Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Rock

McGahee to Giants?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feb 25 2007 11:32PM

Mike 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

:D

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how about the fact that the giants are apparently out shopping for willis mcgahee? :D

 

 

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 by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

:D 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 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D 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 :tup:

 

 

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.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:D

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:D

 

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 by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 by Crazysight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what the Bills get for treating Travis Henry like garbage.

 

 

No, those people got fired...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.