Re: Packers are signing RB Josh Jacobs!
Posted: 11 Mar 2024 17:02
That sounds good to me. There is alot of incentive there for him to kick ass.
The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
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
The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:10I 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 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:10I 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.
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.Foosball wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:25The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:10I 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 improvement is in the availabilityYoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:42Jacobs 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.Foosball wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:25The Packers got younger at RB. And Jacobs is a stud.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:10I 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.
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.
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.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:54Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing
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?
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?Drj820 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:45The improvement is in the availabilityYoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:42Jacobs 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.
Except Jacobs has only played 5 seasons.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:54Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing
Except Jacobs has only played 5 seasons.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:54Both backs have played in 73 games the past 6 seasons. Good try, though. Keep guessing
Until he got to the red zone against the niners, then he wasn’t on the field.texas wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 18:29No, 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?Drj820 wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:45The improvement is in the availabilityYoHoChecko wrote: ↑11 Mar 2024 17:42
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.
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.