Packers are signing RB Josh Jacobs!

[mnkcarp]

I guess I just find it strange/convenient that for years we complained that coaches haven't utilized Jones enough and now we have a back who coaches probably utilized too much and we act as though their utilization is an inherent trait of each player, not decisions and load management done by coaches.

I don't think that the past utilization tells us a lot about the health and availability of either guy--past or future.

When a guy goes out in game 1 of the season on a non-contact hammy after a long run, load management decisions get forced.

[YoHoChecko]

I guess I just find it strange/convenient that for years we complained that coaches haven't utilized Jones enough and now we have a back who coaches probably utilized too much and we act as though their utilization is an inherent trait of each player, not decisions and load management done by coaches.

I don't think that the past utilization tells us a lot about the health and availability of either guy--past or future.

When a guy goes out in game 1 of the season on a non-contact hammy after a long run, load management decisions get forced.

And that's the sort of single-season recency bias that ties the whole thing together. THIS season, Jones had injuries and availability issues. And so we've re-written his whole career into one where he just couldn't stay healthy. Even though we have already established that over the five seasons that Jones and Jacobs were both in the league, they have played in the exact same number of games.

Meanwhile, Jacobs is coming off of his worst season as a pro by many metrics, and the recency bias is being applied less heavily toward those concerns because a) his team was a chaotic mess, and b) we didn't actually go through the season watching and relying on him ourselves, so we can more easily write it off.

Jones and Jacobs have been utilized very differently. I think both career trajectories lead to questions moving forward. So when people say that "availability is the best ability" as their primary differentiation between these two players, to me that is a muted difference and not one that justifies the contractual difference and final decision made.

And that's all I'm saying--if the PRIMARY reason you make this move is availability, then I think you're mis-reading the record and miscalculating the risk of a player with Jacobs' resume versus one of Jones' resume.

[Raptorman]

Food for thought.

Code: Select all

						Rush	Rush	Rush	Rush	Rush	Rece	Rece	Rece	Rece	Rece	Rece	Rece	Rece
Rk	Player			G	GS	Att	Yds	Y/A	TD	1D	Tgt	Rec	Yds	Y/R	TD	Ctch%	Y/Tgt	1D
1	Josh Jacobs		73	72	1305	5545	4.2	46	286	254	197	1448	7.4	0	77.6	5.7	62
2	Aaron Jones		97	85	1177	5940	5.0	45	296	364	272	2076	7.6	18	74.7	5.7	101

[mnkcarp]

And that's all I'm saying--if the PRIMARY reason you make this move is availability, then I think you're mis-reading the record and miscalculating the risk of a player with Jacobs' resume versus one of Jones' resume.

The part of the record we don't misread is that Jacobs has carried more of a load in specific seasons and shown out when he did it. Whether AJ could ever have done what Jacobs did is a question that cannot be answered, but we know our coaches didn't think so, and so he didn't. And I'd bet the house he won't going forward, either.

[MY_TAKE]

Before "legal tampering" I was secretly thinking to myself that, I wish the Packers would resign Aaron Jones and then go out and sign D. Henry to a team friendly deal. Doesn't matter now, but the idea of it seemed like a good idea to me. Of course AJ would have been gone.

I see all sides here in this current discussion. Obviously I am just hoping it works out really good for the Pack and Josh Jacobs. Generally speaking I really don't disagree with much that has been said.

[CWIMM]

I liked Jones. Great person and great player. The way Packers fans talk about him is like he was AP. Jacobs will be a better back simply because of availability and consistency from a play to play perspective.

There's no doubt Jones has been a significantly better runner on a play to play perspective, averaging 0.8 yards more per carry. It was even worse last season at 1.16 yards per attempt.

The Packers will most likely be able to use Jacobs on more attempts but they won't be more efficient with him.

[mnkcarp]

I liked Jones. Great person and great player. The way Packers fans talk about him is like he was AP. Jacobs will be a better back simply because of availability and consistency from a play to play perspective.

There's no doubt Jones has been a significantly better runner on a play to play perspective, averaging 0.8 yards more per carry. It was even worse last season at 1.16 yards per attempt.

The Packers will most likely be able to use Jacobs on more attempts but they won't be more efficient with him.

Never possible to compare apples to apples. I'm curious what Jacobs will do with a passing attack that can actually keep defenses from selling out to stop him (and a line that can keep them out of the backfield).

[BF004]

[TheSkeptic]

I would have done it differently. Keep Jones, let Dillon go and sign Jacobs.

That would have made a big (as opposed to a marginal change) improvement to the team.

[Willink]

Says he wants to catch more passes

hopefully means we get this version

[Yoop]

Says he wants to catch more passes

hopefully means we get this version

maybe, thing is we've been far thinner at WR with Aaron Jones who is a fine receiver too and used him sparingly in that capacity, and now we are loaded up pretty good with receivers, so he may not see the pitches as he hopes to.

[mnkcarp]

maybe, thing is we've been far thinner at WR with Aaron Jones who is a fine receiver too and used him sparingly in that capacity, and now we are loaded up pretty good with receivers, so he may not see the pitches as he hopes to.

I hope they at least explore that dimension of his game. He literally has no receiving TDs, despite a solid receiving record.

[YoHoChecko]

I hope they at least explore that dimension of his game. He literally has no receiving TDs, despite a solid receiving record.

Yeah that’s a bonkers stat given his demonstrated ability in the passing game in college and some clips in the pros.

We don’t have to use him as a slot receiver to better utilize his passing game abilities than the raiders did; and I think we will.

[Acrobat]

I hope they at least explore that dimension of his game. He literally has no receiving TDs, despite a solid receiving record.

Yeah that’s a bonkers stat given his demonstrated ability in the passing game in college and some clips in the pros.

We don’t have to use him as a slot receiver to better utilize his passing game abilities than the raiders did; and I think we will.

Might be why Jacobs chose us too. Saw Jones and Dillon get a ton of receptions.

[Yoop]

maybe, thing is we've been far thinner at WR with Aaron Jones who is a fine receiver too and used him sparingly in that capacity, and now we are loaded up pretty good with receivers, so he may not see the pitches as he hopes to.

I hope they at least explore that dimension of his game. He literally has no receiving TDs, despite a solid receiving record.

I expect it, in 21 and 22 Jones had 6 and 5 receiving TD's, last year just one but he was hurt, no reason not to think Lafleur will get him a few goal line passes.

Dillon to should get a few, to me this is basically the same backfield, replacing Jones with Jacobs assures the same or better production from what we do the most, play action, Jacobs will demand the same respect Jones did from opposing defenses.

[MY_TAKE]

The only thing that really matters is...........Where does he get drafted in fantasy? PPR of course.

[CWIMM]

Never possible to compare apples to apples. I'm curious what Jacobs will do with a passing attack that can actually keep defenses from selling out to stop him (and a line that can keep them out of the backfield).

I believe the passing offense benefitted from Aaron Jones late last season. In my opinion Jacobs needs to provide such a spark to the passing offense this season as well for them to perform at a high level. We'll see if he will be able to make that work.

I would have done it differently. Keep Jones, let Dillon go and sign Jacobs.

That would have made a big (as opposed to a marginal change) improvement to the team.

Unfortunately that would have resulted in a significant higher cap hit though.

[APB]

I would have done it differently. Keep Jones, let Dillon go and sign Jacobs.

That would have made a big (as opposed to a marginal change) improvement to the team.

Unfortunately that would have resulted in a significant higher cap hit though.

Going off his prior contract, yes. However, everybody, including Jones, knew the 2024 number was just a placeholder number for a reworked deal. As it worked out for MN, the cap number is not crippling nor is Jones going to be a long term cap nuisance for them.



The Packers still have $20m+ in available 2024 cap space. As more information comes out, it appears the Packers FO was just intent on moving on from Aaron Jones and it appears to have less and less to do with any contractual or cap impacts.

[CWIMM]

Going off his prior contract, yes. However, everybody, including Jones, knew the 2024 number was just a placeholder number for a reworked deal. As it worked out for MN, the cap number is not crippling nor is Jones going to be a long term cap nuisance for them.



The Packers still have $20m+ in available 2024 cap space. As more information comes out, it appears the Packers FO was just intent on moving on from Aaron Jones and it appears to have less and less to do with any contractual or cap impacts.

Even if the Packers and Jones would have agreed to a deal like he signed with the Vikings it would have resulted in a total of $5.7 million of new money counting against the cap at some point compared to them re-signing Dillon.

[APB]

Unfortunately that would have resulted in a significant higher cap hit though.

Going off his prior contract, yes. However, everybody, including Jones, knew the 2024 number was just a placeholder number for a reworked deal. As it worked out for MN, the cap number is not crippling nor is Jones going to be a long term cap nuisance for them.



The Packers still have $20m+ in available 2024 cap space. As more information comes out, it appears the Packers FO was just intent on moving on from Aaron Jones and it appears to have less and less to do with any contractual or cap impacts.

Even if the Packers and Jones would have agreed to a deal like he signed with the Vikings it would have resulted in a total of $5.7 million of new money counting against the cap at some point compared to them re-signing Dillon.

Ok, sure, but $5.7 mil "at some point" is about as "significant" as a popcorn fart in a hurricane in today's cap age.