The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I really think we should make a bid for Pacman Jones. I think we could get him for a mid-draft pick and could give him a conditional contract. Everyone keeps talking about how he can only go to certain teams but I think he would keep on the straight and narrow based on two things:

1. That if he messes up hell nevver play in the league again.
2. If his contract is conditional he would be playing for money.

I believe both to be motivating factors and I think the pros far outweight the cons.

As Vinny said, he's not in the plans and never have been.

rustedrootdown wrote:I really think we should make a bid for Pacman Jones. I think we could get him for a mid-draft pick and could give him a conditional contract. Everyone keeps talking about how he can only go to certain teams but I think he would keep on the straight and narrow based on two things:

1. That if he messes up hell nevver play in the league again.
2. If his contract is conditional he would be playing for money.

I believe both to be motivating factors and I think the pros far outweight the cons.

I don't think we need a criminal on the team. He should try the Raiders or Bengals.

I agree obviously. An incentive laden contract would be a safe 1 year risk definetly worth taking.

He doesnt pan out cut him after a year no sweat. The upside could be he returns to form and changes games. Anyone remember that comeback he singe handedly had vs. the colts two years ago? Two picks a PR for a TD. He is a PLAYMAKER why not take the risk? 1 year incentive laden....

I really think we should make a bid for Pacman Jones. I think we could get him for a mid-draft pick and could give him a conditional contract. Everyone keeps talking about how he can only go to certain teams but I think he would keep on the straight and narrow based on two things:

1. That if he messes up hell nevver play in the league again.
2. If his contract is conditional he would be playing for money.

I believe both to be motivating factors and I think the pros far outweight the cons.

Why would Pacman sign a new contract? He is still under contract with the Titans and if traded I think that his new team would have to assume his original contract.

I'm from Nashville, this guy is a Moron, don't give him a dollar. Great talent but seriously he makes Blloyd look like team captain.

Gibbs4Life wrote:I'm from Nashville, this guy is a Moron, don't give him a dollar. Great talent but seriously he makes Blloyd look like team captain.

Moron works!

No.

rustedrootdown wrote:I really think we should make a bid for Pacman Jones. I think we could get him for a mid-draft pick and could give him a conditional contract. Everyone keeps talking about how he can only go to certain teams but I think he would keep on the straight and narrow based on two things:

1. That if he messes up hell nevver play in the league again.
2. If his contract is conditional he would be playing for money.

I believe both to be motivating factors and I think the pros far outweight the cons.

I think you mean "When he messes up." That's inevitable.
Any contract from anyone, including the Pukes will be conditional.
The first condition is reinstatement by the NFL, which is not a given.
Jones has shown no remorse, and no change of attitude or behavior.
If he had, he would have been reinstated by now.
The Pros play for the Redskins. The Cons play for the Pukes and the Faders. Regardless of his on-field talent, the Con is anyone paying Jones with an expectation he will keep his nose clean.
He's been arrested nine times in six years. I'd bet that all of the THN posters put together haven't been arrested nine times in six years.

I'd bet that all of the THN posters put together haven't been arrested nine times in six years.

Hey don't underestimate the THN community. There are some real thugs on these boards

But seriously, I'm laughing all the way to the bank as Jerry and his Cows prep to give up a mid rounder for this guy. Consider:

- Out of football for an entire year. He may be young, and can probably get back into the swing of things, but there's an adjustment period.

- He was a good returner, but an average cornerback (to me, anyway). Early on, he was getting TOASTED on a regular basis, and had just started to improve somewhat, but not dramatically so.

- Too many strip clubs in the DFW for the man to resist.

Normally, I'm pretty generous with my benefit of the doubt because people do make mistakes. But with this cat, his MOMMA copped a possession charge for him so he wouldn't catch another case, and a known DRUG DEALER stated that HE told Pacman he should slow down. When yo momma is catching cases for you and the Pusha Man says you need to slow down, you got PROBLEMS.

Rumor has it the Pukes are both trading a player and a draft pick for Jones. That makes one hell of a lot of sense to me. Trade away an active player and a draft choice for a player who may not even be eligible to play, and who almost certainly will screw up again before the end of the season if he is reinstated.

I hope Dallas does sign him. Those Texas Rangers won't take any cop-out by Momma or another felon covering as a reason not to give Crackman a felony prison probation violation beatdown.

Just do me a favor, Adam, and be sure to write the strip club a bad check. Texas loves bad checks.

That's right. Adam. It would be the first sign of growing up to actually use your name. If you were really "pac"-ing anything, you wouldn't need to keep going to strip clubs.

I say we make a try for him. Pacman is a BEAST on the field. If he doesn't straighten up his act the cut him. But why pass up an opportunity like this to get a potential perennial pro-bowler for minimal loss on our side of things? Our D would be much better with Pacman back there.

Secondary_Chaos wrote:Our D would be much better with Pacman back there.

I would agree with this IF he is actually reinstated. That is not a given until it actually happens, and IF he keeps his nose clean. One big "if" and one huge "if". I would not give up any players as Dallas is supposedly doing, though. If they're offering a seventh round pick and a player, I'd offer no more than two low-round draft picks, which is still more than Dallas is offering.

GSPODS wrote:

Secondary_Chaos wrote:Our D would be much better with Pacman back there.

I would agree with this IF he is actually reinstated. That is not a given until it actually happens, and IF he keeps his nose clean. One big "if" and one huge "if". I would not give up any players as Dallas is supposedly doing, though. If they're offering a seventh round pick and a player, I'd offer no more than two low-round draft picks, which is still more than Dallas is offering.

I would definitely NOT give up any players for this guy. Low round draft picks is what we could part with. Getting Jones would solve one of our areas of need which would allow us to look elsewhere in the Draft. IF it turns out that he still sucks at life and doesn't straighten up his act, the c'est la vie. But to not even tender an offer would be stupid of Vinny&Co. Rodgers wont be ready for opening day and Springs is getting up there in age. I would be OK parting with 2 low round picks for Pacman.

I would gladly trade some used toilet paper (no more than half a roll) and a pack of Beemans for Jones.

Otherwise...

just go away.

Oh! and HE has to pay US...

Countertrey wrote:I would gladly trade some used toilet paper (no more than half a roll) and a pack of Beemans for Jones.

Otherwise...

just go away.

Oh! and HE has to pay US...

We really don't need a discussion on why you have used toilet paper still on the roll ...

When the affordable veteran options consist of Ty Law and Pacman Jones, you know it's a bare market.

Don't touch him, he's one "cover charge" from another incident. Too much downside & way too much baggage for the risk.

GSPODS wrote:

We really don't need a discussion on why you have used toilet paper still on the roll ...

Darn it. I have penned about 10 fabulous responses... all not appropriate.

I have to concede defeat.

Countertrey wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

We really don't need a discussion on why you have used toilet paper still on the roll ...

Darn it. I have penned about 10 fabulous responses... all not appropriate.

I have to concede defeat.

Used toilet paper roll aside (Way aside, Please) you did manage to get your opinion across in no uncertain terms. No to Pacman.