Mazrimiv Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, packfanfb said: To add some more perspective: Jacobs' guaranteed $$ = $12.5m (reported deal: 4 years, $48m) Barkley's guaranteed $$ = $26m (reported deal: 3 years, $37.75m) Swift's guaranteed $$ = $15.3m (reported deal: 3 years, $24m) In sum, Packers did fine here. Packers did amazeballs here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, packfanfb said: To add some more perspective: Jacobs' guaranteed $$ = $12.5m (reported deal: 4 years, $48m) Barkley's guaranteed $$ = $26m (reported deal: 3 years, $37.75m) Swift's guaranteed $$ = $15.3m (reported deal: 3 years, $24m) In sum, Packers did fine here. Not bad .. now we need to get Jacobs back to the 2022 levels. He held out all offseason, training camp, and preseason games last year and turned in his worst year ever. Their QB was the worst it's been in years as well, so that all had an impact. No excuses for him not to perform this next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 11 minutes ago, JBURGE said: There is 12.5M guaranteed. He will be a cut candidate next year if that's all that is guaranteed dam that's a fine deal for the Pack, as you note it's a single year with club options and easy cuts if he's not at the bar or higher each year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: if a 4 year deal w/ 12.5 guaranteed isn't a long term solution at RB, what is? they need a contributor on a rookie deal. Next year we're looking at another "should we keep our aging/injured/mediocre RB" in all likelihood. Which is fine the deal is amazingly flexible. I just don't like the player at all. I think he's Dillon with a little more wiggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 10 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: kind of yuck IMO. This is not a long term solution this is really putting foot on the gas with Jordan Love while still recovering from Aaron Rodgers' era bad contracts. I don't think the contract is a "bad deal" I'm just really low on Jacobs I guess. You shouldn't be darn good player. Would not surprise me to see him being a captain too. the Raiders had nothing and when they did he was close to 5 yars a carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chili Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 4 minutes ago, packfanfb said: To add some more perspective: Jacobs' guaranteed $$ = $12.5m (reported deal: 4 years, $48m) Barkley's guaranteed $$ = $26m (reported deal: 3 years, $37.75m) Swift's guaranteed $$ = $15.3m (reported deal: 3 years, $24m) In sum, Packers did fine here. Tony Pollard reported deal is 3 years, $24m. I'm guessing in got a very similar deal to Swift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Just now, skibrett15 said: they need a contributor on a rookie deal. Next year we're looking at another "should we keep our aging/injured/mediocre RB" in all likelihood. Which is fine the deal is amazingly flexible. I just don't like the player at all. I think he's Dillon with a little more wiggle. i don't have an opinion on Jacobs the player, I've paid effectively zero attention to him as a pro. But whatever your take on the player is, a 4yr deal for a 26yr old w/ 25% of the total deal being guaranteed seems like it definitely has the flexibility to be a long-term solution. It just seemed like an odd criticism of that contract. plus, we're just about guaranteed to acquire a rookie RB or two 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mdpackfan22 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: they need a contributor on a rookie deal. Next year we're looking at another "should we keep our aging/injured/mediocre RB" in all likelihood. Which is fine the deal is amazingly flexible. I just don't like the player at all. I think he's Dillon with a little more wiggle. Josh Jacobs was a top 5 back and led the league in rushing in 2022. He is potentially the most dynamic work horse RB we've had since Ahman Green 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Aaron Jones Costs $5M to keep in 2024. Jacobs basically gonna cost the same in 2024 plus at least another 7 or so in 2025 whether he's on the team or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonKarman Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 That's too much. We only guarantee the SB, but he probably has 2 years virtually guaranteed due to our structures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, skibrett15 said: Aaron Jones Costs $5M to keep in 2024. Jacobs basically gonna cost the same in 2024 plus at least another 7 or so in 2025 whether he's on the team or not. and Jacobs will likely take 2x as many or more snaps for us than Jones would have Jones is awesome for 6 games a year. There are challenges to keeping a guy like that rostered. As good as he is when he does play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACKRULE Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 5 minutes ago, incognito_man said: and Jacobs will likely take 2x as many or more snaps for us than Jones would have Jones is awesome for 6 games a year. There are challenges to keeping a guy like that rostered. As good as he is when he does play. This for sure, Jones was/is a really good back. I like Jacobs in his place quite a bit. He's very shifty, quick and a great pass catcher. 220 lbs at 510 great size younger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 2 minutes ago, incognito_man said: and Jacobs will likely take 2x as many or more snaps for us than Jones would have Jones is awesome for 6 games a year. There are challenges to keeping a guy like that rostered. As good as he is when he does play. this is true and it's why they signed him. I would've gone bargain hunting for a better Dillon to pair with Jones rather than have a better dillon take most of Dillon and Jones' snaps. If you had Jones and Jacobs both, it's not like Jones wouldn't be the better player. And that's where I'm hung up I think. Jacobs is the worse player and the more expensive one. They made a lot of bad choices in the name of ring chasing with Aaron Rodgers and the Jones extensions were some of them. Now they have pushed so much money into this year that Jones is actually affordable to keep. I don't get why you don't just close it out with Jones and player X, using whatever extra you spent on Jacobs to get player X. Obviously FO thinks Jacobs is a major impact player. I just don't see it -- veteran RBs are almost never worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltarich87 Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Yeah I'm good with this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 A nice side effect of the depressed RB market is that I don't imagine Jacobs will be chirping after two years, feeling underpaid/disrespected and wanting a new contract. Without seeing the 4-year breakdown, I have to assume in real terms this deal will keep Jacobs in GB from 2024-2026, with an early out after 2025 if things with Jacobs go off the rails for some reason. I still expect a day 2 RB to be drafted in a few weeks, with that guy (in theory) getting this type of deal in 2027. 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.