News Archives

New York Giants Waive Safety/Cornerback Janzen Jackson

August 12th, 2012 at 6:47 PM
By Dan Benton

The New York Giants will officially waive safety/cornerback Janzen Jackson on Monday, reports Paul Dottino of WFAN.

Jackson was signed as an undrafted free agent out of McNeese State in late April, and was considered an early favorite to surprise and make the 53-man roster. However, after struggling in camp, Big Blue has decided to go in a different direction.

In November of 2009, Jackson was arrested and charged with armed robbery, but the chargers were eventually dropped when investigators determined he had no prior knowledge of the robbery. He was later released from the Tennessee football program for unrelated and unspecified reasons.

His background a concern, General Manager Jerry Reese informed him upon signing with the team that a strict zero tolerance policy would immediately be put into effect. Jackson agreed, said all the right things, and by all indications, had been a model player while in Albany and throughout the duration of his stay with the Giants.

The roster move creates an open spot on the current 90-man roster, and could signal the return of a player currently on the Physically Unable to Perform (PUP) list or the potential return of veteran safety Deon Grant.

Also…

Tags: Deon Grant, Football, Janzen Jackson, New York, New York Giants, NFL

No related posts.

21 Responses to “New York Giants Waive Safety/Cornerback Janzen Jackson”

  1.  GOAT56 says:

    I thought onced they moved him to playing some CB he was in trouble. I need there was room for an undrafted safety to make this roster. My early call was Jackson but that player has turned out to be Will Hill. Maybe Jackson still has an NFL shot but he better gain 20 pounds if he wants to play safety.

  2.  BillyS says:

    I think the emergence of Will Hill made Jackson more expendable. I do hope he latches on elsewhere, though.

  3.  jfunk says:

    Two points in response to FF55′s info last thread:

    First, on Bennett…hell yeah. This kid was #1 on my wishlist in free agency and I fully expect great things from him (great enough to make Jerry’s brilliant low-risk signing turn into a negative…we won’t be able to afford him next year). There’s one thing that I think many may have overlooked when evaluating Bennett during FA: the Cowboys organization is a cancer. Unlike other teams where you have individual players that are a cancer, the Cowboys are a cancer from the top down. They’re the opposite of the Giants. Here, we can take questionable kids and turn them around with the environment. There, only the most stalwart hearts can thrive amongst their surroundings. Guys like Ware and Witten thrive despite their surroundings. Guys like Romo are successful due to their talent, but can’t quite overcome the temptation to “get me some glory hole” and will never amount to all they could be as long as they remain Cowboys. Others are destroyed by the cancer that is “The Star”. Bennett has been pulled from the flames by the Giants, he will not disappoint.

    Second, regarding Ware. The comments don’t surprise me. The kid is just boring, plain jane, get the job done. I said this earlier this spring: Wilson is not a replacement for Ware, he’s a replacement for Bradshaw.

    Regarding the current article…I suspect that his unnecessary release now indicates that he was not entirely a “model citizen” in Albany. There’s no reason to cut him now except for personality problems (which may very well impact performance on the field).

    •  GOAT56 says:

      If you read the piece I posted below it provided some great insight. While we want to kill Dallas they do have likely a HOF TE. Plus they have had always at least 2 WRs. I think dallas fans focused on a few drops when really Bennett played the role he was asked to do. That role really didn’t use all of his talents but that happens sometimes as a 2nd TE. Shiancoe was a lessor talent but in a similar situation with us. He had several good seasons with Minn and Bennett has the ability to be even more productive with his first chance at #1 TE.

    •  jfunk says:

      “Coach (John) Garrett in Dallas is a good tight ends coach, and the blocking we did there (was) a lot of technique work with the push and drive and bringing your hips so you’re belly to belly. I think here, there are some things I have a hard time changing right now, like putting the inside foot back – since I’ve been in the league, I’ve always put the inside foot up, so that’s been kind of a tough adjustment for me, but it’s something I’m working on making second nature because I’ve seen it make a difference.”

      Rephrased: “Coach Garrett is a “good coach”, but I’ve been recently taught that he was completely wrong about how to block. It’s hard unlearning something that’s been drilled into your head incorrectly for four years, so it’s taking some time. But I’ll keep working at it, because it was obvious immediately that Coach Pope’s way is better.”

  4.  fanfor55years says:

    Hard not to start getting excited about Bennett. We still have to see it in real games, but he is increasingly sounding like the best we’ve seen since the days of Mark Bavaro and Bob Tucker.

    As for Jackson, I really cannot get too upset about this. Just because the Giants gave him a shot doesn’t erase the fact that he is a guy who has made an awful lot of mistakes in his life and that on a team that will have a VERY rough time making final cuts he really didn’t have much of a chance. And I suspect that the results of last Friday may have convinced the team that the roughly $3MM they have remaining in cap space should be used to bring in at least one more offensive lineman, which means they’d need a spot on their current 90-player roster made available.

  5.  Dirt says:

    jfunk is right about Wilson replacing Bradshaw.

    In fact, I’m going to make a statement that has had various pieces floating around in my head for a while but never really formulated to a definitive opinion or thought: Bradshaw is nearly done.

    Dude’s seen his YPC drop every single year since his rookie year, despite Eli growing with additional receiving weapons around him. He, himself, being such a poor receiving back that he’s got a career YPC a full yard less than Jacobs, which is the sole reason Ware still plays on this team. Poor hands too. And he’s got chronic feet issues.

    Sure, the OL struggled last year, but this guy did no favors for himself running to contact and missing the right cuts. The other night he caught a screen pass with 1 more blocker than defenders and somehow managed to pass on scoring and find his way into the arms of a defender.

    I really don’t think he’s as good as he once was.

    It happens. Once-good RBs fall off the face of the planet.

    I hope I’m wrong.

    •  SimonGC says:

      Yeah I don’t think that’s breaking news. It boggles my mind that anybody considers him anything of a long term solution.

      That’s why in my initial 53 man roster projection I posted yesterday I had 5 RB’s. I don’t expect a full, healthy season from Bradshaw. Or any single running back, honestly.

      Let’s hope Da’Rel Scott and David Wilson are ready to go when called upon.

      •  Eric S says:

        I don’t see the Giants keeping 5 RB’s on the 53 man roster. I’ll give you 4, Bradshaw, Ware, Wilson and Brown with Martinek to the PS as an emergency filler if needed. With the health of TT and Canty up in the air and the suspension of Sash looming, we need to keep some extra bodies on D for the time being. Bradshaw missed 4 games last year, but in the 3 years prior to that he missed only 2 games.

    •  GOAT56 says:

      I wouldn’t say that about bradshaw just yet. The OL has also gotten worse every year since 2008 he’s been here so those stats probably fall in line with that factor. Because of Jacabs, Brashaw never had to endure a lion share of carries so for his age he doesn’t have that much wear and tear. The key is his foot, he says this is the best he has felt in an offseason. Bradshaw has practiced regular with no cautionary rest so his story does seem to have some merit.

      I’m not saying wilson won’t replace Bradshaw it just seems unlikely this year assuming Bradshaw still has something. But I do see that Bradshaw’s vision has been questionable at times. This reminds of what I though about Jacabs after 2009. I think Bradshaw has a starting year left in him and a productive 2nd RB year left in him so 2 years. Though, next year he could be a salary cap victim. RB is just the worse position to play in today’s NFL because 95% of the RBs are pretty easily replacable.

      •  GOAT56 says:

        Ironically, the orginally replacement for Jacobs was suppose to be Brown but had that serious injury.

      •  Dirt says:

        Ehh.. Jacobs averaged 5.6 in 2010, pretty nice. The line wasn’t always declining.

        You could be very well right, and I hope you are, that it’s just a matter of health.

        But his production has certainly fallen when certain factors suggest it shouldn’t have sans a deteriorating player.

        •  GOAT56 says:

          I think line had been declining but it was still very good until last year. Bradshaw still averaged 4.5 in 2010 which is still good. That was the 1 year when Bradshaw had almost 300 carries. Jacobs numbers I think were do more to him being used for spot duty than him being superior.

          That being said Bradshaw didn’t look as good last year. I’m banking on it being OL and injury related. But with RBs your theory is very possible.

          •  SimonGC says:

            Some around here the other day were suggesting just going with three RB’s on the roster (Bradshaw, Ware, Wilson). This very point about Bradshaw and his feet illustrates why that’s a terrible idea. The Giants need bodies there. Brown may not be great, but he rans half decent right now. You never know when you’ll need to trot him or Scott out there 7-10 times a game.

            •  BillyS says:

              While I don’t think Ware is terrible as a 3rd down back I’d still rather have Scott over him. It would leave us without much of a bruiser (Bradshaw is physical, but we need him to stay healthy). I just love the idea of having guys who can hit the holes and run around the edge so quick that it’ll sap the defense of a ton of energy just to catch up to them. Eventually it’ll lead to 1 of them breaking off a big run.

              •  GOAT56 says:

                i don’t agree with keeping 3 RBs or 5 RBs I think 4 RBs is the right number. If something happens to Bradshaw you can even sign a RB off of PS or the street so 5 RBs is too much. But 3 RB does make it difficult if a RB goes down early in a game. that’s only a move if wilson shows well and you don’t think much of Scott and Brown.

                Ware as 3rd down RB is as much for for his pass blocking skills as anything else. Scott will never get the chance at 3rd down RB if he can’t pass protect well.

                •  BillyS says:

                  The thing is…I don’t think Ware is particularly that great at picking up the blitz (and actually staying on his guy). For some reason I just have this image imbedded in my mind of him diving for a blitzer’s shins and missing. Maybe it’s because I just got used to Jacobs leveling a would be blitzer so anyone compared to him just doesn’t seem satisfactory. You are right about Scott though and I really do find it hard for him to be a legitimate 3rd down RB considering his size. I think he could be 1 hell of a scat back though. Here’s hoping Wilson can really improve on pass protection skills so he can have a very firm grasp on the #2 job (and eventually the #1).

  6.  Krow says:

    Bennett … I wanted this guy for his blocking. He fits perfectly into our idea of a TE. And … he was cheap. I’m glad he didn’t disappoint.

    Jackson … well I’ve been to several practices and he’s done nothing to stand out. Not saying he can’t play, but he didn’t catch the eye of the coaching staff. I think they let him go to do him a favor … now he has more time to catch on somewhere rather than wait for the mass releases.

  7.  Krow says:

    … and we don’t need or want Chad Johnson.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: