Many have attempted to address that question, but it doesn't seem like there has ever been a good answer. When it comes to on the field performance, there's no way that the loss of Jackson benefits the Eagles. He was an extremely productive player last season. He had the best year of his career! The numbers don't lie: 82 receptions for 1332 yards (16.2 y/r), and 9 TD is some high quality production.
So it seems like the reason why the Eagles would want to get rid of Jackson is because of some off the field issue(s). According to Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer, that seems to be the case. Look what McLane had to say in a recent column:
NFL sources have indicated that the Eagles decided to move on from Jackson after his South Philadelphia home was burglarized in early January.
OK. The timeline here seems to make some sense. Jimmy Kempski, who originally brought up the possibility of a Jackson trade, recently reported that the Eagles' decision to part with Jackson was not one made recently.
But... how does Jackson's house being robbed make the Eagles decide they want to move on from him? Was there more to the robbery than what's being reported? McLane's column doesn't seem to suggest that's the case.
There were no signs of forced entry, police said, though security cameras in the house had been tampered with. Police said they have nothing pointing toward Jackson's doing anything wrong or that he filed a fraudulent report.
"We have no indication of any type of foul play or misrepresentation on his part," said Lt. John Stanford, a department spokesman. "We are treating this as a burglary, and there is no indication that it's anything different."
And so one answer leaves us with a thousand more questions. Meanwhile, the saga rolls on.