From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
And that some point matters. Keeping Jones makes that some point 2024. Cutting Jones keeps that point at 2024, but reduces that cap hit to $12.3 million from $17.1 million. That matters. Signing Jacobs has a sunk cost of $14.8 million, but only $5,307,343 of that matters in 2024. Any Cash put into Jones is a sunk cost added to the 2024 cap. Cash put into Jacobs is a sunk cost spread over 1-4 years.
The Packers could have converted Jones' base salary into a signing bonus to spread out the cap hit over several seasons like they did with Jacobs as well.
For all we know Aaron Jones would have not been willing to take any pay cut what so ever, so we are again looking at a $17.1 million cap hit to keep Jones compared to a $17.6 million cap hit to cut Jones and sign Jacobs.
You have to ignore the remaining portion of the several signing bonuses Jones received in past years as there's no way for the Packers to do anything about it and that money was paid for him being on the team in the past.
The team added a total of $14.8 million of new money that will count against their cap at some point to sign Jacobs instead of retaining Jones for possibly $8 million of new money. I consider that to be a realistic number as he quickly signed with the Vikings for a maximum of $7 million.
so with 12.3 paid whether we kept Jones or not, and a 17.1 hit keeping him, Jones would have cost us 5.1 to keep this year, versus paying Jacobs 14.1 this year, did Jacobs come with stock in a petroleum Jelly company, cause it seems Brian Gutekunst will need all he can get
No, Jones would have cost us an additional $11 million if he played without his contract having been renegotiated.
Unpopular opinion alert, but I don't care about the little details of the contract. Josh Jacobs is a better RB than Jones. And I say that as a huge fan of Aaron Jones.
Why is everyone assuming $8 million (from the Packers) for Jones seals the deal?
From everything I’ve seen, the logical assumption is the Packers offered lower then $12 million, Jones/agent decided against that, Packers quickly moved on and perhaps overpaid Jacobs, Jones seems salty and quickly signs a deal with the Vikings for $7 million with the Vikings.
His agent has a track record riddled with greed. I think too many people are too emotionally invested with Jones & can’t see all the sides. /shrug
I think Jones signing with the Vikings for a maximum of $7 million indicates he would have stayed in Green Bay if the team offered him $8 million.
And that some point matters. Keeping Jones makes that some point 2024. Cutting Jones keeps that point at 2024, but reduces that cap hit to $12.3 million from $17.1 million. That matters. Signing Jacobs has a sunk cost of $14.8 million, but only $5,307,343 of that matters in 2024. Any Cash put into Jones is a sunk cost added to the 2024 cap. Cash put into Jacobs is a sunk cost spread over 1-4 years.
The Packers could have converted Jones' base salary into a signing bonus to spread out the cap hit over several seasons like they did with Jacobs as well.
For all we know Aaron Jones would have not been willing to take any pay cut what so ever, so we are again looking at a $17.1 million cap hit to keep Jones compared to a $17.6 million cap hit to cut Jones and sign Jacobs.
You have to ignore the remaining portion of the several signing bonuses Jones received in past years as there's no way for the Packers to do anything about it and that money was paid for him being on the team in the past.
The team added a total of $14.8 million of new money that will count against their cap at some point to sign Jacobs instead of retaining Jones for possibly $8 million of new money. I consider that to be a realistic number as he quickly signed with the Vikings for a maximum of $7 million.
I don't consider that to be a smart move.
I think Jones signing with the Vikings for a maximum of $7 million indicates he would have stayed in Green Bay if the team offered him $8 million.
$8 million is a funny number. Why not $7.1 million? Why not $11.1? $8 million looks better than $11.1 million compared to $14.8 million. It's simply thrown out there to further a narrative. Same when ignoring that the $14.8 million isn't totally realized on the cap in 2024. Again, some point matters. Anything we paid to Jones was realized in 2024, not the same for Jacobs' contract. If you want to be truthful in the conversation compare whatever Jones would have gotten for base salary in 2024 to the $5,307,343 Jacobs will count against the cap. Then you can look at the rest of that $14.8 million in 2025 to 2027, with money additions. Comparing the last year of a 4 year deal with the first year is a bit apples to oranges.
I would have preferred to extend Jones 2 years to even out his hits and draft a replacement this year or next year. That said, the Jacobs contract is not some travesty of a contract even by RB standards. Jacobs may not be as good as Jones. I don't know what Jacobs will look like in a Packer offense. At this point I will look at these events as a lateral move to get younger and possibly have a bell cow back for our first Jordan Love window.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
After a few days for the shock to wear off, I am changing my vote from a D to a C+. Jacobs is not slippery like Jones, but he's better at forcing missed tackles, has more power, and more natural hands. Frankly, I don't think their top speed is that far apart, although Jones accelerates soooo quick.
“We didn’t lose the game; we just ran out of time.”
- Vince Lombardi
$8 million is a funny number. Why not $7.1 million? Why not $11.1? $8 million looks better than $11.1 million compared to $14.8 million. It's simply thrown out there to further a narrative. Same when ignoring that the $14.8 million isn't totally realized on the cap in 2024. Again, some point matters. Anything we paid to Jones was realized in 2024, not the same for Jacobs' contract. If you want to be truthful in the conversation compare whatever Jones would have gotten for base salary in 2024 to the $5,307,343 Jacobs will count against the cap. Then you can look at the rest of that $14.8 million in 2025 to 2027, with money additions. Comparing the last year of a 4 year deal with the first year is a bit apples to oranges.
Once again, I consider $8 million a realistic number when taking a look at the money Jones signed for with the Vikings. But even at $11.1 million he would have been paid less money than what Jacobs is getting in 2024.
It's not true that keeping Jones even at $11.1 million of new money would have had to be accounting for on the 2024 cap. The Packers could have converted the majority of his base salary into a signing bonus, reducing the additional cap hit to $3.7 million by adding three void years.
After a few days for the shock to wear off, I am changing my vote from a D to a C+. Jacobs is not slippery like Jones, but he's better at forcing missed tackles, has more power, and more natural hands. Frankly, I don't think their top speed is that far apart, although Jones accelerates soooo quick.
Jones (37 on 182 carries) forced more missed tackles on fewer attempts than Jacobs (28 on 233).
I see we are creating scenarios now to further that narrative. Adding $7.4 million in void years to the $6.638 million already there wasn't happening.
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
After a few days for the shock to wear off, I am changing my vote from a D to a C+. Jacobs is not slippery like Jones, but he's better at forcing missed tackles, has more power, and more natural hands. Frankly, I don't think their top speed is that far apart, although Jones accelerates soooo quick.
Jones (37 on 182 carries) forced more missed tackles on fewer attempts than Jacobs (28 on 233).
Well, I'll be. Thanks for the correction.
“We didn’t lose the game; we just ran out of time.”
- Vince Lombardi
We can debate whether Jones or Jacobs is the better back. They each offer a different style and have each had success to one degree or another. If given a choice, with all things equal, I'd probably take Jones but it's very close. And yes, I'm also biased.
But the thing is, all things aren't equal. Jones has documented durability issues and it's likely to become a more frequent issue going forward as he enters his 30s.
So I have to ask myself: 1) would I rather roster an elite player who I consider to have a marginally better rushing efficiency ranking but with notable availability issues or 2) roster a player who has also exhibited elite level talent at the position albeit with slightly less efficiency but is more likely to be available on Sundays week in and week out?
In other words, would you prefer Jones' slightly better production for 10-12 games or Jacobs' production for 15-17 games?
I love me some Aaron Jones but I can't fault the team for choosing Jacobs in this case.
But the thing is, all things aren't equal. Jones has documented durability issues and it's likely to become a more frequent issue going forward as he enters his 30s.
So I have to ask myself: 1) would I rather roster an elite player who I consider to have a marginally better rushing efficiency ranking but with notable availability issues or 2) roster a player who has also exhibited elite level talent at the position albeit with slightly less efficiency but is more likely to be available on Sundays week in and week out?
In other words, would you prefer Jones' slightly better production for 10-12 games or Jacobs' production for 15-17 games?
I love me some Aaron Jones but I can't fault the team for choosing Jacobs in this case.
I consider Jones more than marginally more efficient than Jacobs though. In addition he doesn't have significantly more touches in his NFL career than Jacobs, so I believe it doesn't mean that much that he's three years and a bit older.
I see we are creating scenarios now to further that narrative. Adding $7.4 million in void years to the $6.638 million already there wasn't happening.
Why not? The Packers prorated a significant chunk of the money paid to Jacobs this year as well. It doesn't matter which player you do that with.
He wouldn't be on the team compared to Jacobs who is contracted for another 3 years...
Palmy - "Very few have the ability to truly excel regardless of system. For many the system is the difference between being just a guy or an NFL starter. Fact is, everyone is talented at this level."
I consider Jones more than marginally more efficient than Jacobs though. In addition he doesn't have significantly more touches in his NFL career than Jacobs, so I believe it doesn't mean that much that he's three years and a bit older.
these are " I told you so's" WE can use next year
people act like Jones is all but done, the Vicky's only gave him a 1 year deal, he lost time to a knee injury and couldn't get his hamstrings right for half of last season, so they have a point, however hammy issues happen to rookies, thats not something that determines a players career, and Jones actually is a low mileage RB, so he could end up with more production then Jacobs in the next 2 or 3 years.
Gute gambled that he wouldn't and why he forced a pay cut, Jones obviously felt one pay cut was enough, and walked.
When Guty says I hope we can keep a guy, his unheard message is IF HE"LL TAKE a substantial pay reduction.
But the thing is, all things aren't equal. Jones has documented durability issues and it's likely to become a more frequent issue going forward as he enters his 30s.
So I have to ask myself: 1) would I rather roster an elite player who I consider to have a marginally better rushing efficiency ranking but with notable availability issues or 2) roster a player who has also exhibited elite level talent at the position albeit with slightly less efficiency but is more likely to be available on Sundays week in and week out?
In other words, would you prefer Jones' slightly better production for 10-12 games or Jacobs' production for 15-17 games?
I love me some Aaron Jones but I can't fault the team for choosing Jacobs in this case.
I consider Jones more than marginally more efficient than Jacobs though. In addition he doesn't have significantly more touches in his NFL career than Jacobs, so I believe it doesn't mean that much that he's three years and a bit older.
And what has contributed to those limited touches? Availability. The key variable I focused my response to and which you appear to have dismissed.
And since we're keying in on touches and their impact, wouldn't it be prudent to consider college level touches, as well?
Career Rush/Receptions (college+pro):
Josh Jacobs: 251/48 + 1305/197 = 1801 Total Career Touches
Aaron Jones: 658/71 + 1177/272 = 2178 Total Career Touches
You can add a year+ in player age to Jones when you consider his heavy usage in college. That is significant.
Also, Jones' limited NFL career touches may have been helpful to curb his in-season wear and tear - although there is evidence it did not - but it did not stop the body's aging process. Father time comes for us all. Almost without fail, he comes for RBs when they hit their thirties regardless of whether they've been heavily used or not.
And what has contributed to those limited touches? Availability. The key variable I focused my response to and which you appear to have dismissed.
And since we're keying in on touches and their impact, wouldn't it be prudent to consider college level touches, as well?
Career Rush/Receptions (college+pro):
Josh Jacobs: 251/48 + 1305/197 = 1801 Total Career Touches
Aaron Jones: 658/71 + 1177/272 = 2178 Total Career Touches
You can add a year+ in player age to Jones when you consider his heavy usage in college. That is significant.
Also, Jones' limited NFL career touches may have been helpful to curb his in-season wear and tear - although there is evidence it did not - but it did not stop the body's aging process. Father time comes for us all. Almost without fail, he comes for RBs when they hit their thirties regardless of whether they've been heavily used or not.
Jones has played in as many games as Jacobs over the past five seasons. He has never been a running back capable of getting more than 20 carries on a consistent basis, that's why the Packers needed a decent backup behind him taking a significant amount of carries as well.
I agree that college touches should be taken into consideration as well. That's why I said Jones doesn't have significant more touches than Jacobs in his career.
Jones proved last season that he was still capable of being a very effective runner. Something Jacobs failed after a season in which he received a ton of touches.
