Packers are signing RB Josh Jacobs!

[BF004]

[MY_TAKE]

That sounds good to me. There is alot of incentive there for him to kick ass.

[Acrobat]

The money also gives us the option to draft a young back and if they look like they're going to be great, then Josh Jacobs served his purpose as a bridge player, which is fine with me at that position. He could easily be a back to back 1,000 yard rusher for us and have little to no cap hit if we release him after that. Well done.

[YoHoChecko]

I am genuinely not sure we got better at RB. We actually got more expensive at RB (even the Brant 1-year $14.8M number is bad, though I doubt that's how it will hit the cap). So we got... younger? That's it? We didn't even get "less tread on the tires" because Jacobs has 130 more career carries. Younger and lost the emotional heart and soul of the offensive locker room?

Look, Jacobs is a good starting RB and we'll be fine. But swapping out Jones for Jacobs and paying a very high RB contract is meh for me. I don't know why it's any BETTER off than we are with Jones and whatever number we were getting there. This is a C- move at best. Paying a premium to make a lateral move.

[YoHoChecko]

The deal: Four years, $48 million with $12.5 million guaranteed
Grade: C-

The Packers decided to pay Jacobs approximately $12 million instead of paying Aaron Jones approximately $11 million, and that is a trade I would make zero days per week.

I'm usually the first to choose a younger running back -- and Jacobs is three years younger than Jones -- but there's just one problem: Jones is better.

Jacobs is coming off a disastrous season in which he accrued just 3.5 yards per carry and minus-0.4 yards per carry over expectation, per NFL Next Gen Stats data. His total minus-86 rush yards over expectation was the sixth-worst mark by any running back in the league last year.

Although part of that can be attributed to the Raiders' lack of a consistent passing threat, that hindrance is somewhat accounted for in the expectation metric. If defenders are loading the box, that lowers the expectation.

Jacobs was good in 2022 by any measure, including RYOE (plus-158 that year). But after last season it looks as if that was the outlier year, not 2023. Jacobs has accrued negative rush yards over expectation in three of the past four seasons. Dating back to 2018, Jones has never recorded a negative RYOE season.

Jones has long been heralded for his receiving abilities, but Jacobs makes an impact there, too. If I'm choosing one of these backs, it is Jones, but in reality I'm picking neither. I would try to get Jones back on a cheaper deal, and if that doesn't work, just go cheap.

The one saving grace here is that this is really a one-year deal with team options, as the guarantees are minimal. -- Seth Walder

[Foosball]

I am genuinely not sure we got better at RB. We actually got more expensive at RB (even the Brant 1-year $14.8M number is bad, though I doubt that's how it will hit the cap). So we got... younger? That's it? We didn't even get "less tread on the tires" because Jacobs has 130 more career carries. Younger and lost the emotional heart and soul of the offensive locker room?

Look, Jacobs is a good starting RB and we'll be fine. But swapping out Jones for Jacobs and paying a very high RB contract is meh for me. I don't know why it's any BETTER off than we are with Jones and whatever number we were getting there. This is a C- move at best. Paying a premium to make a lateral move.

The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.

[Foosball]

I am genuinely not sure we got better at RB. We actually got more expensive at RB (even the Brant 1-year $14.8M number is bad, though I doubt that's how it will hit the cap). So we got... younger? That's it? We didn't even get "less tread on the tires" because Jacobs has 130 more career carries. Younger and lost the emotional heart and soul of the offensive locker room?

Look, Jacobs is a good starting RB and we'll be fine. But swapping out Jones for Jacobs and paying a very high RB contract is meh for me. I don't know why it's any BETTER off than we are with Jones and whatever number we were getting there. This is a C- move at best. Paying a premium to make a lateral move.

The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.

[YoHoChecko]

I am genuinely not sure we got better at RB. We actually got more expensive at RB (even the Brant 1-year $14.8M number is bad, though I doubt that's how it will hit the cap). So we got... younger? That's it? We didn't even get "less tread on the tires" because Jacobs has 130 more career carries. Younger and lost the emotional heart and soul of the offensive locker room?

Look, Jacobs is a good starting RB and we'll be fine. But swapping out Jones for Jacobs and paying a very high RB contract is meh for me. I don't know why it's any BETTER off than we are with Jones and whatever number we were getting there. This is a C- move at best. Paying a premium to make a lateral move.

The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.

Jacobs has a career average of 4.2 yards per carry. Jones has never had a single season below 4.6. Jacobs has had 3 seasons of 4.0 or below. He has more wear on him than Jones despite being younger. And he costs more. Jones is simply the more efficient RB. Jacobs had one *big* statistical year when they pounded him for 340 carries and he clearly didn't bounce back well from that usage.

Jacobs is a starting caliber RB who will do good things for us; but swapping out Jones and paying this dude feels like movement for movement's sake. I don't see any improvement.

[Drj820]

The problem with Jones wasn’t his ability. It’s he never had the stamina to be a work horse. And those rates are work horse rates. Jones missed the field a lot, and we sucked when he was out. I think the team was trying to find someone that could stay on the field throughout the game and season for a similar price tag.

Certainly sucks for Jones tho. Bet he wishes he hasn’t accepted a pay cut last year. It’s a cold business, sometimes Gute seems colder than others.

[Drj820]

I am genuinely not sure we got better at RB. We actually got more expensive at RB (even the Brant 1-year $14.8M number is bad, though I doubt that's how it will hit the cap). So we got... younger? That's it? We didn't even get "less tread on the tires" because Jacobs has 130 more career carries. Younger and lost the emotional heart and soul of the offensive locker room?

Look, Jacobs is a good starting RB and we'll be fine. But swapping out Jones for Jacobs and paying a very high RB contract is meh for me. I don't know why it's any BETTER off than we are with Jones and whatever number we were getting there. This is a C- move at best. Paying a premium to make a lateral move.

The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.

Jacobs has a career average of 4.2 yards per carry. Jones has never had a single season below 4.6. Jacobs has had 3 seasons of 4.0 or below. He has more wear on him than Jones despite being younger. And he costs more. Jones is simply the more efficient RB. Jacobs had one *big* statistical year when they pounded him for 340 carries and he clearly didn't bounce back well from that usage.

Jacobs is a starting caliber RB who will do good things for us; but swapping out Jones and paying this dude feels like movement for movement's sake. I don't see any improvement.

The improvement is in the availability

[lake shark]

I was excited when I thought it was going to be a Jones - Jacobs committee, which would have had the following benefits:

The physicality and short yardage game of Jacobs
The durability of Jacobs
The heart and vision of Jones
The receiving skills of both
The workload sharing making Jacobs less of a “bell cow”

I have to agree that replacing of Jones with Jacobs doesn’t seem like the best plan on paper.

[YoHoChecko]

The improvement is in the availability

Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing

[Drj820]

The improvement is in the availability

Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing

Same amount of games, yet Jacobs has 130 more Carries. Meaning, jacobs is available in games he starts to be the work horse and go the distance.

Gute probably noticed in the SF game how Jones would break off a huge run and get us in the red zone, then wouldn’t be available for the rest of the red zone drive.

Nice try tho.

[lupedafiasco]

Oh yeah this is 100% an F grade. Why are we paying RBs? And this much? Not only that but Jacobs has been a workhorse with the Raiders and is coming off a down year. This is straight up dumb.

[YoHoChecko]

Same amount of games, yet Jacobs has 130 more Carries. Meaning, jacobs is available in games he starts to be the work horse and go the distance.

So you think it is a GOOD thing to pay big money toa RB with a ton of carries and a 340-carry year that probably overburdened his body recently? You think past heavy (or over)-use is a sign of future availability? At RB?

[texas]

The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.

Jacobs has a career average of 4.2 yards per carry. Jones has never had a single season below 4.6. Jacobs has had 3 seasons of 4.0 or below. He has more wear on him than Jones despite being younger. And he costs more. Jones is simply the more efficient RB. Jacobs had one *big* statistical year when they pounded him for 340 carries and he clearly didn't bounce back well from that usage.

Jacobs is a starting caliber RB who will do good things for us; but swapping out Jones and paying this dude feels like movement for movement's sake. I don't see any improvement.

The improvement is in the availability

No, I would much rather have a guy who is unavailable throughout the year and then a stud in the playoffs, than a guy who is available the entire season and is pedestrian. Is there even a question?

Besides, clearly Jones' availability was not even an issue because we made the playoffs, at which point he was... available. Available to kick ass in fact, which he did.

[Foosball]

The improvement is in the availability

Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing

Except Jacobs has only played 5 seasons.

[Foosball]

The improvement is in the availability

Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing

Except Jacobs has only played 5 seasons.

[YoHoChecko]

just wanna be clear. I like Jacobs. I think he's a good RB and I think he'll play well in this offense. He's a top-half the league starter. But Jones is better; and cutting Jones to pay Jacobs MORE is just... completely nonsensical to me. If you cut Jones it's because you're going cheap at the position not because you want a guy a couple years younger, more expensive, less efficient and similar overall caliber of player.

[Drj820]

Jacobs has a career average of 4.2 yards per carry. Jones has never had a single season below 4.6. Jacobs has had 3 seasons of 4.0 or below. He has more wear on him than Jones despite being younger. And he costs more. Jones is simply the more efficient RB. Jacobs had one *big* statistical year when they pounded him for 340 carries and he clearly didn't bounce back well from that usage.

Jacobs is a starting caliber RB who will do good things for us; but swapping out Jones and paying this dude feels like movement for movement's sake. I don't see any improvement.

The improvement is in the availability

No, I would much rather have a guy who is unavailable throughout the year and then a stud in the playoffs, than a guy who is available the entire season and is pedestrian. Is there even a question?

Besides, clearly Jones' availability was not even an issue because we made the playoffs, at which point he was... available. Available to kick ass in fact, which he did.

Until he got to the red zone against the niners, then he wasn’t on the field.

Don’t get me wrong tho, I don’t want to carve out and be on the the anti Jones side of the argument. I like Jones.

But ya I like jacobs too. Raiders OL has been awful. He’s a dog.