Jump to content

The Josh Jacobs Decision


RaidersAreOne

What would you do with Jacobs?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you do with Jacobs?

    • Re-sign him, likely for 3-4 years and top ~5-8 pay. Our O would be totally screwed without him.
      24
    • Franchise tag him for one season, run him into the ground, then move on. We need him around but can't commit to him.
      16
    • Let him walk, don't tie up big $ long-term for an oft-injured RB. Collect that comp pick!
      4
    • Other
      2


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BayRaider said:

I forgot about franchise tagging, I’d be ok franchising him one season (not two, two is totally disrespectful to the player). However, RB’s hate being franchised and it could be problems all season.

Yeah, no thanks. 

Thank him for the fun and let him go cash in before he gets injury prone again. 

It was expected he'd be gone, the decision to not exercise his option was made, and now it's about time to move on. Should've used the 5th year. Bad call in hindsight, but you gotta go by what you've seen on the whole. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ronjon1990 said:

Yeah, no thanks. 

Thank him for the fun and let him go cash in before he gets injury prone again. 

It was expected he'd be gone, the decision to not exercise his option was made, and now it's about time to move on. Should've used the 5th year. Bad call in hindsight, but you gotta go by what you've seen on the whole. 

Yeah it’s only dumb in hindsight. And we have no idea if Jacobs puts in this much effort if it’s not a contract year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BayRaider said:

Yeah it’s only dumb in hindsight. And we have no idea if Jacobs puts in this much effort if it’s not a contract year. 

Yup. I like to think he does, and hell, maybe he does. But effort doesn't necessarily mean production either. 

Classic case of a guy putting in effort and it paying off at the right time. Would've been nice to have next year to see if it can be replicated, but a new year could just as easily see him fall back to sub 4.0 ypc and really underwhelm regardless of effort, or could see him as an expensive IR regular by week 3 because he twists an ankle in a pile. Just never know. 

I want to see him get paid for his contributions to us, just not by us. Economics of the game. 

Edited by ronjon1990
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Hindsight is a B but agreed. I somewhat understood it at the time due to the down season last year + injury issues, but damn I wish we could go back and alter that call for sure.

Even if we go back in time and do it, we have no idea if Jacobs puts in all this effort and plays all these games in a non contract year. If the option was picked up, he’s not in a contract year. Many players save their body for the contract year so they can get paid. Very common. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I would agree if not for McDaniels' history with RBs and how often we've been spurned by big contracts lately. 

We need the money to be spent elsewhere for it to benefit the team. If we somehow got out of the bloat of Waller, Renfrow, and Jones and had plenty of spare change for an expensive one-year RB rental, sure why not.

But it's not the case, we have a lot of money and roster space tied up in RB, and the Draft/FA class is set to be pretty deep. McDaniels has made the likes of Sammy Morris and LeGarrette Blount and Stevan Ridley look like perfectly viable starting RBs a team could roll with for a few seasons. For $12m, I'll take my chances on continuing that trend. 

In theory I agree with you but the issue remains that Jacobs is a proven NFL commodity and no other back on this roster could have done what Jacobs did today or for the entire season so far.  

This is a new regime but our FA signings over the last 20 years have been abysmal and we need all of the proven talent we can get.  If we had a shot at Payne for 20 per year and Jacobs 12M contract was holding up that deal I would tell him to walk. 

I have faith that DZ is a much better evaluator of talent than the cast of stooges we have had over the last 20+ years but he still has to prove me right.  The safe move is to pay a proven game changer within our system for one more year and them let him walk for a comp pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Declining Jacobs option is looking dumb as hell at this point. 

Hindsight is always 20/20. Absolutely nobody thought this way in the offseason. He'd been a good, not great back who had dealt with injuries and missed stretches of game time. 

I also don't think JMD/DZ knew what they were getting. They've always had RB by committee types. They went that direction in the offseason and held 5 RBs. JMD said he's never had a RB like Jacobs who doesn't want to leave the game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BayRaider said:

Even if we go back in time and do it, we have no idea if Jacobs puts in all this effort and plays all these games in a non contract year. If the option was picked up, he’s not in a contract year. Many players save their body for the contract year so they can get paid. Very common. 

Questioning Jacobs effort is ridiculous. He's been a high effort player dating back to Alabama. Never seen him not go hard when he's able to play. It's been the small lingering injuries that slowed him down. When he got 100% last season, they rode his effort to the playoffs. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in the other thread, not only will tagging him keep him around, it also is a good test for a year, if traded we control that. Cuz I could see anyone of our div rivals making a play. No way do I want him in ketchup and mustard!! Even if the chefs are tight against the cap, have 2 decent rbs. That would make their offense pretty dominant. Tell me guys wouldn’t restructure to make that happen....and I’ll tell you you’re high on bat guano. Just the kind of thing Clark hunt and the chefs would love!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Devilshark69 said:

Like I said in the other thread, not only will tagging him keep him around, it also is a good test for a year, if traded we control that. Cuz I could see anyone of our div rivals making a play. No way do I want him in ketchup and mustard!! Even if the chefs are tight against the cap, have 2 decent rbs. That would make their offense pretty dominant. Tell me guys wouldn’t restructure to make that happen....and I’ll tell you you’re high on bat guano. Just the kind of thing Clark hunt and the chefs would love!!

Wouldn't happen. KC likes what they have in Pacheco and don't need a Jacobs caliber back in that offense at that price tag.

Highest bidders would be the Rams IMO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth noting as well that Barkley, Sanders, Pollard, Hunt, Montgomery and a handful of other solid backs are FA as well. 

RB market could be softer than expected. 

Everyone likes to mention Zeke. But he's 1 of 3 (Kamara, CMC) highly paid, then there is everyone else. 

I could see a Chubb type deal (3 yrs. 36 mil / 20 guaranteed). Or Henry (4 yrs / 50 mil / 25 g). They are a similar class of back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...