RM: Like a similar article by Popper, this article does a good job
collecting the known facts but does not ultimately explain the decision,
other than with the lame "moving on was best for all parties instead of
trying to make it work because of sunk cost."

There are three possibilities here:

(1) Jackson simply had not recovered physically to the point where he
was able to reach his prior level of performance, or, indeed, even a
satisfactory level of performance.

(2) Jackson lacked the cognitive abilities to fully comprehend and
execute Staley's admittedly complex defensive schemes.

(3) Jackson willfully failed to execute the schemes properly because he
believed he was better suited to the press man coverage he was so good
at with New England.

Nothing tells us which one (or more) of these was the case. Nor do the
existing articles tell us what the players in the locker room thought:
Did they see Jackson as someone who never really became part of the
team, or as someone who worked his ass off to rehab a serious injury and
then was discarded because he couldn't get healthy enough quickly enough.

This article takes the easy way out and blames everyone: Telesco, Staley
and Jackson. From what I saw, Jackson worked very hard to rehab, posting
enthusiastic videos/stills of his rehab, but then was never fully
healthy in the sense of recovering his prior abilities, even if he was
"healed" in the sense of not having an active wound.

I put this fiasco fully on the team for failing to give Jackson enough
time to recover his prior level of function, or at least try to. He
clearly had not obtained that level of performance in the games he
played this season. Will he ever? We don't know.

But the Chargers are left with a huge dead cap hit next season and no
improvement on the field. That seems like the worst possible outcome to me.

--Robin

https://chargerswire.usatoday.com/2023/10/04/la-chargers-jc-jackson-trade-takeaways/

Alex Insdorf
October 4, 2023 3:30 pm PT

Just two years after the Chargers signed J.C. Jackson to a
record-setting five-year, $82.5 million contract, Los Angeles has traded
the corner back to his former team in New England. The Chargers receive
a late-round pick swap and some mild cap relief this year in return. But
they’ll also absorb a dead cap charge of $21 million next year.

This isn’t the outcome the team envisioned in March 2022. But there are
many reasons why the Chargers and Jackson arrived here.

In August of 2022, elective ankle surgery to remove a bone spur caused a
setback for the Bolts’ corner that prevented him from starting the
season healthy. Brandon Staley, at the time, called it a “comfort level”
procedure for Jackson. He missed the Chargers’ Week 1 contest and
returned in Week 2 against Kansas City.

After a few weeks of poor performances where Jackson was a liability in
coverage, Staley decided to bench him at halftime against the Broncos on
Monday Night Football. Michael Davis took his spot on the outside and
the Chargers had a relatively dominant defensive effort in the second half.

Against Seattle later in the season, Jackson had a relatively good first
half where it felt like he was finally beginning to fit into the scheme.
Late in the second quarter, however, Jackson ruptured his patellar
tendon trying to defend Marquise Goodwin in the end zone.

A ruptured patellar tendon demanded a long road to recovery for Jackson.
After a long 2023 offseason process, Jackson was able to start training
camp on time. He never was placed on the PUP list, unlike some of his
former Chargers’ teammates who suffered season-ending injuries.

Throughout training camp, we mostly heard positive signs of Jackson’s
recovery. He was never 100%, but he was supposedly getting there. After
not being listed on the injury report in Week 1, Jackson was able to
start game one of the 2023 season against the Dolphins.

Jackson had what was arguably the worst game of his career. The
Chargers’ secondary was horrific on the day and Jackson’s communication
with the secondary played a role in that. He allowed three receptions
for 99 yards during Tyreek Hill’s explosion. Jackson also committed an
egregious pass interference penalty that gifted Miami three points
before the end of the half.

Something was wrong with the secondary rotations and how they
communicated how easily Miami could get free releases. Miami made a
point out of targeting Jackson intentionally, knowing his injury status.
In fairness to Jackson, Staley wasn’t exactly putting him in
advantageous defensive positions with a lot of single coverage looks.

In Week 3 against Minnesota, Jackson was a healthy scratch for the first
time in his Chargers’ career. Against the Raiders, the former Chargers
cornerback was active but did not play a single snap.

Throughout his tenure, Jackson ultimately dealt with injury, benchings,
drops in the level of play, and numerous rehab processes. For a signing
that was supposed to fix the Chargers’ CB1 situation for the foreseeable
future, it’s a shame it didn’t play out that way.

Now, the Chargers will start Asante Samuel Jr., Michael Davis, and
Ja’Sir Taylor as their main trio. That group performed considerably
better as a unit for the secondary relative to the teams’ first two
weeks. In the short term, not much changes for the Chargers.

However, the unit is less deep without Jackson. The Chargers have signed
Essang Bassey to the active roster after claiming him on waivers, but
the gap in NFL experience and functionality between the two players is
notable. They’re certainly more susceptible to injuries at the position
than they once were.

The interesting questions are long-term. Samuel Jr. will be due a
contract extension at some point. Davis is a free agent after the year.
Ultimately, the Chargers will undergo a relatively large reconstruction
of their secondary outside of Derwin James being a mainstay at safety.

From a team perspective, the Jackson experience was a failure on all
fronts. Tom Telesco, as GM, of course, would take a redo on that
contract less than two years later. The handling of his injuries and
various benchings of Jackson certainly have affected his career. That
seems to fall on all parties involved, including Telesco, Staley, and
the former Pro Bowl corner.

To the credit of the current regime in charge, moving on was best for
all parties instead of trying to make it work because of sunk cost.

The Chargers will simplify things for the rest of the year, but they’re
back to square one on finding the future lockdown corner of their
defense. Eating Jackson’s dead cap for the next few years will make
their financial situation tough in attempting to lure players in free
agency. The draft is likely the Bolts’ best bet on finding someone to
lead Staley’s defense in the back half, assuming he’s still head coach
in 2024.

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> RM: Like a similar article by Popper, this article does a good job
> collecting the known facts but does not ultimately explain the
> decision, other than with the lame "moving on was best for all parties
> instead of trying to make it work because of sunk cost."
>
> There are three possibilities here:
>
> (1) Jackson simply had not recovered physically to the point where he
> was able to reach his prior level of performance, or, indeed, even a
> satisfactory level of performance.

Whoever evaluated him medically before he was signed should be fired.

> (2) Jackson lacked the cognitive abilities to fully comprehend and
> execute Staley's admittedly complex defensive schemes.

Give me a break. You can't survive in NE unless you're top 20% cognitively.

> (3) Jackson willfully failed to execute the schemes properly because
> he believed he was better suited to the press man coverage he was so
> good at with New England.

Maybe he failed to execute them because he didn't have the skill set.

> Nothing tells us which one (or more) of these was the case. Nor do the

If the team hired an inside linebacker and asked him to play corner,
who would be at fault?

It amazes me the number of coaches who are incapable of adjusting their
schemes to take advantage of the players' skill sets.

(4) The team signed a press corner to play off coverage.

The GM and whoever instigated the signing should be fired.

> But the Chargers are left with a huge dead cap hit next season and no

The dead cap hit is irrelevant. That's just paying off the balance on
your credit card. Blame the initial charges, not paying your balance due.
The only dead cap that ever matters is for guaranteed cash flow for
future years. There's none of that here.

The mistakes were (a) overpaying for someone you couldn't use and
(b) finagling the cap to overspend in a year the team was not a
legitimate superbowl contender.

> improvement on the field. That seems like the worst possible outcome
> to me.

The worst possible outcome is for Staley and Telesco to keep their jobs.

Eddie

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> RM: Like a similar article by Popper, this article does a good job
>> collecting the known facts but does not ultimately explain the
>> decision, other than with the lame "moving on was best for all parties
>> instead of trying to make it work because of sunk cost."
>>
>> There are three possibilities here:
>>
>> (1) Jackson simply had not recovered physically to the point where he
>> was able to reach his prior level of performance, or, indeed, even a
>> satisfactory level of performance.
>
> Whoever evaluated him medically before he was signed should be fired.
>
>> (2) Jackson lacked the cognitive abilities to fully comprehend and
>> execute Staley's admittedly complex defensive schemes.
>
> Give me a break. You can't survive in NE unless you're top 20% cognitively.
>
>> (3) Jackson willfully failed to execute the schemes properly because
>> he believed he was better suited to the press man coverage he was so
>> good at with New England.
>
> Maybe he failed to execute them because he didn't have the skill set.
>
>> Nothing tells us which one (or more) of these was the case. Nor do the
>
> If the team hired an inside linebacker and asked him to play corner,
> who would be at fault?
>
> It amazes me the number of coaches who are incapable of adjusting their
> schemes to take advantage of the players' skill sets.
>
> (4) The team signed a press corner to play off coverage.
>
> The GM and whoever instigated the signing should be fired.
>
>> But the Chargers are left with a huge dead cap hit next season and no
>
> The dead cap hit is irrelevant. That's just paying off the balance on
> your credit card. Blame the initial charges, not paying your balance due.
> The only dead cap that ever matters is for guaranteed cash flow for
> future years. There's none of that here.
>
> The mistakes were (a) overpaying for someone you couldn't use and
> (b) finagling the cap to overspend in a year the team was not a
> legitimate superbowl contender.
>
>> improvement on the field. That seems like the worst possible outcome
>> to me.
>
> The worst possible outcome is for Staley and Telesco to keep their jobs.
>
>
> Eddie
>

Well, there's that ...

:-)

--Robin

Eddie Grove <eddiegrove@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:871qe74cgb.fsf@hotmail.com:

> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> RM: Like a similar article by Popper, this article does a good job
>> collecting the known facts but does not ultimately explain the
>> decision, other than with the lame "moving on was best for all
>> parties instead of trying to make it work because of sunk cost."
>>
>> There are three possibilities here:
>>
>> (1) Jackson simply had not recovered physically to the point where he
>> was able to reach his prior level of performance, or, indeed, even a
>> satisfactory level of performance.
>
> Whoever evaluated him medically before he was signed should be fired.
>
>> (2) Jackson lacked the cognitive abilities to fully comprehend and
>> execute Staley's admittedly complex defensive schemes.
>
> Give me a break. You can't survive in NE unless you're top 20%
> cognitively.
>
>> (3) Jackson willfully failed to execute the schemes properly because
>> he believed he was better suited to the press man coverage he was so
>> good at with New England.
>
> Maybe he failed to execute them because he didn't have the skill set.
>
>> Nothing tells us which one (or more) of these was the case. Nor do
>> the
>
> If the team hired an inside linebacker and asked him to play corner,
> who would be at fault?
>
> It amazes me the number of coaches who are incapable of adjusting
> their schemes to take advantage of the players' skill sets.
>
> (4) The team signed a press corner to play off coverage.
>
> The GM and whoever instigated the signing should be fired.
>
>> But the Chargers are left with a huge dead cap hit next season and no
>
> The dead cap hit is irrelevant. That's just paying off the balance on
> your credit card. Blame the initial charges, not paying your balance
> due. The only dead cap that ever matters is for guaranteed cash flow
> for future years. There's none of that here.
>
> The mistakes were (a) overpaying for someone you couldn't use and
> (b) finagling the cap to overspend in a year the team was not a
> legitimate superbowl contender.
>
>> improvement on the field. That seems like the worst possible outcome
>> to me.
>
> The worst possible outcome is for Staley and Telesco to keep their
> jobs.

No DB is worth $80 million. That was an insult to the rest of the
defense.