Eagles Tried To Trade For Vincent Jackson

Eagles head coach Chip Kelly said last Monday that his club wasn’t looking to make any deals in advance of Tuesday’s trade deadine, but it appears he wasn’t being entirely truthful. Per Jay Glazer of Fox Sports (Twitter link), Philadelphia tried to acquire Buccaneers receiver Vincent Jackson, but Tampa Bay wasn’t interested in making a deal. There’s no word on what type of compensation was offered to the Buccaneers.

We heard rumors all last week that the Bucs were looking to dump players, and that Jackson was one of those who was available. Ian Rapoport of NFL.com reported that Tampa Bay was looking for “real value” in exchange for Jackson, and might have been hoping for at least a second-round pick in exchange for the 31-year-old. Presumably, the Eagles were unwilling to part with such a valuable pick for Jackson. The Patriots, Seahawks, and Chiefs were also mentioned as suitors for Jackson, but it sounds like Philadelphia was closest to acquiring him.

The Eagles would have taken on the remainder of Jackson’ $10MM salary for 2014, but otherwise wouldn’t have been responsible for any guarantees. His 2015-16 base salaries of about $9.77MM aren’t guaranteed, and his signing bonus would’ve stay on Tampa’s books. Jackson is in the midst of a down season, as he’s caught just 26 passes for 357 yards and two touchdowns. Still, it would have been interesting to see how he would’ve been used in Kelly’s dynamic offense, especially being paired with Jeremy Maclin.

Tampa Bay will keep Jackson for at least the remainder of this season, and he will count roughly $2.43MM against the cap through 2016 in the form of a prorated signing bonus. PFR’s Luke Adams examined Jackson as one of several rumored trade candidates who stayed put, and noted that the veteran is a candidate to be released or restructured during the offseason. The Bucs, of course, did end up making two deals on Tuesday, trading Mark Barron to the Rams, and Jonathan Casillas to the Patriots.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply