Asskickas Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 I'd like to know when these 2 would be drafted by you guys. I like Jacobs in the 2nd or 3rd and Droughns maybe in the 7th of a redraft. I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks Jacobs will not start for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROYALWITCHEESE Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 I'd like to know when these 2 would be drafted by you guys. I like Jacobs in the 2nd or 3rd and Droughns maybe in the 7th of a redraft. I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks Jacobs will not start for whatever reason. My personal opinion: 50-50 split. Jacobs has never carried more than 10 times in a game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 I honestly like a 75-25 split in Jacobs' favor. The 2nd or 3rd round is where he'll be coming off the board and hopefully not by me as I really don't want to depend on him as my second RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 My personal opinion: 50-50 split. Jacobs has never carried more than 10 times in a game... I see it 3-1 in favor of Jacobs. Sure, he hasnt carried it 10+ times a game, but thats because he's played behind Tiki Barber. That and Droughns is absolutley spare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROYALWITCHEESE Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 I see it 3-1 in favor of Jacobs. Sure, he hasnt carried it 10+ times a game, but thats because he's played behind Tiki Barber. That and Droughns is absolutley spare. I'm not saying 10+ times a game. I'm saying he hasn't carried 10 times in ANY one single game. I just don't think he will hold up to that punishment. They didn't trade for Droughns so he could rot on the bench. Any bum could do that, and get a carry or so a quarter. They got Droughns to actually play... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeping King Posted May 28, 2007 Share Posted May 28, 2007 I'm not saying 10+ times a game. I'm saying he hasn't carried 10 times in ANY one single game. I just don't think he will hold up to that punishment. They didn't trade for Droughns so he could rot on the bench. Any bum could do that, and get a carry or so a quarter. They got Droughns to actually play... If he rots on the bench at least it will be a fair trade. I'm fairly certain that is the best Tim Carter will ever do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I'm not saying 10+ times a game. I'm saying he hasn't carried 10 times in ANY one single game. I just don't think he will hold up to that punishment. They didn't trade for Droughns so he could rot on the bench. Any bum could do that, and get a carry or so a quarter. They got Droughns to actually play... Why? What evidence do you have that says Jacobs can't carry the ball 15-20 times a game, when there are 20-25 other NFL RBs that can? Jacobs seems like a solid-enough RB to be able to take a licking...and he hasn't been beaten up over the first 2 years of his NFL career, either, which should HELP his longeivity. 70-30 seems like the right split...and if the Giants run the ball 20-25 times a game, thats 14-18 carries a game for Jacobs. And all the goal-line touches. At four-yards a carry, it looks like a 1200 yd, 10-12 TD season from here. Solid RB production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muggsy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 LJ rode the pine behind Priest for a while, didn't gey near 10 carries a game, and he's turned out OK, I see no reason why Jacobs wouldn't be given every opportunity to prove he can do the same(I'm not saying he IS the next LJ, just saying he'll be given the same chance). Droughns is merely insurance and the carry split will reflect that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I see a 60/40 split with Jacobs getting the 60 if he can stay healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I'm not saying 10+ times a game. I'm saying he hasn't carried 10 times in ANY one single game. I just don't think he will hold up to that punishment. I don't know if it's a punishment thing or not, but Jacobs has never been the primary ball handler. His % share of team carries from college on listed below. 2006: Giants 21% 2005: Giants 8% 2004: S. Illinois 27% 2003: Auburn 13% 2002: Coffeyville CC (KS) 49% 2001: Coffeyville CC (KS) 26% 2002 was the only season he led his team in carries. Keep in mind at Auburn he was behind Cadillac Williams and Ronnie Brown. At Southern Illinois he transferred in with Arkee Whitlock, who was the Lightening to Jacobs' Thunder. And of course, the presence of Tiki in the Meadowlands kept him in a real specific role. They didn't trade for Droughns so he could rot on the bench. Any bum could do that, and get a carry or so a quarter. They got Droughns to actually play... I somewhat concur, however Jacobs will be much more valuable from a fantasy perspective given that he's likely to produce 12 TDs. The wildcard in the Giants backfield is rookie Ahmad Bradshaw. The same size as Barber, he could very well be the COP back that limits the carries of both backs even more than each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 They didn't trade for Droughns so he could rot on the bench. Any bum could do that, and get a carry or so a quarter. They got Droughns to actually play... They traded for Droughns because they literally had nothing else in the backfield before the draft. If Jacobs would have gone down for any reason, they didn't have a legit #3 RB, much less someone to fill in for Jacobs. Droughns isn't making significant jack for where the salary cap is & what starting RBs go for. Jacobs is still tied to his rookie contract, so there's no viable way to assign playing time tied to salary in any meaningful way other than that Droughns isn't making featured RB $$$. They got Droughns to backup Jacobs and to take a few carries a game - since the Tiki/Jacobs combo took such a heavy load - and to have legit RB insurance. Jacobs is going to get the first crack at the #1 job & Droughns only takes the spot if Jacobs fails at it. People who have seen Jacobs run in non-short yardage/goal line situations know that he is a heavy favorite to take the #1 RB spot, especially over Droughns, who I like but who is limited as a RB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROYALWITCHEESE Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 He will be the #1 option. That isn't being disputed. His ability to tote 20+ times a game (which some expect) is being disputed. They got Droughns to backup Jacobs and to take a few carries a game If that's the case, couldn't ANYONE do this? There are numerous RBs in the league with this role you are describing, and most of them are not as good as Droughns. Why would they trade for a guy to only give him 3-4 touches a game, not to mention extend his contract? A late round rookie could accomplish this. From their standpoint, if they plan on giving Jacobs 20-25 touches a game, it makes no sense to aquire Droughns--in a trade no less. Why? What evidence do you have that says Jacobs can't carry the ball 15-20 times a game, when there are 20-25 other NFL RBs that can? Jacobs seems like a solid-enough RB to be able to take a licking...and he hasn't been beaten up over the first 2 years of his NFL career, either, which should HELP his longeivity. Evidence? What a ridiculous question. What evidence do you have that he can? Thought so. I'd say the fact that he has never carried a high number of times a game is pretty substantial. None of these other RBs you speak of are 6'4. It's easy to "take a licking" when you are getting only a handful of touches in a game. His 6'4 frame makes him an easy target, and less likely to hold up while increasing his punishment 4-5 fold. At four-yards a carry, it looks like a 1200 yd, 10-12 TD season from here. Solid RB production. If you take him with these hopes, you will be highly disappointed. The TDs he will get, but 1200 yards is far-fetched IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) If that's the case, couldn't ANYONE do this? There are numerous RBs in the league with this role you are describing, and most of them are not as good as Droughns. Why would they trade for a guy to only give him 3-4 touches a game, not to mention extend his contract? A late round rookie could accomplish this. From their standpoint, if they plan on giving Jacobs 20-25 touches a game, it makes no sense to aquire Droughns--in a trade no less. The past 3 years, the 2 primary ball carriers in NY have carried the ball an average of 397 times and caught 32 passes. I've stated in an earlier post (much earlier) that Jacobs would get 282 carries & 32 catches - that's 17.6 rupg & 2 repg, which is plenty of work for a featured RB and gives him enough to put up substantial FF pts. That also would leave 105 carries & 27 catches for Droughns - 6.6 rupg and 1.7 repg, or over 8 touches per game, which is hardly a light workload. Edited May 31, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I've stated in an earlier post (much earlier) that Jacobs would get 282 carries & 32 catches - that's 17.6 rupg & 2 repg, which is plenty of work for a featured RB and gives him enough to put up substantial FF pts. That's a tad presumptuous, 282 carries, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) That's a tad presumptuous, 282 carries, don't you think? 17 and a half a game? Naw, I think he can absorb that kind of work load. 12 RBs last year had at least that many carries, & Coughlin likes to run the ball. That's still a 14% reduction from Tiki's work load. I wouldn't go much beyond that, though. Edited May 31, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 17 and a half a game? Naw, I think he can absorb that kind of work load. 12 RBs last year had at least that many carries, & Coughlin likes to run the ball. That's still a 14% reduction from Tiki's work load. I wouldn't go much beyond that, though. If the Giants run the ball 450 times again this season, your projection means Jacobs will get the ball 63% of the time. That will be very surprising if he gets anywhere near that much of a chunk, especially with the personnel in camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asskickas Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Well the responses in this discussion have been interesting and divided to say the least. We'll really have to wait until week 1 and 2 to see how things play out. I'm a glass half full type of guy and I think Jacobs will have a solid year. However, he is 6'4" 260 and my brain can't get past that. On one hand I think he'll run over guys with his size and speed but on the other hand I think he could easily get hurt. I think he's the biggest back who has ever played. Isn't he? (Jim Brown, Okoye, and Eddie George come close). He's a high runner a la Chris Brown who had some good games a couple years ago but got hurt. Eventually high runners get hurt because d-backs start targeting the knees to bring them down. If he manages to stay healthy I think he could get 1000+ and 13+ tds. Another factor is the play of Eli, Shockey and Plaxico. If they can produce then defenses won't be able to stack up. When do you take him in a draft? After reading all the responses here I think round 3 or early 4. I think the split between he and Droughns will be 60 40 in an effort to keep him fresh all season. Giving him Tiki's 80% carries would mean certain breakdown by week 9 IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 If the Giants run the ball 450 times again this season, your projection means Jacobs will get the ball 63% of the time. That will be very surprising if he gets anywhere near that much of a chunk, especially with the personnel in camp. Well, you could be right, but I do think Jacobs will get featured RB work. The only way to know for sure is to wait for the regular season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I'm not saying 10+ times a game. I'm saying he hasn't carried 10 times in ANY one single game. I just don't think he will hold up to that punishment. They didn't trade for Droughns so he could rot on the bench. Any bum could do that, and get a carry or so a quarter. They got Droughns to actually play... He will be the #1 option. That isn't being disputed. His ability to tote 20+ times a game (which some expect) is being disputed. Evidence? What a ridiculous question. What evidence do you have that he can[/b]? Thought so. I'd say the fact that he has never carried a high number of times a game is pretty substantial. None of these other RBs you speak of are 6'4. It's easy to "take a licking" when you are getting only a handful of touches in a game. His 6'4 frame makes him an easy target, and less likely to hold up while increasing his punishment 4-5 fold. I don't need to provide evidence that he can...you do. You chimed in, without provication, that "you don't think he will hold up to that punishment. I asked why....what makes you think he can't withstand punishment when 20-25 other NFL RBs do it every season? Don't give me "6"4" frame...most of the other RBs are 6"1-6'2", so his additional 1-2 inches in height will mean very little in the scope of things. Unless you can provide a valid argument on why you anticipate a player is going to get injured, based on an additional 8-10 touches a game than what he has historically had, then you are reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 It's easy to "take a licking" when you are getting only a handful of touches in a game. His 6'4 frame makes him an easy target, and less likely to hold up while increasing his punishment 4-5 fold. If he were 6'-4" and 205 lbs, I'd tend to agree with you. That Jacobs is 6'-4" and 260 lbs makes his weight/height ratio 3.42. That's outstanding in regard to body mass. I don't understand why you think his punishment increases 4-5 fold because of his size. I can only assume that you either never took or badly failed high school physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmypg Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 As a Giants fan I am fairly sure that it is Jacobs job. They got Droughns for a failed WR. They didn't want to pay Henry or Rhodes because they believe Jacobs is the future. Look beyond Jacobs and there was no one. They needed depth and Droughns gives them that. Now, will Jacobs last all 17 games? No one can really answer that. Only time will tell. I did think Jacobs looked good when he came in on 1st & 10 or other non short yardage situations. I think barring injuries Jacobs will finish with 1,100 yards & 12-14 TD's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkc217 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) I’m one of those guys that first saw Brandon Jacobs in preseason 2005 and went “WOW, Look at the size of this guy!!” then I saw him run and I said “WOW!!", again. His body moves really well and not just for a guy his size. He’s bigger than a lot of lineman, all linebackers and forget about db’s or safeties. I’m sure he sees them as tin cans. I’ve watched him spell Tiki and come in on 1st and 10 and look HUGE, pardon the pun. I’m not really worried about his durability at all. What does concern me is his ball handling. He DOES fumble and this is my reason for thinking that if he doesn’t play, it will be because he failed to listen to Coughlin about holding the ball close and tight. Advice Tiki greatly benefitted from. He’s very tall and I have a feeling about him taking a shot to his knee though, which I hope doesn’t happen. That would be a real shame. I’d love to watch him beat and bruise in the Earl Campbell style, that’d be fun to watch. The other determining factor here is The Giants O-Line. Seriously, what have they done to help it? Eli and Jacobs definitely must be decisive. Droughns is a capable back in his own right. Should Jacobs go down, New York has a proven backup. I’ll have to go 65/35 as far as ratio goes between the 2 of them, more if Jacobs coughs it up. Edited June 2, 2007 by jkc217 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asskickas Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) If he were 6'-4" and 205 lbs, I'd tend to agree with you. That Jacobs is 6'-4" and 260 lbs makes his weight/height ratio 3.42. That's outstanding in regard to body mass. I don't understand why you think his punishment increases 4-5 fold because of his size. I can only assume that you either never took or badly failed high school physics. Nice one Newton...I mean BB Edited June 1, 2007 by Asskickas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROYALWITCHEESE Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 If he were 6'-4" and 205 lbs, I'd tend to agree with you. That Jacobs is 6'-4" and 260 lbs makes his weight/height ratio 3.42. That's outstanding in regard to body mass. I don't understand why you think his punishment increases 4-5 fold because of his size. I can only assume that you either never took or badly failed high school physics. No sir, you apparently missed English, and math. If his carries increase by 4-5 times his normal amount (as some are suggesting), then due to the increase in these carries--his number of times being tackled (i.e. punishment) is going to increase the same amount. The number of times being hit is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to the number of carries (meaning he is going to be hit and tackled nearly every time he touches the ball), and therefore INCREASES along with his carries. It's very simple really. Middle school mathematics. Maybe you should go back... You've also apparently missed physics. The bigger the target, the easier it is to hit. Wait I think I figured that out when I was 2... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROYALWITCHEESE Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I don't need to provide evidence that he can...you do. You chimed in, without provication, that "you don't think he will hold up to that punishment. I asked why....what makes you think he can't withstand punishment when 20-25 other NFL RBs do it every season? Don't give me "6"4" frame...most of the other RBs are 6"1-6'2", so his additional 1-2 inches in height will mean very little in the scope of things. Unless you can provide a valid argument on why you anticipate a player is going to get injured, based on an additional 8-10 touches a game than what he has historically had, then you are reaching. Um yes you do. You are saying he is going to do something he has NEVER DONE BEFORE. Meaning YOU are the one predicting something different than what we already know. He has NEVER carried more than 10 times in an NFL game. He has NEVER carried more than 49% of the load on ANY team. EVER. So since you are the one saying he can do something different than we've EVER seen from him, you should have to provide evidence that proves he can. I never said he is going to get injured. I said he won't get the carries you guys are expecting. HUGE difference. And once again: bigger RB = more to hit = more times getting hit. Very simple. 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.