Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Keep D'Qwell Jackson, or no?


Superman

Keep D'Qwell Jackson or not?  

120 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you keep him or get rid of him?



Recommended Posts

I'm also in the letting him go camp. He's a good professional guy and a leader type, but we really need difference makers again for this D.

Their aren't any young Freeney's, Mathis's or Bob Sanders on this team. Aka difference makers. We need them at every level of the D.

We can't just try and coach up mediocre or average talent.

I like the guy, but he isn't anything close to irreplaceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree, but tackles for a loss does mean something, does anyone know how he ranks?

Leader is JJ with 15 no surprise there. Top Colts are Langford and Walden with 6. DQ isn't far behind at 5 Henry Anderson was also at 5. I was some what surprised at the number of Colts on the list.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/player-stat/defense-tackles-for-loss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tackle percentage is different from tackles. And it still needs to be put in context.

 

Telling me that because Player A is leading the team or the league in tackles, he must be a good or important player, is just wrong. One thing really has nothing to do with the other.

 

As for the importance of tackling, sure, that's how you end plays as a defender. I'm not saying that tackling doesn't matter or isn't important, but that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

I agree...but it doesn't mean the opposite either...it does tell me he is very active and is a likely indicator that he isn't missing a lot of tackles although like you said that is another stat to look at. He isn't Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher we know that...but he seems to be making the plays we have been asking him to make. He has done a LOT better than last year from my eye test (which means nothing I know) but he does have a lot of production...and that's better than our starting lb not having it and a safety leading the team in tackles. I still think he doesn't have the foot speed to get to as many plays and cover as well as we need him to...but he has played solid and I'm thankful for that. I believe and upgrade would help our defense for sure but I'm happy with his improved play over last year at this point. He hasn't been a weakness on our defense....our big issue is getting to the qb and creating pressure...until we start doing that Toler and the back end are going to get exploited more and our LBs like Freeman and him are going to get hurt in coverage trying to stop the underneath stuff and TEs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree...but it doesn't mean the opposite either...it does tell me he is very active and is a likely indicator that he isn't missing a lot of tackles although like you said that is another stat to look at. He isn't Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher we know that...but he seems to be making the plays we have been asking him to make. He has done a LOT better than last year from my eye test (which means nothing I know) but he does have a lot of production...and that's better than our starting lb not having it and a safety leading the team in tackles. I still think he doesn't have the foot speed to get to as many plays and cover as well as we need him to...but he has played solid and I'm thankful for that. I believe and upgrade would help our defense for sure but I'm happy with his improved play over last year at this point. He hasn't been a weakness on our defense....our big issue is getting to the qb and creating pressure...until we start doing that Toler and the back end are going to get exploited more and our LBs like Freeman and him are going to get hurt in coverage trying to stop the underneath stuff and TEs.

 

I have no issue with Jackson's tackle numbers. He leads the team in tackles because he makes a lot of plays in the run game, and I think even his biggest detractors would admit that he's been very good against the run this year. My point was simply that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

 

The actual issue with Jackson is his coverage, where he's a liability. And likewise, even his biggest supporter would have to admit that.

 

Add to that the fact that he's going to be 33 next season, and is more likely to decline than to continue to play at his current level.

 

That's why my question is basically do we keep a declining player who is already a major liability in pass coverage, or do we cut him loose? Cutting him loose obviously means we need a replacement, and the hope is that we'd grab an upgrade, but that's another matter. I was just curious whether people thought Jackson was worthy of being retained or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue with Jackson's tackle numbers. He leads the team in tackles because he makes a lot of plays in the run game, and I think even his biggest detractors would admit that he's been very good against the run this year. My point was simply that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

 

The actual issue with Jackson is his coverage, where he's a liability. And likewise, even his biggest supporter would have to admit that.

 

Add to that the fact that he's going to be 33 next season, and is more likely to decline than to continue to play at his current level.

 

That's why my question is basically do we keep a declining player who is already a major liability in pass coverage, or do we cut him loose? Cutting him loose obviously means we need a replacement, and the hope is that we'd grab an upgrade, but that's another matter. I was just curious whether people thought Jackson was worthy of being retained or not.

 

 

I think it's interesting that DQJ's contract is set up for the Colts to be able to cut him after this year with minimal financial pain.

 

So,  even Grigson felt 2-years might be DJ's limit.

 

Part of the problem with players over 30,  is that they tend to get old really fast.    Almost sudden.

 

It's not just a drop from one season to the next.     It can happen during a season.       He's good for a few games...   he's OK for a few games.     He's barely average for a few more,  and then he really drops.      He's poor for a few games,  he bad for a few games,  and suddenly,  he's on the sidelines more than he's playing.

 

I'd wait until after this season to see where DJ is....    but I wouldn't be surprised if we looked elsewhere in the off-season......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that DQJ's contract is set up for the Colts to be able to cut him after this year with minimal financial pain.

 

So,  even Grigson felt 2-years might be DJ's limit.

 

Part of the problem with players over 30,  is that they tend to get old really fast.    Almost sudden.

 

It's not just a drop from one season to the next.     It can happen during a season.       He's good for a few games...   he's OK for a few games.     He's barely average for a few more,  and then he really drops.      He's poor for a few games,  he bad for a few games,  and suddenly,  he's on the sidelines more than he's playing.

 

I'd wait until after this season to see where DJ is....    but I wouldn't be surprised if we looked elsewhere in the off-season......

 

It happens throughout sports. Shot boxers, flame throwers who lose their fastball, etc. 

 

Now that the Colts have committed big money to the young players, there's less wiggle room for older vets. The cap is manageable, but there will always be cap casualties, and it's better if those are veteran guys who are almost done -- even if they aren't quite done yet -- than to have to let younger players walk in free agency because we have too much money tied up in an aging core.

 

But just on his own merits, without worrying about his contract structure (which is clearly set up with yearly decision points now that the guaranteed money is done), Jackson is going to be a major decision this offseason. It will be tied to auxiliary factors, to a degree, like Freeman's free agency, etc. But even setting those aside, I think we have to do better at ILB if we really want to be a top notch defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens throughout sports. Shot boxers, flame throwers who lose their fastball, etc.

Now that the Colts have committed big money to the young players, there's less wiggle room for older vets. The cap is manageable, but there will always be cap casualties, and it's better if those are veteran guys who are almost done -- even if they aren't quite done yet -- than to have to let younger players walk in free agency because we have too much money tied up in an aging core.

But just on his own merits, without worrying about his contract structure (which is clearly set up with yearly decision points now that the guaranteed money is done), Jackson is going to be a major decision this offseason. It will be tied to auxiliary factors, to a degree, like Freeman's free agency, etc. But even setting those aside, I think we have to do better at ILB if we really want to be a top notch defense.

What about Freeman? Try to resign him or let him walk in free agency? Personally I'd like to upgrade both positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens throughout sports. Shot boxers, flame throwers who lose their fastball, etc. 

 

Now that the Colts have committed big money to the young players, there's less wiggle room for older vets. The cap is manageable, but there will always be cap casualties, and it's better if those are veteran guys who are almost done -- even if they aren't quite done yet -- than to have to let younger players walk in free agency because we have too much money tied up in an aging core.

 

But just on his own merits, without worrying about his contract structure (which is clearly set up with yearly decision points now that the guaranteed money is done), Jackson is going to be a major decision this offseason. It will be tied to auxiliary factors, to a degree, like Freeman's free agency, etc. But even setting those aside, I think we have to do better at ILB if we really want to be a top notch defense.

 

Yup.....    good post.

 

I think it might've been the old Dodgers GM back in Brooklyn -- Branch Rickey -- who said better to let a good player a year too soon than a year too late.

 

And most GM's in almost all sports have followed that unofficial rule ever since.       Yes,  there are always exceptions to that rule,  but in broad general terms its good to remember that one....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue with Jackson's tackle numbers. He leads the team in tackles because he makes a lot of plays in the run game, and I think even his biggest detractors would admit that he's been very good against the run this year. My point was simply that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

 

The actual issue with Jackson is his coverage, where he's a liability. And likewise, even his biggest supporter would have to admit that.

 

Add to that the fact that he's going to be 33 next season, and is more likely to decline than to continue to play at his current level.

 

That's why my question is basically do we keep a declining player who is already a major liability in pass coverage, or do we cut him loose? Cutting him loose obviously means we need a replacement, and the hope is that we'd grab an upgrade, but that's another matter. I was just curious whether people thought Jackson was worthy of being retained or not.

Yep. An ILB should be leading the team in tackles or darn close to it. That's his job, along with pass rush, and defending the pass. Although the upfront guys get most opportunities to stop the run, the ILB position is so critical to a defense. The Co-QB, if you will. DJ, is a decent enough LB, but as you have suggested, that doesn't create great defense by any stretch of the imagination. He's older. We have the luxury at our disposal to go after a Ray Lewis, Lawrence Taylor, et.al type of game-breaking ILB soon. Let's not blow it. Evaluation is the key. I sincerely hope that Indy can send out it's long-armed scouts to snag one of these guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue with Jackson's tackle numbers. He leads the team in tackles because he makes a lot of plays in the run game, and I think even his biggest detractors would admit that he's been very good against the run this year. My point was simply that tackle stats don't indicate whether a player is good or not.

 

The actual issue with Jackson is his coverage, where he's a liability. And likewise, even his biggest supporter would have to admit that.

 

Add to that the fact that he's going to be 33 next season, and is more likely to decline than to continue to play at his current level.

 

That's why my question is basically do we keep a declining player who is already a major liability in pass coverage, or do we cut him loose? Cutting him loose obviously means we need a replacement, and the hope is that we'd grab an upgrade, but that's another matter. I was just curious whether people thought Jackson was worthy of being retained or not.

Exactly....I imagine we will be moving on from him. There are more affordable replacements out there and of course we need to look at this position in the draft. You can find a good mlb in the middle of the draft. Tackling machines can be found....now ones that can cover as well....hard to say. Who knows...if Pagano is gone and we go to a 4-3....we might make huge changes to the defensive roster. For the time being I think he has done a good job. He is a liability in coverage but we can cover that up. I'll give up a few plays in the passing game for a guy that is shutting down running lanes. For now he is fine but I do agree we will be looking to get younger and more athletic next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly....I imagine we will be moving on from him. There are more affordable replacements out there and of course we need to look at this position in the draft. You can find a good mlb in the middle of the draft. Tackling machines can be found....now ones that can cover as well....hard to say. Who knows...if Pagano is gone and we go to a 4-3....we might make huge changes to the defensive roster. For the time being I think he has done a good job. He is a liability in coverage but we can cover that up. I'll give up a few plays in the passing game for a guy that is shutting down running lanes. For now he is fine but I do agree we will be looking to get younger and more athletic next year.

 

That strongside ILB position doesn't really change in a 4-3, though. It just becomes a traditional middle linebacker, but he'll still be a focal point of the offense's run blocking. Teams will still send guards, centers and FBs at him. He'll still have to cover TEs, backs, and slot receivers. And then you'll need another guy like him to play the Sam spot, where he'll also have to cover and play the run against TEs and tackles. Switching to a 4-3 doesn't really make life easier on the backers.

 

You're right, we can make up for his coverage, but it's still a geometry problem. We put safeties closer to the line of scrimmage to handle TEs, which isn't a bad strategy. Worked well against Gronk. But then we have to back our corners off, which makes our initial outside coverage soft, and minimizes the strengths of our corners in press coverage. Or don't back your corners off, but then you have no depth to your defense, and one missed tackle turns into a long TD (see, LeGarrette Blount's 73 yard TD in 2013, the back breaker; RJF blows contain, Landry misses his tackle, and the game is over). All this because we have to make up for deficient coverage across the middle.

 

I guess we don't have to cut him right away. There's probably not much out there in free agency this year, especially guys who can cover. If we can snag a stud ILB in the draft, then maybe Jackson becomes a summer time cut. Or maybe Sio Moore gets on the field and plays well this season, and becomes the next guy. Eric Kendricks would have been the guy... that's a big miss for us.

Link to comment
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...