under the assumption that Nicks is healthy. His body of work as a #1 receiver, when healthy, is more impressive to me than Jackson's. The big difference is Jackson's yards/catch, but until recently, Nicks was better on third down, caught more passes, got into the endzone plenty, etc. 

 

Again, not knocking Jackson, but I've always thought Nicks was a more complete receiver, more a threat on big downs (third, red zone), etc. They're both good, I just don't think most NFL evaluators would go with Jackson every time. I think it would be a close split either way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree. The difference is that Jackson has been healthy and Nicks has not, but I was operating under the assumption that Nicks is healthy. His body of work as a #1 receiver, when healthy, is more impressive to me than Jackson's. The big difference is Jackson's yards/catch, but until recently, Nicks was better on third down, caught more passes, got into the endzone plenty, etc. 

 

Again, not knocking Jackson, but I've always thought Nicks was a more complete receiver, more a threat on big downs (third, red zone), etc. They're both good, I just don't think most NFL evaluators would go with Jackson every time. I think it would be a close split either way. 

I suppose if both were guaranteed healthy it would be a close decision....but speed kills in the NFL. Size is great but with these bigger corners like Seattle has it is pretty much a mute point...however speed like Hilton's and Jackson's is basically uncoverable. That speed just makes things so easy for you....defenders have to play off and really lends to things like bubble screens and quick hitches for an easy 6-8 yds almost at any time....then give them a double move or a 9 route...you not only take the corner for a ride but likely pull the safety deep opening up the underneath and middle of the field for everyone else. Jackson doesn't just open the offense up for himself...but the whole team...no offense to Nicks who is solid but he isn't getting doubled in most situations. He can hurt you like Reggie kind of does by keeping the chains moving but he just doesn't have that explosive play ability. He benefited GREATLY from Cruz..and will likely benefit from TY.....as for Jackson...he will get it done no matter what...and will open up the field for Garcon, Roberts, Moss, and Reed....the whole receiving core benefits. I think if you asked a majority of NFL cordinators which they prefer to have (considering they have no other wrs and building their core) they would of course choose someone like Calvin Johnson...but give them the choice between these two guys...I don't think its as close as people make it out. Jackson is someone that you do soo much with on offense. As for our team...we have that burner..so I understand people like Nicks..but in a vaccum I think Jackson is the better football player. (He also returns kicks too)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ability wise I'd say DJax he runs great routes, brilliant deep threat, good hands.

But overall I'd still make the Nicks deal a thousand times rather than sign DJax.

Yea, why would you want the better receiver?  I sure wouldn't.  That would be counter productive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if both were guaranteed healthy it would be a close decision....but speed kills in the NFL. Size is great but with these bigger corners like Seattle has it is pretty much a mute point...however speed like Hilton's and Jackson's is basically uncoverable. That speed just makes things so easy for you....defenders have to play off and really lends to things like bubble screens and quick hitches for an easy 6-8 yds almost at any time....then give them a double move or a 9 route...you not only take the corner for a ride but likely pull the safety deep opening up the underneath and middle of the field for everyone else. Jackson doesn't just open the offense up for himself...but the whole team...no offense to Nicks who is solid but he isn't getting doubled in most situations. He can hurt you like Reggie kind of does by keeping the chains moving but he just doesn't have that explosive play ability. He benefited GREATLY from Cruz..and will likely benefit from TY.....as for Jackson...he will get it done no matter what...and will open up the field for Garcon, Roberts, Moss, and Reed....the whole receiving core benefits. I think if you asked a majority of NFL cordinators which they prefer to have (considering they have no other wrs and building their core) they would of course choose someone like Calvin Johnson...but give them the choice between these two guys...I don't think its as close as people make it out. Jackson is someone that you do soo much with on offense. As for our team...we have that burner..so I understand people like Nicks..but in a vaccum I think Jackson is the better football player. (He also returns kicks too)

Actually Cruz benefited greatly from nicks. Nicks also has nice post season stats. I agree that speed kills but possession receivers are dangerous to. Look at Bolden during ravens sb run.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose if both were guaranteed healthy it would be a close decision....but speed kills in the NFL. Size is great but with these bigger corners like Seattle has it is pretty much a mute point...however speed like Hilton's and Jackson's is basically uncoverable. That speed just makes things so easy for you....defenders have to play off and really lends to things like bubble screens and quick hitches for an easy 6-8 yds almost at any time....then give them a double move or a 9 route...you not only take the corner for a ride but likely pull the safety deep opening up the underneath and middle of the field for everyone else. Jackson doesn't just open the offense up for himself...but the whole team...no offense to Nicks who is solid but he isn't getting doubled in most situations. He can hurt you like Reggie kind of does by keeping the chains moving but he just doesn't have that explosive play ability. He benefited GREATLY from Cruz..and will likely benefit from TY.....as for Jackson...he will get it done no matter what...and will open up the field for Garcon, Roberts, Moss, and Reed....the whole receiving core benefits. I think if you asked a majority of NFL cordinators which they prefer to have (considering they have no other wrs and building their core) they would of course choose someone like Calvin Johnson...but give them the choice between these two guys...I don't think its as close as people make it out. Jackson is someone that you do soo much with on offense. As for our team...we have that burner..so I understand people like Nicks..but in a vaccum I think Jackson is the better football player. (He also returns kicks too)

 

I hear you, I just disagree. In a vacuum, assuming both are healthy, I'd rather have Nicks. Like I originally said, I prefer the technically proficient guy to the speedster, and I think Nicks has better hands, runs better routes, and will produce no matter who is covering him. I disagree that he doesn't draw double teams or that he can't beat you over the top; he's done both in his career. He's not as fast as Jackson, but that doesn't make him a plodder. And his technical attributes make him potentially better on third down, in the red zone, and in the playoffs in bad weather.

 

I have no problem with your viewpoint, even though I disagree. I just don't want to be labeled as a homer, have it suggested that the only reason I prefer Nicks is because he's ours, etc. Not that you did so, but others have, and that's not the case. If you dug through the archives, you'd see me arguing that Jackson was overpaid when he got his new contract, that he's a one-note receiver (he's gotten better since then, but he's still not as complete a player as Nicks, IMO), etc. I'm always more partial to the technically proficient receivers than the speedsters. You throw in more size, and it's extra credit.

 

Go back to 2009, and I was laughing at the Raiders for taking DHB over Crabtree. I preferred Reggie Wayne to Pierre Garcon in 2012. I give Decker more credit than most people (though his hands are inconsistent). I'm not a big Percy Harvin fan, not for the money he just got. There are many other examples. Perhaps it's just my preference, and maybe personnel guys would disagree -- "you can't teach speed," and other such one-liners often prevail -- but I'm partial to technique over speed, just so long as the guy doesn't run like he's stuck in the mud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you, I just disagree. In a vacuum, assuming both are healthy, I'd rather have Nicks. Like I originally said, I prefer the technically proficient guy to the speedster, and I think Nicks has better hands, runs better routes, and will produce no matter who is covering him. I disagree that he doesn't draw double teams or that he can't beat you over the top; he's done both in his career. He's not as fast as Jackson, but that doesn't make him a plodder. And his technical attributes make him potentially better on third down, in the red zone, and in the playoffs in bad weather.

 

I have no problem with your viewpoint, even though I disagree. I just don't want to be labeled as a homer, have it suggested that the only reason I prefer Nicks is because he's ours, etc. Not that you did so, but others have, and that's not the case. If you dug through the archives, you'd see me arguing that Jackson was overpaid when he got his new contract, that he's a one-note receiver (he's gotten better since then, but he's still not as complete a player as Nicks, IMO), etc. I'm always more partial to the technically proficient receivers than the speedsters. You throw in more size, and it's extra credit.

 

Go back to 2009, and I was laughing at the Raiders for taking DHB over Crabtree. I preferred Reggie Wayne to Pierre Garcon in 2012. I give Decker more credit than most people (though his hands are inconsistent). I'm not a big Percy Harvin fan, not for the money he just got. There are many other examples. Perhaps it's just my preference, and maybe personnel guys would disagree -- "you can't teach speed," and other such one-liners often prevail -- but I'm partial to technique over speed, just so long as the guy doesn't run like he's stuck in the mud.

 

 

 

The problem is you cannot compare a Nicks in his prime prior to his injuries to DJax in his prime. Nicks may never hit that prime form again, that is my #1 concern. That is why I don't want the Colts fans to get their hopes up like they did with all the 1 yr. deals in Avery and DHB. I understand the nature of the contract but this thread question is purely about current ability and as it stands right now, DJax's ability to make plays trumps that of Nicks till Nicks can show he can hit his prime form of the first 3 years to get even close, and not the last 2 lousy years he had.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. They are far enough in their careers to assess who the better player is. 

Jackson is not a Colt so I couldn't care less. Does Jackson's ability over shadow his locker room cancer? Does Nicks injuries play into the factor? You may think one is better than the other but what difference does it make?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...