I wouldn't worry about it personally. DJax isn't going to be out for too long and they have a ton of history together so they won't need quite as much.
Besides, Hasselbeck didn't do too bad withou tDJax and Engram last year...
biju wrote:I wouldn't worry about it personally. DJax isn't going to be out for too long and they have a ton of history together so they won't need quite as much.
Besides, Hasselbeck didn't do too bad withou tDJax and Engram last year...
That's because he had Joe Jurevicius. He'll probably do alright with Burleson, Engram, and Stevens, though.
biju wrote:I wouldn't worry about it personally. DJax isn't going to be out for too long and they have a ton of history together so they won't need quite as much.
Besides, Hasselbeck didn't do too bad withou tDJax and Engram last year...
That's because he had Joe Jurevicius. He'll probably do alright with Burleson, Engram, and Stevens, though.
Eh, Jurevicius was great for us when we needed him, don't get me wrong. I just don't think it was him that made us great during that stretch without DJax and Engram. I mean with the amount of attention Shaun Alexander draws pretty much everyone is going to be either in one-on-one coverage or some sort of 1 deep zone. That's what makes losing Hutch a big deal. Hopefully his departure isn't going to kill us.
Kellys Heroes wrote:I making offers for the 2 jakes right now (plummer or Delhomme) and trying to increase my wr depth.
You better increase something, because Hass for either Delhomme or Plummer ( ), is a ripoff (and you'd be the one getting ripped.)
I really don't think the D-Jax news affects Hass's value much, if at all.[/quote]
really? I disagree. I think DJax possibly not being there could knock Hass down a few pegs on my board. Its at least a concern when you hear news like this about a great WR like Jackson.
"Cincinatti leads the league in 'Johnsons'" - John Madden