Skip to content

NJ.com says Eagles had nothing to do with Jackson gang story

deseanchip AP

The Eagles cut DeSean Jackson almost immediately after NJ.com published a story linking Jackson to gang members, leading to speculation that the Eagles leaked the negative information about Jackson to NJ.com. But NJ.com says that’s not the case.

Eliot Shorr-Parks, one of the two writers of that original NJ.com story, now writes in a follow-up that the Eagles weren’t involved in the reporting on the story relating to Jackson’s alleged gang ties.

“The conspiracy theories surrounding the story are comical,” Shorr-Parks writes. “NJ.com uncovered Jackson’s ties to alleged gang members through its own reporting. The Eagles played no part in NJ.com’s investigation. When asked about Jackson’s alleged gang ties, team officials said they were unaware of the ties and would not comment.”

That’s a surprising statement for NJ.com to make about a story whose headline is, “DeSean Jackson’s gang connections troubling to Eagles.” How did NJ.com know the Eagles were troubled by Jackson’s alleged gang connections if no one affiliated with the Eagles told them that?

The more recent NJ.com story still doesn’t clear up exactly what the timeline was — did NJ.com’s reporting reveal that the Eagles had concerns about Jackson having connections to gangs? Or did the Eagles only learn about these alleged gang connections from NJ.com’s reporting? Complicating things is that NJ.com updated its original story hours after the Eagles cut Jackson, and that update only served to make the timeline more confusing. In the original story (as quoted by the Washington Post), NJ.com wrote, “Now the Eagles have even more serious concerns — Jackson’s continued association with reputed Los Angeles street gang members.” But in the updated version of the same story, NJ.com says, “Then, suddenly, the Eagles had even more serious concerns when they were revealed by NJ.com — Jackson’s continued association with reputed Los Angeles street gang members.”

The original version suggests that the Eagles already had concerns about Jackson’s association with street gang members, before the NJ.com story was published. The updated version suggests that the Eagles knew nothing about any gang ties until NJ.com published the story.

NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith has said he is concerned that the Eagles smeared Jackson, and that the union is investigating. The latest NJ.com article says that investigation has already begun, and that NJ.com informed the union that the Eagles were not a source for the story about Jackson.

“When a union official contacted NJ.com sports director Kevin Manahan, the official was told the Eagles provided no information on Jackson’s alleged gang ties,” Shorr-Parks writes.

That’s a straightforward, definitive answer — much more straightforward and definitive than news outlets are usually willing to be about stories that rely on anonymous sources. But it likely won’t serve as the last word on what has become perhaps the biggest story of the NFL offseason.

Permalink 29 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
29 Responses to “NJ.com says Eagles had nothing to do with Jackson gang story”
  1. ravenswhat says: Apr 6, 2014 11:44 AM

    Sure thing. You just happened to release the story on your own accord literally THE morning of his release? That’s an amazing coincidence.

  2. arzcardinals says: Apr 6, 2014 11:55 AM

    Either way they just dropped a 1,300 production #1 WR. Foolish IMO
    Wr’s like Jackson are special and needed on Sundays. Dumb move by Philly. Jackson Moss and Roberts are a solid core of WR’s if RG3 can regain his form.

  3. paulz624 says: Apr 6, 2014 11:55 AM

    Stephen A. did a horrible interview, he was basically begging Jackson to accuse the Eagles of leaking information to NJ.com so that they could cut him. Worse, this question shows how woefully unprepared Smith was for this interview. The police officer in the NJ.com article who accused Jackson of gang ties was LAPD detective Eric Crosson. You know how I know that? Because his name was mentioned 14 times in the original NJ.com article. It was certainly not “anonymous.

  4. thestrategyexpert says: Apr 6, 2014 12:19 PM

    Stephen A. Smith did a pretty good job with the interview, but that’s because his agenda is probably different than what you would prefer it to be as a viewer. His goal was to get the story out while painting the player in a bright light. Let’s see how the interview goes if he sits down with Nancy Grace next.

  5. liquidgrammar says: Apr 6, 2014 12:50 PM

    I have to agree with MDS, and having lived in Philadelphia and watched this owner conduct his business since he bought the team, it’s more than a little curious. They’ve planted stories in the media, as all teams do, so NJ.com and it’s reporters are persona non grata to me! Just let the story die! But you’re such shills for this organization that you’ll go out and LIE to cover up their involvement?? Pathetic….

  6. axx1 says: Apr 6, 2014 1:16 PM

    You know nothing philledelpha eagles snow

  7. eagles512 says: Apr 6, 2014 1:46 PM

    If I’m not mistaken, the original article said that the Eagles were unaware and would not comment.

  8. wiitrainingcamp says: Apr 6, 2014 1:49 PM

    I don’t buy the “planted story” idea simply because it makes no sense that the Eagles would want to torpedo Jackson’s trade value by leaking negative stories. They did know the story was coming, however, because NJ.com contacted them multiple times for comment on the story they were writing. That much is in the original article.

    When a journalist contacts you and tells you he’s writing a story, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the story is going to eventually be published. I think the Eagles felt when the story was released, a trade was likely out of the question so they used the opportunity to cut ties with the guy they didn’t want around anymore anyway.

  9. patfanken says: Apr 6, 2014 1:58 PM

    Just another weak attempt to paint the Eagles in a bad light. If Chip Kelley had released every player he had at Oregon who knew gang members at home, he’d have never won a game in the PAC 10. This entire “gang land, did he or didn’t he” is nothing but a smoke screen by the Jackson suck ups to distract the public from the simple fact that DESPITE his great talents, his poor attitude made it mandatory that he be released from the team.

    You can’t win football games with people who can’t be relied on. How can you pay a man $10MM who undermines his coach, and might quit on you at any point of a game, just because he can. What kind of example does that make to the rest of the locker room

    This isn’t about what the Eagles did or did not do. This should be about Jackson and what he did or did not do while he was getting paid a lot of money by that organization.

    Kudos to Kelley for having the guts to do what was right, and shame on Steven A for a softball, one sided interview. It was so bad, you had to wonder if Jackson’s PR firm didn’t give him the questions

  10. inallsincerity says: Apr 6, 2014 2:30 PM

    Too many coincidences, and we know when it comes to politics, there’s no such thing. The bottom line in the NFL is the almighty dollar, and the Eagles don’t want to pay, Jackson $10+ million a year. The gang ties and locker room issues are subterfuge, conveniently used at an opportune time. The running back position has already been devalued in today’s NFL. Next up, the WR as the powers that be only want the QB to make the BIG bucks.

  11. bastardfromhell says: Apr 6, 2014 2:47 PM

    Wait a minute, DeSean never denied associating with gang bangers. He only denied being around them when they are doing something wrong?!?! When has a gang done anything right?

  12. punkrock21 says: Apr 6, 2014 2:52 PM

    How are you going to spin this in Desean’s favor Stephen A?

  13. winstonjed44 says: Apr 6, 2014 2:55 PM

    patfanken: I agree with some of your points but I think your conclusion is off. You’re saying the gang stuff is a smoke screen to make Chip Kelly look bad and distract people from his poor attitude and bad behavior? That’s ridiculous, if anything the gang stuff makes Jackson look much worse and is a bigger stain on his reputation. The Eagles released Jackson for two big reasons, his relationship with Chip Kelley/behavior in the locker room and more importantly the money he was making. The Eagles didn’t want to may that much money for a guy that caused such a big headache. But teams will take a risk on a guy that has behavior issues, they think they can change him or solve the problem. The gang stuff is a much bigger wildcard especially in the wake of the Hernandez fiasco teams are way more cautious. With the gang story, Kelly has an out if the Eagles suffer from losing Jackson. I’m not saying it was the wrong move, I think it was very fair to release Jackson, but the gang story isn’t hurting Kelly and the Eagles, and it is certainly not helping Jackson.

  14. officialgame says: Apr 6, 2014 3:17 PM

    The Eagles didn’t need a newspaper “story” to release somebody. If Jackson was a committed player to Kelly’s program like the other 52 guys they would have happily paid him like they do other stars on the team. No mystery here, Kelly simply didn’t want him on the team. End of story.

  15. 1phillyphan says: Apr 6, 2014 3:21 PM

    I guess those who think the Eagles planted the story are just stupid..they were trying to trade him for months…!! Why would you want to devalue a player you’re trying to get top dollar for in a trade. If anything, when the article came out..they were probably pissed..that ended any chance of trade for them…As far as all the “alleged” gang ties..DeSean Jackson is the one taking Photo’s, making Youtube video’s, and instagram shots with him and gang members..Sure, i’m sure lots of NFL players grew up with some kids that went the wrong way into gangs…But how many of them post pics of them with them showing gang signs!! Hey D Jax..you ever hear that discretion is the better part of valor?

  16. illwillthemick says: Apr 6, 2014 4:45 PM

    “Either way they just dropped a 1,300 production #1 WR. Foolish IMO
    Wr’s like Jackson are special and needed on Sundays. Dumb move by Philly. Jackson Moss and Roberts are a solid core of WR’s if RG3 can regain his form.”

    ———

    how do u mention moss and roberts but forget about garcon?? lmfao

  17. raidersownyou says: Apr 6, 2014 5:14 PM

    This all still seems fishy…

  18. eaglesnoles05 says: Apr 6, 2014 5:37 PM

    You think maybe they cut him because his attitude was poor and he constantly whined about money and slacked on the field whenever he wanted to make it an issue and they think there are possible younger, cheaper, smarter and also fast-running replacements for him in the draft? Maybe it wasn’t about the fact that he knows gang bangers he grew up with and everyone knew that already?

    I mean…

  19. prostock75 says: Apr 6, 2014 5:55 PM

    paulz624 …..Why would you type word for word what another article said about Jackson and try and pass it off as your own writing?

    I am referring to this post….

    ——————————————

    paulz624 says:
    Apr 6, 2014 11:55 AM
    Stephen A. did a horrible interview, he was basically begging Jackson to accuse the Eagles of leaking information to NJ.com so that they could cut him. Worse, this question shows how woefully unprepared Smith was for this interview. The police officer in the NJ.com article who accused Jackson of gang ties was LAPD detective Eric Crosson. You know how I know that? Because his name was mentioned 14 times in the original NJ.com article. It was certainly not “anonymous.

  20. kst2074 says: Apr 6, 2014 6:03 PM

    and you got the NFLPA investigating, lol lol

  21. tooozy says: Apr 6, 2014 6:14 PM

    Both the Eagles and Jaccson’s camp were made aware of the article on Monday and told they were putting the story out on Wednesday at noon. They were told in case they wanted to make a comment.

    The Eagles were already going to cut DeSean; the article just made push come to shove (IMO). The whole smearing thing is a joke and DeSean Jackson is trying to play victim in a victimless non-crime. They are creating the stir, as they have been doing all along. The Eagles remain silent. They offer nothing. The media creates it all and made a bigger deal about the Eagles not opening their mouths. It’s kind of sad.

    Also, that SAS interview was also pretty embarrassing.

  22. shatho1 says: Apr 6, 2014 6:21 PM

    yes and how much did the eagles owner pay u NJ.com to cover for them

  23. greenbleeder says: Apr 6, 2014 7:39 PM

    “No respect, no respect.”
    -Joe Piscopo

  24. inallsincerity says: Apr 6, 2014 8:21 PM

    Some of you are forgetting something too important to be dismissed. They just had the owner’s meetings, if any of you are naïve enough to think that the availability of players are not discussed, then you are really being unreasonable. Any player making $10+ million a year is going to be hard to move, let alone a WR with alleged gang ties and locker room issues. So, to save face amid your fan base, as DeSean Jax is certainly a crowd favorite, you defamate a guy’s character as we have witnessed over the last week or so. Think about it, all parties involved are in spin-control mode. Plus, the owners collectively, would prefer someone/something else dominating the news rather than that good ole’ boy Irsay.

  25. inallsincerity says: Apr 6, 2014 8:24 PM

    “…defame…” Excuse me.

  26. campcouch says: Apr 6, 2014 8:45 PM

    I don’t follow the Eagles religiously,just from what I see during games or whatever sports show is talking about them. It seemed to me that Jackson was liked or at least appreciated by fans and players. Lots of players grumble about contracts and they do so because of times like this when the team can cut you for no reason. I’m sure NJ.com (sounds like two dudes sitting on their couch “reporting”), did this follow up because squirrely stories that they presented make other teams and players wary of dealing with them. I’m just curious what led them to dig up a story on the west coast about a guy working and living on the east coast. Aside from some weed his rookie year,I’ve never heard anything bad about the guy. Didn’t ESPN do some warm and fuzzy story about him and his father’s loving connection? Anyways,knowing or being related to guys in a gang doesn’t make you one or even tie you into it. That’s like saying Frank Sinatra was a capo because he and some of his mob buddies liked cigars,women and brandy. There are a lot of folks with friends or relatives that do shady things,but they still maintain those friendships and relations. NJ.com is just doing some personal damage control.

  27. phillyphannnn83 says: Apr 6, 2014 8:57 PM

    Current Eagles player(yes I know it’s anonymous but you’re never going to get candor like this on the record):

    “It pisses me off that [Kelly] comes off looking like the bad guy here,” the player told Santoliquito. “It wasn’t just [Kelly] that wanted him gone. [Kelly] got a lot of feedback from guys that felt we were better off without [Jackson], too. [Kelly] is very much a player’s coach. His office is open to anyone. Now [Jackson] is the Redskins’ problem. We have something good going here and it’s going to get better without [Jackson]. He had to go.”

  28. eaglesnoles05 says: Apr 7, 2014 12:27 PM

    That ^^^ sounds like Jason Kelce, imo.

  29. phillyphannnn83 says: Apr 7, 2014 3:33 PM

    I’m with you on that, miles

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!