clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Debating between DeSean Jackson and Jerome Simpson is still a flawed argument

New, comments

I still find fault in the DeSean Jackson argument. The Bengals selected Jerome Simpson 15th (46th overall) in the second round; Jackson went to the Eagles 18th (49th overall). Jackson went on to have a good rookie season with 62 receptions, 912 yards receiving and two touchdowns. Seventeen receptions went for 20 yards or more, while Jackson caught 43 passes that resulted in first downs. Jerome Simpson, on the other hand, had two receptions, active in only six games.

Here's the thing. Jackson led his team in receptions, yards receiving and yards per reception. The closest receiver was Hank Baskett, who recorded a career high 33 receptions. Kevin Curtis and Jason Avant, combined, recorded only three more receptions than Jackson, and 145 yards receiving short.

On the other hand, Jerome Simpson was entirely drafted into a much complicated scenario. Former Pro Bowl players, franchise setting receivers, were ahead of Simpson. Andre Caldwell and Glenn Holt returned kicks, while Chris Henry is still, in our opinion, one of the best receivers when it comes to matching up against opposing defenses. If Jackson came to the Bengals, we hardly foresee a scenario in which Jackson comes close to the playing time he received in Philadelphia. Maybe he'd have better numbers than Simpson, but his playing time would be just as limited.

Maybe after three seasons pass, when judging a draft is actually permitted within a scaled sample, then Jackson will be the better receiver. However, as long as Chad Johnson, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Chris Henry remain with the team, then Simpson's role will always be limited; Andre Caldwell is also problematic for Simpson's playing time. Maybe Jackson could displace one, if not another. Maybe. However, that's not the scenario. That's not the argument. Our point is that it's flawed to take Jackson's 2008 numbers, comparing that to Simpson's in the same season.