bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 If NY is looking to add a back (any of the rumors of Ahman, Willis, Rhodes, etc) they must think that Jacobs can't carry the ball 20-30 times a game. True, teams like having 2 backs but it doesn't look like they are planning on making Jacobs the #1. Looks like he will stay the change of pace guy and they will get a new #1. Well, it depends how much interest they really have in McGahee. I'm not so sure that adding Rhodes or Ahman (at this point in his career) necessarily means that Jacobs isn't the #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Well, it depends how much interest they really have in McGahee. I'm not so sure that adding Rhodes or Ahman (at this point in his career) necessarily means that Jacobs isn't the #1. I think if they were to go after Green or Rhodes it would say they are committing to RBBC. If they go after McGahee I think they are going after their starter. JMO of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I think if they were to go after Green or Rhodes it would say they are committing to RBBC. If they go after McGahee I think they are going after their starter. JMO of course. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I think if they were to go after Green or Rhodes it would say they are committing to RBBC. If they go after McGahee I think they are going after their starter. JMO of course. sounds about right. but i think ahman, if healthy and motivated, would still stand a very good chance of pushing ahead of jacobs a bit and getting in that 20 carry range, but that one could easily go the other way as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I think if they were to go after Green or Rhodes it would say they are committing to RBBC. If they go after McGahee I think they are going after their starter. JMO of course. That seems like a very reasonable statment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 If NY is looking to add a back (any of the rumors of Ahman, Willis, Rhodes, etc) they must think that Jacobs can't carry the ball 20-30 times a game. True, teams like having 2 backs but it doesn't look like they are planning on making Jacobs the #1. Looks like he will stay the change of pace guy and they will get a new #1. "We're looking for Brandon to probably carry the ball 20 times and for another running back [to carry] 15 times," Reese said. "[Jacobs] will carry the maximum amount of the load for us, I'm assuming, if everything goes like we expect it to." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) For those of you stating that Jacobs can't be a featured RB, or that if he is that he will fail, what evidence do you have to back up your statements? Jacobs' career so far: 134 rushes for 522 yds, 3.90 ypc But we all know that he has been used a lot in short yardage/goal line situations, so let's take a closer look at the numbers: 1st/2nd down carries: 90 rushes for 376 yds, 4.20 ypc 3rd/4th down carries: 44 rushes for 146 yds, 3.32 ypc, 3 TDs, 25 1st downs Red zone carries: 48 rushes for 92 yds, 1.92 ypc, 16 TDs, 23 1st downs Outside the red zone: 83 rushes for 430 yds, 5.18 ypc In contrast, Tiki had 1587 carries for 7642 yds, 4.82 ypc. That means Jacobs, when carrying the ball outside of the red zone, compares very favorably to the success that Barber had - with the same players around him. So evidence would point to Jacobs being able to sustain good to very good numbers when he is outside the red zone and rushing on 1st & 2nd downs, and the guy is money in short yardage sitautions, especially in the red zone. So what would make people think he can't be a fetaured RB in the NFL? His size? You mean that a 6'-4", 260 lb man isn't capable of taking 20+ touches a game? The guy is surprisingly agile and catches pretty well out of the backfield also. What is the basis of an argument that Jacobs can't carry a full load? Edited February 26, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 What is the basis of an argument that Jacobs can't carry a full load? His upright running style for one thing , Being the monster he, is his endurance is a question also. He hasn't had the opportunity to prove himself yet , so the jury is still out imo . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flypaste Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Feb 25 2007 11:32PMMike Garafolo, of the Star-Ledger, reports the New York Giants will "investigate everybody out there with the trade talk," according to general manager Jerry Reese. "We'll leave no stone unturned as far as that goes." Denver Broncos RB Tatum Bell is considered one possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 His upright running style for one thing Which I guess is why he has an 81% success rate in the red zone. That means on 4 of every 5 carries he's had in the red zone, he's either scored or kept a drive going. Yeah, that upright style is a real detriment. Being the monster he, is his endurance is a question also. Why? You mean being large also means he has limited stamina? Like all the players in the NBA 6'-4" & larger, I guess? Being large sure didn't affect Jim Brown as a RB. (Not saying that Jacobs is the next coming of Jim Brown - just saying that being big does not preculde him from playing the number of downs a featured RB needs to play). Years ago, players were typecast by their size. 30 years ago, Dante Culpepper would have been a DE. Coaches these days are starting to become enlightened that just because a player is larger than other players at a given position doesn't preclude them from having the skill set necessary to play that position. That's why we're seeing a plethora of 6'-3"+ WRs suddenly when there were only a very, very few of them a couple of decades ago (Harold Carmichael & Herman Moore are the only ones that come immediately to mind). We're starting to see that kind of open mindedness translate into other positions, which is why we see guys like Culpepper & Lorenzen playing QB, and why Jacobs is a RB. There is no body of evidence that says Jacobs can't handle being a featured RB until he is given an opportunity & fails. In fact, the current body of evidence Jacobs has put forth, albeit limited, says that he could be a very good featured RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 sounds about right. but i think ahman, if healthy and motivated, would still stand a very good chance of pushing ahead of jacobs a bit and getting in that 20 carry range, but that one could easily go the other way as well. I agree. I think Green would be the main back of their platoon system(along with Jacobs of course) if he went there as long as he was healthy. As others have said I am not a fan of RB's who run upright. especially ones like Jacobs who talk SO much crap. he provokes the defense and with his running style already I forsee a injury filled career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 For those of you stating that Jacobs can't be a featured RB, or that if he is that he will fail, what evidence do you have to back up your statements? how about the fact that the giants are apparently out shopping for willis mcgahee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 In contrast, Tiki had 1587 carries for 7642 yds, 4.82 ypc. That means Jacobs, when carrying the ball outside of the red zone, compares very favorably to the success that Barber had - with the same players around him. So evidence would point to Jacobs being able to sustain good to very good numbers when he is outside the red zone and rushing on 1st & 2nd downs, and the guy is money in short yardage sitautions, especially in the red zone. the COP guy almost ALWAYS has better averages. hell, michael turner averaged a yard-per-carry more than LT did. in the grand scheme, you can't read much into that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 the COP guy almost ALWAYS has better averages. hell, michael turner averaged a yard-per-carry more than LT did. in the grand scheme, you can't read much into that. Nope...Yards per carry really don't mean anything unless 2 players are used the exact same way . reminds me of comparisons between Curtis Martin and Lamont Jordan on the Jets a few years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 the COP guy almost ALWAYS has better averages. hell, michael turner averaged a yard-per-carry more than LT did. in the grand scheme, you can't read much into that. Jacobs was a short yardage guy, not a 3rd down CoP guy. Jacobs came into situations where Ds were stacked against the run and pressing the LoS many times. How do you figure he OUGHT to have better averages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) how about the fact that the giants are apparently out shopping for willis mcgahee? How about the fact that the Giants are apparently shopping for any kind of adequate & capable backup depth? They've got Derrick Ward behind Jacobs, & nothing else (unless you count Morton). If the Giants have playoff aspirations, which they clearly do, they have to have more than Jacobs carrying the football. Funny that you give complete credibility to the report from the Giants that they are shopping for McGahee, but you give no credibility in the same report from the Giants that they want Jacobs to be their primary RB. Edited February 26, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Row Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Which I guess is why he has an 81% success rate in the red zone. That means on 4 of every 5 carries he's had in the red zone, he's either scored or kept a drive going. Yeah, that upright style is a real detriment. Why? You mean being large also means he has limited stamina? Like all the players in the NBA 6'-4" & larger, I guess? Being large sure didn't affect Jim Brown as a RB. (Not saying that Jacobs is the next coming of Jim Brown - just saying that being big does not preculde him from playing the number of downs a featured RB needs to play). Years ago, players were typecast by their size. 30 years ago, Dante Culpepper would have been a DE. Coaches these days are starting to become enlightened that just because a player is larger than other players at a given position doesn't preclude them from having the skill set necessary to play that position. That's why we're seeing a plethora of 6'-3"+ WRs suddenly when there were only a very, very few of them a couple of decades ago (Harold Carmichael & Herman Moore are the only ones that come immediately to mind). We're starting to see that kind of open mindedness translate into other positions, which is why we see guys like Culpepper & Lorenzen playing QB, and why Jacobs is a RB. There is no body of evidence that says Jacobs can't handle being a featured RB until he is given an opportunity & fails. In fact, the current body of evidence Jacobs has put forth, albeit limited, says that he could be a very good featured RB. I hope he can be the feature back we need, I'm just saying his upright style leaves him more vulnerable for injurys and more likely to lose the ball also. If you watched the Giants this year you only saw him lose the ball twice, but he came close to losing it several more times, If he doesn't protect it more the opposing D will realize this eventually. He also took some hard shots below the waist struggling for extra yds. And the endurance is still a question mark , I'm not saying he can't stay at 100% in the 4th , but seems to me the big guys get tired more quickly, especially after 40 touches or so. JMO Anyway, I hope he goes nuts and gets the ball all day long, but I think the G men are doing the right thing by exploring other options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 How about the fact that the Giants are apparently shopping for any kind of adequate & capable backup depth? They've got Derrick Ward behind Jacobs, & nothing else (unless you count Morton). If the Giants have playoff aspirations, which they clearly do, they have to have more than Jacobs carrying the football. Funny that you give complete credibility to the report from the Giants that they are shopping for McGahee, but you give no credibility in the same report from the Giants that they want Jacobs to be their primary RB. of COURSE they're going to say that, as long as jacobs is the top RB on their current roster. what, you think they're going to publicly say, "we don't think jacobs is starter material, we're going to have him backup some as-yet undetermined individual". of course they won't come out and say that, but speaking openly about bringing in mcgahee, it's not too hard to read in between the lines. well, i should say, it's not too hard for those of us who don't own jacobs in dynasty leagues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Jacobs was a short yardage guy, not a 3rd down CoP guy. Jacobs came into situations where Ds were stacked against the run and pressing the LoS many times. How do you figure he OUGHT to have better averages? well, of course, he doesn't have better averages, as he averaged under 4 yards per carry while tiki was almost at 5. but then you explain that away, counting only first and second downs between the 20s. fine, but like i say, in those situations the COP guy is ALWAYS going to have better numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 of COURSE they're going to say that, as long as jacobs is the top RB on their current roster. what, you think they're going to publicly say, "we don't think jacobs is starter material, we're going to have him backup some as-yet undetermined individual". of course they won't come out and say that, but speaking openly about bringing in mcgahee, it's not too hard to read in between the lines. well, i should say, it's not too hard for those of us who don't own jacobs in dynasty leagues So what you are saying in essence is that you don't have anything factual to back up your assertions and you figure everyone will be won over to your brilliant unfounded conclusions with some dismissive laughing smilies. Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 well, of course, he doesn't have better averages, as he averaged under 4 yards per carry while tiki was almost at 5. but then you explain that away, counting only first and second downs between the 20s. fine, but like i say, in those situations the COP guy is ALWAYS going to have better numbers. :shaking head: I know you're not an idiot. I just don't understand why you insist on playing one here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 So what you are saying in essence is that you don't have anything factual to back up your assertions and you figure everyone will be won over to your brilliant unfounded conclusions with some dismissive laughing smilies. Got it. no, i'm saying the giants brass doesn't seem to have much confidence in jacobs as a primary back if they are talking openly about trying to acquire willis mcgahee. it's a pretty simple, obvious point, even if you're this desperate not to believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) no, i'm saying the giants brass doesn't seem to have much confidence in jacobs as a primary back if they are talking openly about trying to acquire willis mcgahee. it's a pretty simple, obvious point, even if you're this desperate not to believe it. I think I've been around long enough to undertsand rule #1 of FF: No matter how much you hope your guys will do well, it won't change their on-field performance one iota. You make decisions in FF (or you should, at least) based upon value, player ability, and opportunity. Jacobs' value was outstanding in his rookie draft (I got him with pick 4.10 in a 14 team IDP draft), he has shown that he has NFL caliber capability with his play - especially last year - and now he has opportunity. If he were to crap out completely, all I would have lost is a 4.10 pick in the 2005 draft. But the upside right now to that pick is potentially great. So I wouldn't exactly describe my point of view here as one of desperation... Edited February 26, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 (edited) "Willis doesnt wanna be in Buffalo, so F him. He doesnt run hard enough, he doesnt DO enough, PERIOD." That's what the Bills get for treating Travis Henry like garbage. Edited February 28, 2007 by Crazysight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 That's what the Bills get for treating Travis Henry like garbage. No, those people got fired... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.