ThatJerkDave Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 6 minutes ago, MacReady said: We’re gonna draft a second or third round running back guys. Should have been the plan all along anyway. I have taken a bit of a step back on my "RBs aren't people" stance. I am now more of a "RBs are disposable people," kind of guy. Take one every couple of years and then run him into the dirt. Just don't pay him. Since the first contracts are pretty much set, just grab one in the third round every few years and repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 23 minutes ago, LacyIsGood said: Not sure he had that chance. Jones and his agent messed up IMO. Probably thought he could get 10+ over 2 years He was a free agent for 12 hours. LOL If he wanted 2 for 10 we should have rushed to get that done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 18 minutes ago, vegas492 said: I wish we had kept Jones, too. In term of prolonging Jacobs career? I think the contract clearly says that we don't care about prolonging a career. He's a Packer for 3-4 years so long as he produces. If he doesn't? On to the next RB..... An additional 3-4 years out of a guy who has carried it as much as he has IS prolonging his career. Aaron Jones has 128 fewer rushing attempts than Jacobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 It's a two-way street, people. There's a real chance that Jones didn't like the idea of being RB2 in the room. He was fine with being 1A but with Jacobs being around, he was clearly going to be the 2nd fiddle and the back-up. That's not good for old #33. Putting this all on Gute is a piss poor look. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, Old Guy said: An additional 3-4 years out of a guy who has carried it as much as he has IS prolonging his career. Aaron Jones has 128 fewer rushing attempts than Jacobs. And again, if you look at the deal, we are not interested in prolonging Jacobs career. It is a "get paid if you produce" contract. We were interested in prolonging Jones' career. Now I'd say we are more interested in winning right now while finding another RB to groom in the draft. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 3 minutes ago, beekay414 said: It's a two-way street, people. There's a real chance that Jones didn't like the idea of being RB2 in the room. He was fine with being 1A but with Jacobs being around, he was clearly going to be the 2nd fiddle and the back-up. That's not good for old #33. Putting this all on Gute is a piss poor look. I think you are off.... Jones was the #1, all he had to do was take the pay cut. Once he did not, then we got Jacobs. I don't fee now like there was any plan to have them both on the team at the same time. But...none of that really matters in regards to Gute and a "piss poor look". Because clearly it is not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, beekay414 said: It's a two-way street, people. There's a real chance that Jones didn't like the idea of being RB2 in the room. He was fine with being 1A but with Jacobs being around, he was clearly going to be the 2nd fiddle and the back-up. That's not good for old #33. Putting this all on Gute is a piss poor look. Jones has been fine splitting the workload for the first - seven years of his career. Suddenly, now he wants to be the bell cow. Jones knows at the age of 30, he needs a smaller workload, not bigger. Jacobs has a lot of wear and tear on his body given the number of touches he's had. This could have easily been worked out. Jacobs got his payday; he would have been good getting less touches an additional years on his career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 6 minutes ago, beekay414 said: It's a two-way street, people. There's a real chance that Jones didn't like the idea of being RB2 in the room. He was fine with being 1A but with Jacobs being around, he was clearly going to be the 2nd fiddle and the back-up. That's not good for old #33. Putting this all on Gute is a piss poor look. From what I'm seeing, GB got this right. They (apparently) offered near his market value and once it was declined. GB moved on and in doing so - picked up 3+ years of RB shelf life and picked up a two time Pro Bowler and former league rushing leader. I liked AJ as much as any other fan....but I can live with this trade. Edited March 12 by Leader 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 7 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: Should have been the plan all along anyway. I have taken a bit of a step back on my "RBs aren't people" stance. I am now more of a "RBs are disposable people," kind of guy. Take one every couple of years and then run him into the dirt. Just don't pay him. Since the first contracts are pretty much set, just grab one in the third round every few years and repeat. How do you feel about another team running a player into the ground and then us paying him? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, vegas492 said: And again, if you look at the deal, we are not interested in prolonging Jacobs career. It is a "get paid if you produce" contract. We were interested in prolonging Jones' career. Now I'd say we are more interested in winning right now while finding another RB to groom in the draft. EXACTLY the point. Jacobs and Jones will smaller workloads give both of them better chances to stay healthy. Jacobs touching the ball 25 times a game is likely going to end badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 minute ago, vegas492 said: I think you are off.... Jones was the #1, all he had to do was take the pay cut. Once he did not, then we got Jacobs. I don't fee now like there was any plan to have them both on the team at the same time. But...none of that really matters in regards to Gute and a "piss poor look". Because clearly it is not. They worked on keeping him after they signed Jacobs. They obviously pivoted when Jones wouldn't take a pay cut in the first place but the man just took a $7 Million deal. There's a chance they were gonna do the whole "we're gonna release you and let you test the market" dance anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: EXACTLY the point. Jacobs and Jones will smaller workloads give both of them better chances to stay healthy. Jacobs touching the ball 25 times a game is likely going to end badly. GB will fill the RB room just as they did to the WR room. I dont see Jacobs pulling down 20+ rushes a game. 20 or more touches? Thats possible. Edited March 12 by Leader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Jones has been fine splitting the workload for the first - seven years of his career. Suddenly, now he wants to be the bell cow. Jones knows at the age of 30, he needs a smaller workload, not bigger. Jacobs has a lot of wear and tear on his body given the number of touches he's had. This could have easily been worked out. Jacobs got his payday; he would have been good getting less touches an additional years on his career. Obviously not, my man. Because Aaron Jones isn't a Green Bay Packer anymore. They didn't just spend an hour trying to figure this out. They spent weeks/months trying to work it out with Jones. He obviously disagrees with your take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: EXACTLY the point. Jacobs and Jones will smaller workloads give both of them better chances to stay healthy. Jacobs touching the ball 25 times a game is likely going to end badly. No, the point is the contract. It is written as a pay as you produce. Easy to get out of. It was an either/or with Jacobs or Jones, from where I'm sitting. Jacobs needs more carries to get into a game from what I saw of him. He's younger and can take that while we find another RB to split carries with him and then groom to be the RB of the future. I know you are worried about health of Jacobs. I'm not. But when I say that, I mean over the course of a 3-4 year contract. I am always worried about a RB's health over 17 games, so yeah, we need to find another one. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 3 minutes ago, beekay414 said: They worked on keeping him after they signed Jacobs. They obviously pivoted when Jones wouldn't take a pay cut in the first place but the man just took a $7 Million deal. There's a chance they were gonna do the whole "we're gonna release you and let you test the market" dance anyways. Did they, though? GB had their number. Jones found a different number. Jones signed. Didn't feel like GB went out of their way to accommodate him. But I'm looking at the timing of everything. Maybe they (GB) did have a number in mind with Jones to pair with Jacobs. But it didn't seem like GB was either willing to budge off of the number due to the market, or that Jones was open to allowing GB to up their offer. Neither of which sheds any bad light onto Gute, in my book. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.