Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Fear & Loathing

Dynasty Rankings

Recommended Posts

Seriously, I really like what you (and others) add to the site, but the selective quotes (and stats) is a bit maddening. The entire paragraph (from your May 2nd quote):“We see a guy like Ahmad and know how tough he is, coming back from both feet being operated on and an ankle being operated on. And he is so excited that for the first time in a long time he is not in pain. You can’t help but feel optimistic that he is going to be able to maybe last the whole season and give us some special performances. And then with Brandon, the fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy.”The least you can do is quote the entire paragraph, where he praises both RBs, right?

I didn't even see the entire paragraph. I took it from this Rotoworld blurb, and I didn't write the Rotoworld blurb:

Giants offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride praised Brandon Jacobs (knee) for playing hurt all last season."The fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy," said Gilbride. Jacobs is over three months removed from his knee scope, but the Giants aren't rushing him back into workouts. We're tentatively expecting a bounce-back season for the 27-year-old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could just as easily use your logic above to support the idea that Bradshaw is simply a superior RB at this point. Both were injured, both needed surgery - yet Bradshaw still produced.

Anyway, despite my belief that Bradshaw is the superior player at this point, there is no doubt Jacobs will be the starter in 2010. It wouldn't surprise me to see Bradshaw get 45-50% of the carries though.

Again, you're assuming that all injuries affect all running backs in similar ways. I'm not. I saw Jacobs alter his running style after he got injured.
Guess we'll see what happens. I saw a guy who was simply done and afraid to take a pounding. If you're right, then he is a great buy-low this year.

Edit to add: I'm not "assuming that all injuries affect all RBs in similar ways." I'm assuming that both Jacobs and Bradshaw had serious injuries last year that impacted them.

You're assuming that Jacobs drop in production was primarily due to injury. I'm not.

I don't think there's any question that Jacobs' drop in production was due to an injury. It's on film. Unless he made a conscious decision to start hesitating at the line of scrimmage during the 2009 offseason.

The Jacobs of offseason 2010 reminds me of the Corey Dillon of offseason 2003. Bengals fans -- and most of the league -- thought his production was down because he was washed up. It wasn't. It was down because he was trying to play through a painful groin injury, and it obviously affected his running style.

Again, I've never had Jacobs on any of my fantasy teams, and I never will. I've always been down on his value compared to other people doing rankings. I just think anybody who believes Bradshaw will usurp Jacobs is kidding themselves.

Would you really be shocked if Bradshaw led the teams in carries and yards in 2010? Im not saying i will definately be right, but im not "kidding myself".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you really be shocked if Bradshaw led the teams in carries and yards in 2010? Im not saying i will definately be right, but im not "kidding myself".

Yes, I would be very surprised. It would mean a serious Jacobs injury, and even then I think Bradshaw would be a timeshare back with Andre Brown or Danny Ware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I really like what you (and others) add to the site, but the selective quotes (and stats) is a bit maddening. The entire paragraph (from your May 2nd quote):“We see a guy like Ahmad and know how tough he is, coming back from both feet being operated on and an ankle being operated on. And he is so excited that for the first time in a long time he is not in pain. You can’t help but feel optimistic that he is going to be able to maybe last the whole season and give us some special performances. And then with Brandon, the fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy.”The least you can do is quote the entire paragraph, where he praises both RBs, right?

I didn't even see the entire paragraph. I took it from this Rotoworld blurb, and I didn't write the Rotoworld blurb:

Giants offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride praised Brandon Jacobs (knee) for playing hurt all last season."The fact that he was able to gut it out with the knee all year long, and not saying anything and not using it as a crutch, I thought speaks volumes about the guy," said Gilbride. Jacobs is over three months removed from his knee scope, but the Giants aren't rushing him back into workouts. We're tentatively expecting a bounce-back season for the 27-year-old.

I'm not saying you did it on purpose, but if you are going to have such a firm stance on a guy, I would think it would make sense to at least click on the link from the rotoworld blurb, to get the entire article, wouldn't it? Again, I'm being completely sincere here, I hold you in high regard. I just think it makes sense to dig a little deeper, especially when you are going to be so adamant about something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you did it on purpose, but if you are going to have such a firm stance on a guy, I would think it would make sense to at least click on the link from the rotoworld blurb, to get the entire article, wouldn't it? Again, I'm being completely sincere here, I hold you in high regard. I just think it makes sense to dig a little deeper, especially when you are going to be so adamant about something.

I appreciate your regard. I'm not really going diving for every article out there on Jacobs/Bradshaw. I don't know anyone on here who has time for that, and I think my record for supporting data/information speaks for itself. Rotoworld is a very handy shortcut. In this case, the quote leaves out the Bradshaw part because whoever was doing Rotoworld news that day thought the Jacobs part was more important considering his knee surgery and his 2009 results. I agree with the Rotoworld news writer that the Jacobs part was more newsworthy. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you did it on purpose, but if you are going to have such a firm stance on a guy, I would think it would make sense to at least click on the link from the rotoworld blurb, to get the entire article, wouldn't it? Again, I'm being completely sincere here, I hold you in high regard. I just think it makes sense to dig a little deeper, especially when you are going to be so adamant about something.

I appreciate your regard. I'm not really going diving for every article out there on Jacobs/Bradshaw. I don't know anyone on here who has time for that, and I think my record for supporting data/information speaks for itself. Rotoworld is a very handy shortcut. In this case, the quote leaves out the Bradshaw part because whoever was doing Rotoworld news that day thought the Jacobs part was more important considering his knee surgery and his 2009 results. I agree with the Rotoworld news writer that the Jacobs part was more newsworthy.
I like reading the Rotoworld news, but you can tell which players they like and which they dont. Readers should just be aware that their spin is based on their opinion, which like everyone else, can have a tendency to be a bit biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like reading the Rotoworld news, but you can tell which players they like and which they dont. Readers should just be aware that their spin is based on their opinion, which like everyone else, can have a tendency to be a bit biased.

That's Rotoworld's raison d'etre. They've never claimed to be anything else. If readers don't understand this, they're either new to the site or not paying much attention.We had a similar debate on this forum last season when one Willie Parker owner wanted us to quit writing that Rashard Mendenhall would take over. After all, Tomlin and Arians wouldn't come out and say it would happen. We serve our readers by writing what we believe will happen. If we only wrote what coaches say, or if we treated all players as equals, we'd be worthless. Coaches are full of it half the time, and all players don't deserve to be treated equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you did it on purpose, but if you are going to have such a firm stance on a guy, I would think it would make sense to at least click on the link from the rotoworld blurb, to get the entire article, wouldn't it? Again, I'm being completely sincere here, I hold you in high regard. I just think it makes sense to dig a little deeper, especially when you are going to be so adamant about something.

I appreciate your regard. I'm not really going diving for every article out there on Jacobs/Bradshaw. I don't know anyone on here who has time for that, and I think my record for supporting data/information speaks for itself. Rotoworld is a very handy shortcut. In this case, the quote leaves out the Bradshaw part because whoever was doing Rotoworld news that day thought the Jacobs part was more important considering his knee surgery and his 2009 results. I agree with the Rotoworld news writer that the Jacobs part was more newsworthy.
Again, I highly value your opinion. I just think that, if you're going to have a strong opinion on a subject, a higher level of research (such as clicking on a link to read the entire article) is in order. I totally understand if you don't have the time or desire to do so, but if that's the case, then I wouldn't be so adamant about a situation as you are. If I'm going to have such a strong stance on Jacobs vs. Brandshaw, then I'm going to go diving for as many articles out there on Jacobs/Bradshaw as I could find. At least I would read the entire article that I'm basing my argument on. Keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs actually set career highs in games played (15) and total carries (224) last year. Bradshaw set career highs in almost every category, 163 carries for 778 yards and 7 TD's - 21 receptions for 201 yards. I don't think there's enough of a sample size yet to determine if Bradshaw is strictly a 10 carry per game guy. Last year was basically the 1st season the coaches trusted Bradshaw enough to assume the #2 RB duties, and like F & L said, the Giants are paying Jacobs big money, so they're going to give him every opportunity to be the main guy. I have no clue which back was banged up the most, but I do know that Bradshaw wasn't even practicing by the end of the season. Andre Brown ruptured his achilles tendon, so I think it's safe to say that Brown had the worst injury of the 3.

I haven't been able to find anything from Coughlin concerning Bradshaw's workload. About the only information I could find was Coughlin stating that he wants Bradshaw practicing more this year so he can improve his game. I think that's a good sign that Bradshaw is part of the game plan, but we knew that already. We want to know how much. I also read a few quotes from Coughlin saying how tough and powerful of a runner Bradshaw is, but that's probably just coach-speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like reading the Rotoworld news, but you can tell which players they like and which they dont. Readers should just be aware that their spin is based on their opinion, which like everyone else, can have a tendency to be a bit biased.

That's Rotoworld's raison d'etre. They've never claimed to be anything else. If readers don't understand this, they're either new to the site or not paying much attention.We had a similar debate on this forum last season when one Willie Parker owner wanted us to quit writing that Rashard Mendenhall would take over. After all, Tomlin and Arians wouldn't come out and say it would happen. We serve our readers by writing what we believe will happen. If we only wrote what coaches say, or if we treated all players as equals, we'd be worthless. Coaches are full of it half the time, and all players don't deserve to be treated equally.
This i know, i was more directing this comment at the poster who thought you were leaving out info about Bradshaw. Rotoworld only posted the positive spin on Jacobs because thats their horse. Again, i have no problem with this, i like that give their opinion, even if i dont agree. Its why i prefer their news to other sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This i know, i was more directing this comment at the poster who thought you were leaving out info about Bradshaw. Rotoworld only posted the positive spin on Jacobs because thats their horse. Again, i have no problem with this, i like that give their opinion, even if i dont agree. Its why i prefer their news to other sites.

Cool.But for the record, Jacobs is not Rotoworld's horse. I can't say for certain that we all agree on each player, but I think only one of the main football guys even likes Jacobs. I'd say the rest of us think he's a decent bounce-back candidate but wouldn't go as far as to draft him on our teams.In this particular case, I'm guessing the news writer thought it was more newsworthy for Jacobs because his injury flew under the media radar all season whereas everybody knew Bradshaw was banged up and sitting out practices with both feet and an ankle banged up. There's nothing to really draw attention to in Bradshaw's case because the attention was there for months at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs actually set career highs in games played (15) and total carries (224) last year. Bradshaw set career highs in almost every category, 163 carries for 778 yards and 7 TD's - 21 receptions for 201 yards. I don't think there's enough of a sample size yet to determine if Bradshaw is strictly a 10 carry per game guy. Last year was basically the 1st season the coaches trusted Bradshaw enough to assume the #2 RB duties, and like F & L said, the Giants are paying Jacobs big money, so they're going to give him every opportunity to be the main guy. I have no clue which back was banged up the most, but I do know that Bradshaw wasn't even practicing by the end of the season. Andre Brown ruptured his achilles tendon, so I think it's safe to say that Brown had the worst injury of the 3. I haven't been able to find anything from Coughlin concerning Bradshaw's workload. About the only information I could find was Coughlin stating that he wants Bradshaw practicing more this year so he can improve his game. I think that's a good sign that Bradshaw is part of the game plan, but we knew that already. We want to know how much. I also read a few quotes from Coughlin saying how tough and powerful of a runner Bradshaw is, but that's probably just coach-speak.

:thumbup: I don't really want to put Bradshaw in the same class as Leon Washington, Darren Sproles, and Jerious Norwood. I think he can handle more than they can, and I think he can run between the tackles much better than they can (he certainly doesn't go down on contact nearly as easily as those three). But I don't think the Giants coaches trust him to carry the ball 15+ times every week, either. I don't think they believe his body will hold up to it. One clarification: I'm not saying Jacobs was more banged up than Bradshaw. I'm saying his particular injury seemed to affect his running style more than Bradshaw's did. As I mentioned before, it's similar to Corey Dillon. A groin injury isn't really more banged up than Bradshaw's two bad feet/ankles. But it could certainly affect his running style more whereas Bradshaw was more of a case of how much pounding it could take each week. (I think I've also read that one of Bradshaw's ankle/feet injuries goes back to his freshman season in college, for what it's worth). Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting in the middle of the Jacobs v. Bradshaw debate going on here now, but I think most of us are agreeing:

Jacobs/Bradshaw

Brown

Ware

I've been haning on to Gatrell Johnson since drafting him last year (in SD), but need to drop someone soon (for a K - :thumbup:) . Any longer term dynasty hope for the former CSU stud in NYC? Or am I :pickle:

ETA: I also have Ware hanging on the bench as a long shot.

Edited by thecardiackid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I highly value your opinion. I just think that, if you're going to have a strong opinion on a subject, a higher level of research (such as clicking on a link to read the entire article) is in order. I totally understand if you don't have the time or desire to do so, but if that's the case, then I wouldn't be so adamant about a situation as you are. If I'm going to have such a strong stance on Jacobs vs. Brandshaw, then I'm going to go diving for as many articles out there on Jacobs/Bradshaw as I could find. At least I would read the entire article that I'm basing my argument on. Keep up the good work!

I have a strong stance on a lot of guys. It doesn't mean I'm going to go and do tons of on-the-spot research when everything I've read (and seen with my own eyes) to this point leads me to the same conclusion.By way of example, 2-3 years ago there was a sizable faction on this board that wanted to argue Anquan Boldin was a better NFL and Dynasty WR than Larry Fitzgerald. I had a strong stance on the subject. I was adamant that Fitz was superior. But I didn't need to go and cite newspaper articles. I thought it was self-evident. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting in the middle of the Jacobs v. Bradshaw debate going on here now, but I think most of us are agreeing:Jacobs/BradshawBrownWareI've been haning on to Gatrell Johnson since drafting him last year (in SD), but need to drop someone soon (for a K - :thumbup:) . Any longer term dynasty hope for the former CSU stud in NYC? Or am I :pickle:

I think he's a pedestrian NFL talent. If he was going to get carries, they would have given him some time last year with both starters + Ware/Brown banged up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting in the middle of the Jacobs v. Bradshaw debate going on here now, but I think most of us are agreeing:Jacobs/BradshawBrownWareI've been haning on to Gatrell Johnson since drafting him last year (in SD), but need to drop someone soon (for a K - :pickle:) . Any longer term dynasty hope for the former CSU stud in NYC? Or am I :crazy:

I think he's a pedestrian NFL talent. If he was going to get carries, they would have given him some time last year with both starters + Ware/Brown banged up.
Pitchers of Fat Tire are still waiting in Denver... when you do make it back. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting in the middle of the Jacobs v. Bradshaw debate going on here now, but I think most of us are agreeing:Jacobs/BradshawBrownWareI've been haning on to Gatrell Johnson since drafting him last year (in SD), but need to drop someone soon (for a K - :pickle:) . Any longer term dynasty hope for the former CSU stud in NYC? Or am I :crazy:

I think he's a pedestrian NFL talent. If he was going to get carries, they would have given him some time last year with both starters + Ware/Brown banged up.
Pitchers of Fat Tire are still waiting in Denver... when you do make it back. :thumbup:
Dying to go out West to join you, but . . . :bag: They have Fat Tire on tap in my local bar on Tybee Island now. :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After 10 years we're starting a Keeper league next season for the first time. 12 team league, 2 keepers (no keeper penalties), 6pts per passing TD, non-ppr.

I'm drafting in the 11th spot and have a dilemma... Based on previous drafting tendencies of my league-mates and our scoring system, I know that by the time it gets to me in the 1st round Brees, Rogers, and Manning will be gone. I will grab the best RB available but my question is what to do with the 2.02 pick? Looking back at the previous 4 season's draft results, there on average will be 7 QBs drafted by the time it gets back to me in the 3rd round (3.11).

I see the QBs being drafted (in no particular order):

Brees

Rogers

Manning

Rivers

Brady

Romo

Schaub

So, with my 2nd pick should I draft a 2nd RB (or AJ/FItz) and later pick a less consistent QB later in the draft that is not on the above list?

or

should I draft Brady/Rivers with my 2nd pick to ensure that I have one of these top 7 QB (where I see the drop off being at QB) before my 3rd pick?

There is no format on the entire planet, in my opinion, where top RBs hold more value than in keeper leagues that have few keepers and no penalties. WRs and QBs are always available in this format, but the only way to land a top RB outside of your keepers is to hit a home run on someone late in the draft (a la Ray Rice last year). Assuming reasonably standard scoring, in my opinion going RB/RB to open the draft is a no-brainer. You *HAVE TO* secure at least one stud RB keeper if you want to remain competitive long-term. Two is better. I'd look to grab a DeAngelo Williams or Rashard Mendenhall type in the first, and then I'd be very tempted to reach for a Jamaal Charles, Chris Wells, Shonn Greene, or Ryan Mathews hoping to hit a home run.

Im glad to see there is someone here on FBG that doesnt think Aaron Hernandez is a top 12 TE already.

I'm glad I'm not the only one a little puzzled by all the love for Hernandez, seems like a lot of people just riding Bloom's coat tails. I was just as high on Dillard (whether right or wrong) as Bloom was last year, but the second he talks him up the entire pool explodes for him. Good thing (ok, maybe not a good thing) my leagues aren't in the pool so I was able to get him at a reasonable price.

I'm all for ballsy predictions, but Christ people, make them your own.

They aren't all just mindless parroting Bloom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting in the middle of the Jacobs v. Bradshaw debate going on here now, but I think most of us are agreeing:Jacobs/BradshawBrownWareI've been haning on to Gatrell Johnson since drafting him last year (in SD), but need to drop someone soon (for a K - :unsure:) . Any longer term dynasty hope for the former CSU stud in NYC? Or am I :crazy:

I think he's a pedestrian NFL talent. If he was going to get carries, they would have given him some time last year with both starters + Ware/Brown banged up.
Pitchers of Fat Tire are still waiting in Denver... when you do make it back. :thumbup:
Dying to go out West to join you, but . . . :bag: They have Fat Tire on tap in my local bar on Tybee Island now. :banned:
understood, but these are plentiful and FREE. :whistle: and :banned: (and it's much fresher @ a mile high)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

understood, but these are plentiful and FREE. :whistle: and :unsure: (and it's much fresher @ a mile high)

:thumbup: Next time I head out that way to visit family, I'm looking you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a strong stance on a lot of guys. It doesn't mean I'm going to go and do tons of on-the-spot research when everything I've read (and seen with my own eyes) to this point leads me to the same conclusion.

:banned:

Especially the bolded part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Also, the 2 seasons prior to that, Jacobs averaged 5 yards per carry. Last year, he averaged 3.7, but was hurt all year. If healthy, I have yet to see a reason for the Giants to not start Jacobs. He punishes defenses and they eventually wear down. I just think they are a better overall and more balanced team when Jacobs starts and Bradshaw is the change of pace back. I'm also not convinced that Bradshaw can withstand a higher number of carries. I like his talent, but I think it's wishful thinking of Bradshaw owners to think he will start ahead of Jacobs.

People seem overly focused on Jacobs' yards per carry last year when he was hurt and not recalling he averaged 5 yards per carry in the 2 seasons previous. Yes, Bradshaw looks faster going through the holes, but he is supposed to since he weighs 70 pounds less than Jacobs. Everyone knows Jacobs is in there to pound the ball and wear defenses out and if he reverts back to 2007-2008 form, I don't see any real reason why Jacobs would not start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I would have is what is the current trade value of Bradshaw vs. Jacobs.

It seems like EVEYONE is so big on Bradshaw that in dynasty he is going for more. If so, and Jacobs can be had cheaper, it might boil down to whether I were in a "win soon" or "build for later" mode which I preferred.

Or is Jacobs still going for more in dynasty leagues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I would have is what is the current trade value of Bradshaw vs. Jacobs.It seems like EVEYONE is so big on Bradshaw that in dynasty he is going for more. If so, and Jacobs can be had cheaper, it might boil down to whether I were in a "win soon" or "build for later" mode which I preferred.Or is Jacobs still going for more in dynasty leagues?

Im seeing a mixed bag, but mostly Bradshaw over Jacobs in the startup drafts Ive done this offseason, and when there's a large gap b/w one and the other, Bradshaw is the guy going first - in other words, Bradshaw has some fervent believers that are willing to reach or overpay, but Jacobs doesn't. So from the "this year" value perspective, yeah, Jacobs seems to be the angle to play, but if you're looking for a pick that could greatly outproduce ADP for the best 2-3 years, Bradshaw is probably the better pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.

A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:

1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.

2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.

3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.

In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.

:goodposting:

Personally, I haven't been able to pull the trigger on either one of these backs. I see two dangerous RB's who seem unlikely to ever consistantly perform. Both are likely to be dogged by injuries that will leave their owners scrambling. When healthy, I think Jacobs is a BEAST...but his style means he WON'T STAY healthy. Bradshaw's a little safer, but not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.
Both RBs may have been hurt, but I think the injuries affected Jacobs a lot more than they affected Bradshaw. It looked pretty clear to me that Jacobs' performance on the field suffered a lot more than Bradshaw's did. I agree that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year and was much better at the goal line...but I'm not expecting a repeat of that and that is the basis for the opinions I have. I think Jacobs is being written off too soon. I expect Jacobs to return to the form he showed in the 2 years prior to last and if that's true, Bradshaw's value will be limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.
Both RBs may have been hurt, but I think the injuries affected Jacobs a lot more than they affected Bradshaw.
youre right, but its actually another argument against Jacobs and for Bradshaw - AB proved he can produce through injuries, while BJ showed you cant trust him when hes hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.
Both RBs may have been hurt, but I think the injuries affected Jacobs a lot more than they affected Bradshaw.
youre right, but its actually another argument against Jacobs and for Bradshaw - AB proved he can produce through injuries, while BJ showed you cant trust him when hes hurt.
I don't really agree with this because I think the seriousness of the injuries determined that. Bradshaw did not seem to be affected much in the times I saw him play. Jacobs clearly could not play as effectively with his injuries. He has been hurt many times before last year and still was able to perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.
Both RBs may have been hurt, but I think the injuries affected Jacobs a lot more than they affected Bradshaw.
youre right, but its actually another argument against Jacobs and for Bradshaw - AB proved he can produce through injuries, while BJ showed you cant trust him when hes hurt.
I don't really agree with this because I think the seriousness of the injuries determined that. Bradshaw did not seem to be affected much in the times I saw him play. Jacobs clearly could not play as effectively with his injuries. He has been hurt many times before last year and still was able to perform.
if Jacobs injury was THAT serious, dont you think he would have sat a game or two, or at least landed on the injury report regularly, limited/missing practice? Bradshaw was missing practice all week and on the injury report for 2/3 of the year, Jacobs didnt show up there until week 16. They both had offseason surgery. All evidence points to the injury seriousness being equal, if not worse for Bradshaw. Jacobs reduced effectiveness is not evidence of his injury being more serious, its evidence of his inability to play close to his normal level when hurt. It wouldn't bother me so much if it was a freak injury or just a bad break, but the reality is defenders are going to continue to go low to tackle Jacobs, and he's unlikely to stay healthy because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I highly value your opinion. I just think that, if you're going to have a strong opinion on a subject, a higher level of research (such as clicking on a link to read the entire article) is in order. I totally understand if you don't have the time or desire to do so, but if that's the case, then I wouldn't be so adamant about a situation as you are. If I'm going to have such a strong stance on Jacobs vs. Brandshaw, then I'm going to go diving for as many articles out there on Jacobs/Bradshaw as I could find. At least I would read the entire article that I'm basing my argument on. Keep up the good work!

I have a strong stance on a lot of guys. It doesn't mean I'm going to go and do tons of on-the-spot research when everything I've read (and seen with my own eyes) to this point leads me to the same conclusion.

By way of example, 2-3 years ago there was a sizable faction on this board that wanted to argue Anquan Boldin was a better NFL and Dynasty WR than Larry Fitzgerald. I had a strong stance on the subject. I was adamant that Fitz was superior. But I didn't need to go and cite newspaper articles. I thought it was self-evident.

I agree, watching guys play is a much prefered measure of evaluation than using quotes from an article. I don't factor in coach-speak too much, since the vast majority of it is going to be positive for their players anyway. Just like I don't think a guy saying "I feel great, ready to go put up some huge numbers" means much, because of course he's going to say that. If the coaches rave about one player and aren't nearly as positive about another, that carries some weight, but it doesn't mean much to me when they're nearly equally complementary.

All I'm saying is, you actually did cite a newspaper article, when in the very same paragraph there was equally if not more positive comments about Bradshaw from that same coach. Now I realize that you pulled it from rotoworld, which didn't include all of the comments because the write up was about Jacobs, not Bradshaw. My point was, if you're going to use coaches comments as part of your argument, you should use them for both players (especially when they appear in the very same paragraph). Again, this was more of a rotoworld issue in this case. Carry on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Jacobs injury was THAT serious, dont you think he would have sat a game or two, or at least landed on the injury report regularly, limited/missing practice? Bradshaw was missing practice all week and on the injury report for 2/3 of the year, Jacobs didnt show up there until week 16. They both had offseason surgery. All evidence points to the injury seriousness being equal, if not worse for Bradshaw. Jacobs reduced effectiveness is not evidence of his injury being more serious, its evidence of his inability to play close to his normal level when hurt. It wouldn't bother me so much if it was a freak injury or just a bad break, but the reality is defenders are going to continue to go low to tackle Jacobs, and he's unlikely to stay healthy because of that.

Regarding the bolded...all evidence does point to that...except the way they looked on the field. I just don't think Jacobs could move last year. I don't think Jacobs practicing and Bradshaw not practicing means it was not more serious. Stewart rarely practiced and put up huge numbers. I recall Plax doing the same a few years ago. Bradshaw did not look hurt when I saw him play last year. In fact, had I not known he was hurt, I would have never noticed based on his play. Same with Stewart and Plax. Jacobs clearly looked hurt when he played. Maybe he SHOULD have sat out a game or 2, or practiced less.

I'm just basing my opinion on what I saw on the field. Maybe I'm right, maybe wrong. But when I saw the 2 RBs play, I could clearly see that Jacobs was not healthy and never noticed that with Bradshaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reality is defenders are going to continue to go low to tackle Jacobs, and he's unlikely to stay healthy because of that.

Were they not going low to tackle him in 2007 & 2008?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reality is defenders are going to continue to go low to tackle Jacobs, and he's unlikely to stay healthy because of that.

Were they not going low to tackle him in 2007 & 2008?
Defenses seemed to become much more single-minded about it last year - you saw a lot of guys try to take him up high in 07/08 and get posterized, last year defenders didn't give Jacobs the chance to bowl them over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if Jacobs injury was THAT serious, dont you think he would have sat a game or two, or at least landed on the injury report regularly, limited/missing practice? Bradshaw was missing practice all week and on the injury report for 2/3 of the year, Jacobs didnt show up there until week 16. They both had offseason surgery. All evidence points to the injury seriousness being equal, if not worse for Bradshaw. Jacobs reduced effectiveness is not evidence of his injury being more serious, its evidence of his inability to play close to his normal level when hurt. It wouldn't bother me so much if it was a freak injury or just a bad break, but the reality is defenders are going to continue to go low to tackle Jacobs, and he's unlikely to stay healthy because of that.

Regarding the bolded...all evidence does point to that...except the way they looked on the field. I just don't think Jacobs could move last year. I don't think Jacobs practicing and Bradshaw not practicing means it was not more serious. Stewart rarely practiced and put up huge numbers. I recall Plax doing the same a few years ago. Bradshaw did not look hurt when I saw him play last year. In fact, had I not known he was hurt, I would have never noticed based on his play. Same with Stewart and Plax. Jacobs clearly looked hurt when he played. Maybe he SHOULD have sat out a game or 2, or practiced less.

I'm just basing my opinion on what I saw on the field. Maybe I'm right, maybe wrong. But when I saw the 2 RBs play, I could clearly see that Jacobs was not healthy and never noticed that with Bradshaw.

Tony, we're not disagreeing - Jacobs absolutely looked much more affected by his injury last year than Bradshaw - but that doesn't mean his injury was objectively worse than Bradshaw's, it means his ability to produce through it was worse. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that Jacobs injury was more severe or more limiting than Bradshaw's in a vacuum - just evidence that Jacobs injury affected his game a lot more than Bradshaw's affected his game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't own Jacobs or Bradshaw, but Jacobs was hurt last year, it was obvious he could not do the things he was capable of, yet he still kept his starting job. That was pretty telling to me. The coaches love what Jacobs brings to the table.

Bradshaw was barely practicing and battling injuries of his own all year, and he still took some goal line carries from Jacobs. If Jacobs had held the job over a completely healthy Bradshaw, I could see taking that as a sign of their regard for him.A couple of other things trouble me about Jacobs outlook this year:1) Defenders seemed to go for the knees and below last year, which will likely lead to more injuries. We've seen that Jacobs is a bit brittle and while he didn't miss time last year, it might have been better if he did, because instead he gave us mediocre production instead of the ability to confidently start another option.2) The Giants OL wasn't opening great holes between the tackles last year and the offense in general is tilting more balanced, if not slightly pass-heavy. They seemed contend to crush teams with Jacobs/Ward in 08, but with Nicks, Smith, and Manningham maturing, the running game might not be the focus again.3) We know that Jacobs is going to be limited to a 225-250 carry back from his history, part of his value comes from being a goal-line back on a winning team. Jacobs was only 4-for-19 converting inside the 5, and Bradshaw was 5-for-8. Before you say "But Jacobs was hurt", so was Bradshaw. Defenses are not afraid of Jacobs in the red zone anymore, he's lost a little of his Bettis-esque mystique after last year.In the background of this entire debate is the fact that Bradshaw looked glaringly better last year, like the guy who deserves more work and trust than he is getting. The argument that Jacobs was hurt doesn't carry much weight, because again, Bradshaw was too. Bradshaw is surging and looks like a back about to rattle off the best 2 or 3 years of his career, Jacobs looks like a guy who just had the best 2 or 3 years of his career. If I'm investing here, I'm taking the back trending up, not the one staying level or trending down.
Both RBs may have been hurt, but I think the injuries affected Jacobs a lot more than they affected Bradshaw.
youre right, but its actually another argument against Jacobs and for Bradshaw - AB proved he can produce through injuries, while BJ showed you cant trust him when hes hurt.
I totally agree with Bloom. Here's the deal: RBs will get injured. It is part of the game. The question is can the RB play effectively through injuries? How tough is he? How much pain can he endure? The ability to play well hurt is an often overlooked characteristic of great backs.Another important difference in dynasty is AGE. Bradshaw just turned 24 while Jacobs turns 28 in July. A four year difference is significant. It is possible that Jacobs bounces back and leads the team THIS year. But I just don't see him playing at a high level until he is 30 because he has always battled nagging injuries his whole career; he just doesn't look like a back who will age well.Bradshaw has been around a while so people maybe think he is older than he is; but he is in his prime right now. Edited by az_prof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for anyone that knows, but...Who's attending Larry Fitzgerald's 2010 off-season camp? Apparently Jermichael Finley will be attending, per rotoworld.. I'd love to know who exactly is attending as some of the talented players that attended last year had good years

I've yet to come across a full list, and I don't recall a list surfacing last year until the camp started. But I did read this morning that Sidney Rice will return for a 2nd straight year. IIRC, Lee Evans was there last year, and Brandon Marshall showed for a couple of days. Among DBs were DeAngelo Hall and Malcolm Jenkins. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for anyone that knows, but...Who's attending Larry Fitzgerald's 2010 off-season camp? Apparently Jermichael Finley will be attending, per rotoworld.. I'd love to know who exactly is attending as some of the talented players that attended last year had good years

I've yet to come across a full list, and I don't recall a list surfacing last year until the camp started. But I did read this morning that Sidney Rice will return for a 2nd straight year. IIRC, Lee Evans was there last year, and Brandon Marshall showed for a couple of days. Among DBs were DeAngelo Hall and Malcolm Jenkins.
I believe I read on Twitter than Finley will attend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Bloom. Here's the deal: RBs will get injured. It is part of the game. The question is can the RB play effectively through injuries? How tough is he? How much pain can he endure? The ability to play well hurt is an often overlooked characteristic of great backs.

No doubt, this generality is a fact of life in the NFL. Players -- especially running backs -- have to be able to play through minor, nagging injuries.I believe, though, that's it's important to realize all injuries do not affect players in similar ways. Some injuries do affect playing style to the point that they won't be effective again until the injury is repaired through an offseason of rest or a surgical procedure. Ask Sidney Rice about playing through a debilitating knee injury. All nagging injuries -- even all nagging knee injuries -- are not created equal. I think it's short-sighted to ignore this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Bloom. Here's the deal: RBs will get injured. It is part of the game. The question is can the RB play effectively through injuries? How tough is he? How much pain can he endure? The ability to play well hurt is an often overlooked characteristic of great backs.

No doubt, this generality is a fact of life in the NFL. Players -- especially running backs -- have to be able to play through minor, nagging injuries.

I believe, though, that's it's important to realize all injuries do not affect players in similar ways. Some injuries do affect playing style to the point that they won't be effective again until the injury is repaired through an offseason of rest or a surgical procedure.

Ask Sidney Rice about playing through a debilitating knee injury. All nagging injuries -- even all nagging knee injuries -- are not created equal. I think it's short-sighted to ignore this fact.

You've written this repeatedly, and I have yet to see anyone disagree. Where we ARE disagreeing is the assertion that Jacobs' injury affected his playing style more than Bradshaw's. Your evidence is that Bradshaw produced and Jacobs did not.

But the same evidence could simply indicate that Jacobs has lost something else.....that he cannot and will not recover. He's a battering ram runner, more in the mold of Earl Campbell or Christian Okoye (not perfect compares, but who is?)...it wouldn't be shocking to see a guy like that get physically beaten down eventually....to the point that he is a shell of his former self.

End of the day, my hunch is that it's a combo. Jacobs will bounce back and perform better than last year, but the Jacobs of 07-08 will not be seen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with Bloom. Here's the deal: RBs will get injured. It is part of the game. The question is can the RB play effectively through injuries? How tough is he? How much pain can he endure? The ability to play well hurt is an often overlooked characteristic of great backs.

No doubt, this generality is a fact of life in the NFL. Players -- especially running backs -- have to be able to play through minor, nagging injuries.

I believe, though, that's it's important to realize all injuries do not affect players in similar ways. Some injuries do affect playing style to the point that they won't be effective again until the injury is repaired through an offseason of rest or a surgical procedure.

Ask Sidney Rice about playing through a debilitating knee injury. All nagging injuries -- even all nagging knee injuries -- are not created equal. I think it's short-sighted to ignore this fact.

Please explain as I have never heard of this before - suddenly concerned dynasty owner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've written this repeatedly, and I have yet to see anyone disagree.

There is a disagreement. The difference of opinion is also the assertion that all players have to be able to play through nagging injuries and still produce. That's what I was addressing in asserting that all injuries don't affect players in similar ways.

Your evidence is that Bradshaw produced and Jacobs did not.

My evidence is also that I saw it affecting Jacobs' playing style when I watched him play. I did not see it affecting Bradshaw's playing style when I watched him play. In fact, I believe Bradshaw's injury was of the type that he could maintain his effectiveness in a managed workload but could not withstand the pounding of practices and a huge game workload. He could go for a set number of plays each week if he could rest for the remainder of the week.

If you did not see the same thing when watching the Giants, then we're not going to agree. I'm cool with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask Sidney Rice about playing through a debilitating knee injury. All nagging injuries -- even all nagging knee injuries -- are not created equal. I think it's short-sighted to ignore this fact.

Please explain as I have never heard of this before - suddenly concerned dynasty owner
No concern at all. The knee injury sabotaged his 2008 season. Edited by Fear & Loathing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not jump into the debate on the relative value of Bradshaw vs Jacobs. I think they are both talented runners and valuable fantasy contributors in their own right.

I think though that those discounting the nature of Bradshaw's injury and it's likelihood to affect future performance need to re-examine that stance.

Generally speaking, I am not a believer in the injury prone label. Sure some running styles, i.e. Jacobs, lead to a higher likelihood of injury, but at the end of the day the contact that causes an injury is just an isolated unfortunate incidence with no underlying structural weaknesses as the causative factor.

In Bradshaw's case however, I firmly believe that the type of injuries he suffered are exactly due to a structural weakness that predisposes him to injury even without contact.

Broken bones in both feet and a right ankle clean-up speak to me of mechanical issues caused simply by his skeletal and muscular structure. To me, that is the definition of injury prone.

His bowlegged gait and running mechanics will always cause increased stress on the lateral aspects of his foot and ankle predisposing him to ankle sprains, spur formation, and repetitive stress fracture. At some point the knees are likely to become involved as well.

I love his talent but I seriously doubt his ability to play football for any extended time frame, both from an in season and career standpoint.

I think he's a highly unstable investment from a dynasty perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not jump into the debate on the relative value of Bradshaw vs Jacobs. I think they are both talented runners and valuable fantasy contributors in their own right.I think though that those discounting the nature of Bradshaw's injury and it's likelihood to affect future performance need to re-examine that stance.Generally speaking, I am not a believer in the injury prone label. Sure some running styles, i.e. Jacobs, lead to a higher likelihood of injury, but at the end of the day the contact that causes an injury is just an isolated unfortunate incidence with no underlying structural weaknesses as the causative factor.In Bradshaw's case however, I firmly believe that the type of injuries he suffered are exactly due to a structural weakness that predisposes him to injury even without contact.Broken bones in both feet and a right ankle clean-up speak to me of mechanical issues caused simply by his skeletal and muscular structure. To me, that is the definition of injury prone.His bowlegged gait and running mechanics will always cause increased stress on the lateral aspects of his foot and ankle predisposing him to ankle sprains, spur formation, and repetitive stress fracture. At some point the knees are likely to become involved as well.I love his talent but I seriously doubt his ability to play football for any extended time frame, both from an in season and career standpoint.I think he's a highly unstable investment from a dynasty perspective.

:unsure: Well said. I have no issues with Bradshaw's talent whatsoever, but I don't think he's a good bet to hold up long-haul -- especially if he's given a starter's workload. I think the Giants coaches believe the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you did not see the same thing when watching the Giants, then we're not going to agree. I'm cool with that.

I definitely saw Jacobs look sluggish and unwilling to initiate contact. On the former, it's likely due to the injury. On the latter, it's likely due to cumulative pounding on his body, IMO. Don't really think we are that far apart in our assessment of 2010 prospects though. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs actually set career highs in games played (15) and total carries (224) last year. Bradshaw set career highs in almost every category, 163 carries for 778 yards and 7 TD's - 21 receptions for 201 yards. I don't think there's enough of a sample size yet to determine if Bradshaw is strictly a 10 carry per game guy. Last year was basically the 1st season the coaches trusted Bradshaw enough to assume the #2 RB duties, and like F & L said, the Giants are paying Jacobs big money, so they're going to give him every opportunity to be the main guy. I have no clue which back was banged up the most, but I do know that Bradshaw wasn't even practicing by the end of the season. Andre Brown ruptured his achilles tendon, so I think it's safe to say that Brown had the worst injury of the 3.

I haven't been able to find anything from Coughlin concerning Bradshaw's workload. About the only information I could find was Coughlin stating that he wants Bradshaw practicing more this year so he can improve his game. I think that's a good sign that Bradshaw is part of the game plan, but we knew that already. We want to know how much. I also read a few quotes from Coughlin saying how tough and powerful of a runner Bradshaw is, but that's probably just coach-speak.

:lmao:

I don't really want to put Bradshaw in the same class as Leon Washington, Darren Sproles, and Jerious Norwood. I think he can handle more than they can, and I think he can run between the tackles much better than they can (he certainly doesn't go down on contact nearly as easily as those three).

But I don't think the Giants coaches trust him to carry the ball 15+ times every week, either. I don't think they believe his body will hold up to it.

One clarification: I'm not saying Jacobs was more banged up than Bradshaw. I'm saying his particular injury seemed to affect his running style more than Bradshaw's did. As I mentioned before, it's similar to Corey Dillon. A groin injury isn't really more banged up than Bradshaw's two bad feet/ankles. But it could certainly affect his running style more whereas Bradshaw was more of a case of how much pounding it could take each week.

(I think I've also read that one of Bradshaw's ankle/feet injuries goes back to his freshman season in college, for what it's worth).

I was searching the net yesterday trying to find anything from Coughlin concerning Bradshaw's workload and came away empty. I think at this point, I'll hang onto him. It's not like I have anything invested in him so might as well enjoy my man-crush for another season.

Jacobs is a powerback, so I can't argue with your point that the knee injury affected his running style more. One thing I do like about Jacobs, is that he played through the injury, never complained, and set a career high in carries.

Bradshaw had a lingering ankle injury from college and had offseason surgery to remove bone spurs from that ankle. There was a "blurb" from Bradshaw discussing his injuries that I came across yesterday. I'll see if I can find it again and post the article in here.

Edited by GreatLakesMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question for anyone that knows, but...Who's attending Larry Fitzgerald's 2010 off-season camp? Apparently Jermichael Finley will be attending, per rotoworld.. I'd love to know who exactly is attending as some of the talented players that attended last year had good years

I've yet to come across a full list, and I don't recall a list surfacing last year until the camp started. But I did read this morning that Sidney Rice will return for a 2nd straight year. IIRC, Lee Evans was there last year, and Brandon Marshall showed for a couple of days. Among DBs were DeAngelo Hall and Malcolm Jenkins.
I didn't know that Fitz has an offseason camp, but I do know that Fitz took Beanie under his wing last year and the two worked out together.... maybe Beanie was at the camp? Edited by GreatLakesMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old article, but I found it interesting.

Ahmad Bradshaw ran on Wednesday for the first time since a trio of surgeries in January. And it was also the first time in months the Giants running back ran without the nagging fear of injuring his ailing feet further.

"It felt great," Bradshaw said at the Giants' practice facility Thursday morning. "I've just got to get more balanced and more comfortable with it. Just from limping for the last three months, you've still got a little limp in there and still a little pain. But it's not as bad as it was during the season."

Last season, Bradshaw developed a crack in the fifth metatarsal bone of each foot, which posed the risk of fracturing all the way through and ending his season. He had offseason surgery to put a screw in each foot, as well as to remove irritating bone spurs from his right ankle, a total of three surgeries.

Bradshaw said his ankle feels like "a new ankle," but the recovery from the foot procedures has been a slower process. The surgery was painful and the screws still ache as he stands and moves on his feet. The screws will stay in and act like an extra bone to strengthen the outer edge of his feet.

"Right now, I'm just trying to take this process slow," Bradshaw said. "Getting as healthy as I can. I want the bone and screws to heal perfect. I just want them to be in the best position, so I can be in the best position during training camp and during the season."

Bradshaw expects to be ready by training camp. Starting to run was an important step forward. When he did so Wednesday, he experimented to see if he could alter his bow-legged style -- which puts pressure on those outer bones -- but found that difficult.

"It's tough to correct," Bradshaw said. "They tried to say, 'Try to stay on the inside of your feet,' but to me it's so natural to run on the outside of my feet. ... At one point I'm sure there was a time when the bones probably broke, and I didn’t even know, it just started aching and I got to running a little more. You just never know with my style of running."

Along with Bradshaw, starter Brandon Jacobs (partially torn meniscus) and second-year back Andre Brown (ruptured Achilles) are also coming off surgeries. With a backfield that is talented but uncertain, the Giants could very well look to use a pick on a running back in next week's draft.

"We’re hoping people can come back and be healthy; that’s important," Giants GM Jerry Reese said in his annual pre-draft press conference Thursday. "But obviously our starter and backup were banged up a little bit the past season, and they’re on a good pace to be healthy going into the season."

"Sure, there’s always some thought about, 'What if this guy goes down right away?' " Reese added. "So you always try to create enough depth at those positions to get yourself through. But again, you only have 53 spots; you cant have 10 running backs."

Bradshaw has heard the external pre-draft chatter, but also said he and Jacobs are motivated by the "ifs and buts and everybody doubting us."

"It's all up to the Giants who they want, but us backs feel we’ll be fine -- which everybody should," Bradshaw said, adding: "That hurt us a lot last year in the backfield -- we’d been hurt, not being more explosive, and with Brandon being hurt and not being more physical. But a lot of those things are fixed now, and Brandon and I both feel we’ll be fine."

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2010/04...ng_again_a.html

Edited by GreatLakesMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I love Rotoworld for the simple fact that contract details are listed with the player's profile. I can't tell you how many times that comes in handy.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.