Ahmad Bradshaw (1 Viewer)

[H.K.]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

 

[munchkin]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

But, but, aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh geez.This is going to be an interesting battle between these two backs. Jacobs is a beast and it will be hard, and maybe not necessary, for Bradshaw to unseat him. This looks to be an effective running back combo for the Giants. As a Bradshaw owner I would love to see Bradshaw take over but Jacobs will have to fall down pretty significantly for Bradshaw to get significantly more carrres.

 

[gianmarco]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

Yes, we already know he outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs, that is, if you ignore TDs (Jacobs 4 TDs vs. Bradshaw's 1 TD). But, you did a good job ignoring the point of the post. Bradshaw's #'s indicate he may not be suitable for the lead role. Also, your above comparison would be nice if Jacobs hadn't shown he can perform on the field. His 1000 yds in 10 games and 5.0 ypc show otherwise. But, that was a nice, classic H.K. deflection.

 

[H.K.]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

Yes, we already know he outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs, that is, if you ignore TDs (Jacobs 4 TDs vs. Bradshaw's 1 TD). But, you did a good job ignoring the point of the post. Bradshaw's #'s indicate he may not be suitable for the lead role.Also, your above comparison would be nice if Jacobs hadn't shown he can perform on the field. His 1000 yds in 10 games and 5.0 ypc show otherwise. But, that was a nice, classic H.K. deflection.

Talk about a "deflection".....Bradshaw's ypc was a full yard better than Jacobs in the playoffs and he out performed Jacobs in every game, so in your eyes that shows his numbers indicate that he isn't suitable for the lead role....that makes no sense.

BTW, it doesn't matter what Jacobs did in the regular season. What matters is that when the year ended, Bradshaw was the guy getting the critical carries in the most important games the Giants were playing....not Jacobs.

 

[RoyDubb]

I think the main points here about Bradshaw are:

1. he clearly outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs and last week of the regular season.

2. Bradshaw looked impressive enough that the coaching staff trusted him in the closing moments of the playoff games.

3. Bradshaw will most likely NOT start, BUT he will put a dent on Jacobs value moving forward.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

Yes, we already know he outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs, that is, if you ignore TDs (Jacobs 4 TDs vs. Bradshaw's 1 TD). But, you did a good job ignoring the point of the post. Bradshaw's #'s indicate he may not be suitable for the lead role. Also, your above comparison would be nice if Jacobs hadn't shown he can perform on the field. His 1000 yds in 10 games and 5.0 ypc show otherwise. But, that was a nice, classic H.K. deflection.

So these games are basically the best comparison point we have between Bradshaw and Jacobs, when they were playing against the same defense. And Bradshaw clearly outperformed Jacobs. So if Bradshaw isn't suitable for the lead role based on the above results, then shouldn't Jacobs be benched?

 

[mdog1967]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

Yes, we already know he outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs, that is, if you ignore TDs (Jacobs 4 TDs vs. Bradshaw's 1 TD). But, you did a good job ignoring the point of the post. Bradshaw's #'s indicate he may not be suitable for the lead role. Also, your above comparison would be nice if Jacobs hadn't shown he can perform on the field. His 1000 yds in 10 games and 5.0 ypc show otherwise. But, that was a nice, classic H.K. deflection.

How in the heck do you come up with Bradshaw's numbers may indicate he's not suitable for the lead role. Argue for Cricket sake that he's not going to overtake a 265 pound back, argue that Ward is better. But jeez dude that stuff is weak.

 

[gianmarco]

How in the heck do you come up with Bradshaw's numbers may indicate he's not suitable for the lead role. Argue for Cricket sake that he's not going to overtake a 265 pound back, argue that Ward is better. But jeez dude that stuff is weak.

Attempts Att Yds Avg Lng TD 1stAttempts 1-Through-10 51 339 6.6 88 2 13Attempts 11-Through-20 20 59 3.0 8 0 2Taken from here: http://www.nfl.com/players/ahmadbradshaw/s...ts?id=BRA254359Those #'s show a trend of a RB that becomes less effective with 10+ carries. That's how I came up with it. When you combine those #'s and the fact that he's 195 lbs (soaking wet), odds are stacked against him being a lead ball carrier. Did you bother to read any of the previous posts in this thread?

 

[mdog1967]

How in the heck do you come up with Bradshaw's numbers may indicate he's not suitable for the lead role. Argue for Cricket sake that he's not going to overtake a 265 pound back, argue that Ward is better. But jeez dude that stuff is weak.

Attempts Att Yds Avg Lng TD 1stAttempts 1-Through-10 51 339 6.6 88 2 13Attempts 11-Through-20 20 59 3.0 8 0 2Taken from here: http://www.nfl.com/players/ahmadbradshaw/s...ts?id=BRA254359Those #'s show a trend of a RB that becomes less effective with 10+ carries. That's how I came up with it. When you combine those #'s and the fact that he's 195 lbs (soaking wet), odds are stacked against him being a lead ball carrier. Did you bother to read any of the previous posts in this thread?

I appreciate the amount of work your putting into trying to prove your point. Just like the folks who are adamant that Bradshaw will be a Stud (I happen to be one of those) its pure speculation at this point. I watch with my eyes and I see a RB who is shifty and tough. If your going to use a 71 carry sample, with 20 carries as the proof that Bradshaw cant be an NFL starting back, if thats all it takes for you then there is no way to persuade you otherwise. IF you think that Jacobs can continue to be the man at 265 pounds for the next couple of seasons, great. Ward: Love the guy but not saying he is injury prone, he's just not prone to staying healthy. So by default if nothing else Bradshaw will split significant carries with Jacobs. For your education:

Tiki Barber: 70" 200lbs

Walter Payton: 70" 200lbs

Thurman Thomas: 70' 200lbs

Warrick Dunn: 69" 180lbs

Tony Dorsett: 71" 192lbs

A. Bradshaw: 69" 200lbs(not 195)

 

[H.K.]

How in the heck do you come up with Bradshaw's numbers may indicate he's not suitable for the lead role. Argue for Cricket sake that he's not going to overtake a 265 pound back, argue that Ward is better. But jeez dude that stuff is weak.

Attempts Att Yds Avg Lng TD 1stAttempts 1-Through-10 51 339 6.6 88 2 13Attempts 11-Through-20 20 59 3.0 8 0 2Taken from here: http://www.nfl.com/players/ahmadbradshaw/s...ts?id=BRA254359Those #'s show a trend of a RB that becomes less effective with 10+ carries. That's how I came up with it. When you combine those #'s and the fact that he's 195 lbs (soaking wet), odds are stacked against him being a lead ball carrier. Did you bother to read any of the previous posts in this thread?

This has already been addressed. The circumstances for the majority of those 20 carries occurred when Bradshaw's objectives were (in order):1) Protect the football

2) Stay in bounds

3) Gain yards

Again, it speaks volumes that Bradshaw was getting those opportunities over any other NYG RB in those games.

Basically, you've run into a dead end with the "low ypc for carries over 10+" angle. Back up and go in a new direction.

 

[gianmarco]

How in the heck do you come up with Bradshaw's numbers may indicate he's not suitable for the lead role. Argue for Cricket sake that he's not going to overtake a 265 pound back, argue that Ward is better. But jeez dude that stuff is weak.

Attempts Att Yds Avg Lng TD 1stAttempts 1-Through-10 51 339 6.6 88 2 13Attempts 11-Through-20 20 59 3.0 8 0 2Taken from here: http://www.nfl.com/players/ahmadbradshaw/s...ts?id=BRA254359Those #'s show a trend of a RB that becomes less effective with 10+ carries. That's how I came up with it. When you combine those #'s and the fact that he's 195 lbs (soaking wet), odds are stacked against him being a lead ball carrier. Did you bother to read any of the previous posts in this thread?

I appreciate the amount of work your putting into trying to prove your point. Just like the folks who are adamant that Bradshaw will be a Stud (I happen to be one of those) its pure speculation at this point. I watch with my eyes and I see a RB who is shifty and tough. If your going to use a 71 carry sample, with 20 carries as the proof that Bradshaw cant be an NFL starting back, if thats all it takes for you then there is no way to persuade you otherwise. IF you think that Jacobs can continue to be the man at 265 pounds for the next couple of seasons, great. Ward: Love the guy but not saying he is injury prone, he's just not prone to staying healthy. So by default if nothing else Bradshaw will split significant carries with Jacobs. For your education:

Tiki Barber: 70" 200lbs

Walter Payton: 70" 200lbs

Thurman Thomas: 70' 200lbs

Warrick Dunn: 69" 180lbs

Tony Dorsett: 71" 192lbs

A. Bradshaw: 69" 200lbs(not 195)

Please go back and read post 48 and see if I'm saying 20 carries is enough. As I said, I don't think you read anything else I wrote. In fact, I specifically said I like how the guy looks. I just think the enthusiasm over him may be a little but too much and there are concerns he can be a lead back. I am NOT saying it will never happen.

 

[Chachi]

Too bad this great thread is taking a turn to the trash bin. I think Bradshaw is the best backup RB in the NFL right now with the exception of Mendenhall. He can be bought for cheap (I think) since he's a "backup", Michael Turner, Larry Johnson were "backups" at one point too, why did they get the love?

 

[Avery]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

Yes, we already know he outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs, that is, if you ignore TDs (Jacobs 4 TDs vs. Bradshaw's 1 TD). But, you did a good job ignoring the point of the post. Bradshaw's #'s indicate he may not be suitable for the lead role. Also, your above comparison would be nice if Jacobs hadn't shown he can perform on the field. His 1000 yds in 10 games and 5.0 ypc show otherwise. But, that was a nice, classic H.K. deflection.

So these games are basically the best comparison point we have between Bradshaw and Jacobs, when they were playing against the same defense. And Bradshaw clearly outperformed Jacobs. So if Bradshaw isn't suitable for the lead role based on the above results, then shouldn't Jacobs be benched?

I care not to read everything on this pissing match, but I'll just say that anyone who watched the Giants play last year rather than just looked at the stats knows that Jacobs pounding the defense creates the opportunity for the shiftier Bradshaw to succeed.I know Jacobs softening the opposing defense doesn't score in fantasy football, but seeing beyond the stats and knowing that the Giants coaching staff sees the value in Jacobs holding the lead roll to open up the defense for Bradshaw should let you know that aside from injury, not to expect Bradshaw to take the lead roll in this offense as long as Jacobs is around regardless of their comparable YPC.

 

[LBH]

Too bad this great thread is taking a turn to the trash bin. I think Bradshaw is the best backup RB in the NFL right now with the exception of Mendenhall. He can be bought for cheap (I think) since he's a "backup", Michael Turner, Larry Johnson were "backups" at one point too, why did they get the love?

I cant get Bradshaw cheap in any dynasty league I play in. I see him more of a RBBC player than a back up RB at this point.

 

[munchkin]

Too bad this great thread is taking a turn to the trash bin. I think Bradshaw is the best backup RB in the NFL right now with the exception of Mendenhall. He can be bought for cheap (I think) since he's a "backup", Michael Turner, Larry Johnson were "backups" at one point too, why did they get the love?

I cant get Bradshaw cheap in any dynasty league I play in. I see him more of a RBBC player than a back up RB at this point.

So does that mean you see Bradshaw gone in a couple of years? If that's the case then you are correct in not making a play for him. I think what some people are pointing out is that he is worth a roster spot in Dynasty Leagues if you feel otherwise. Fpr those of us who have lower picks in Rookie/FA drafts he may be a better gamble than a rookie with no track record in the big leagues.

 

[Phil03]

Jacobs is number 1 but Bradshaw is a damn good handcuff.

 

[Jason Wood]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.

I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

 

[dmac37]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

 

[Avery]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Don't forget that Ward was playing damn well before he got hurt as well.Pending injury, Coughlin and Gilbride will use all of their RBs to try to wear down opposing defenses and keep them all fresh.Coming to any other conclusion is wishful thinking by fantasy football players.

 

[Jason Wood]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

 

[gianmarco]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

Happened already....

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

 

[Jason Wood]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

Yeah, irrational. Your reaction is a bit emotional - instead of using words like "stunned" or "WAY overthinking" just simply lay out the facts. Example: it's incredibly interesting that your sources say Bradshaw is competing for the #2 spot. Nobody else on this board has that type of info.

 

[az_prof]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

Ward went on the market and couldn't find one other team who wanted him. He finally resigned with the G-men for only one year (that doesn't exactly show a lot of confidence) for 1.1 million. He'll be 28 when the season starts and coming off a broken leg. Bradshaw came in as a rookie and played great. Is it really so surprising to think the younger guy who performed well will be the next in line?

 

[Chachi]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

Is Brandon Jacobs your brother or something, man are you defensive.

 

[Jason Wood]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

Ward went on the market and couldn't find one other team who wanted him. He finally resigned with the G-men for only one year (that doesn't exactly show a lot of confidence) for 1.1 million. He'll be 28 when the season starts and coming off a broken leg. Bradshaw came in as a rookie and played great. Is it really so surprising to think the younger guy who performed well will be the next in line?

It's not surprising at all, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. The Giants didn't bring Ward back to simply slot him RB3 and, he played well as a starter in place of Jacobs let's not forget. Saying that when the dust settles we'll see Ahmad Bradshaw as the RB2 in New York is a fair statement, and one that I don't necessarily disagree with. But I genuinely don't see how anything is settled yet; this is truly a situation that will be settled in training camp. But discussing who is going to win the backup job is a lot different than saying that Bradshaw is one of the best backups in the league or that he could/should be starting ahead of Brandon Jacobs; both of which I've seen in this thread.

 

[dmac37]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

Yes Jacobs had a very good year and one of the main reasons is the Giant o-line. All 3 RB's can produce in the Giant system, BUT Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most. Either way I think were looking at a form of RBBC. Some think it will be Jacobs with a higher %, I think Bradshaw is the more talented runner and brings more to the table with receiving and the ability to bust out a big play.Who knows what 2008 will bring, as of now we can all speculate, and I like Bradshaw's odds to become the main RB in the next two years.

 

[mdog1967]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

Ward went on the market and couldn't find one other team who wanted him. He finally resigned with the G-men for only one year (that doesn't exactly show a lot of confidence) for 1.1 million. He'll be 28 when the season starts and coming off a broken leg. Bradshaw came in as a rookie and played great. Is it really so surprising to think the younger guy who performed well will be the next in line?

It's not surprising at all, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. The Giants didn't bring Ward back to simply slot him RB3 and, he played well as a starter in place of Jacobs let's not forget. Saying that when the dust settles we'll see Ahmad Bradshaw as the RB2 in New York is a fair statement, and one that I don't necessarily disagree with. But I genuinely don't see how anything is settled yet; this is truly a situation that will be settled in training camp. But discussing who is going to win the backup job is a lot different than saying that Bradshaw is one of the best backups in the league or that he could/should be starting ahead of Brandon Jacobs; both of which I've seen in this thread.

I am a big Bradshaw fan and owner in several leagues. I agree with you, he is what he is for now and I think its still Jacobs job to lose.

 

[Michael Fox Fan]

Why on Earth would anyone declare Bradshaw the backup right now? At best, he and Ward are going to compete in camp and Ward was the better player last year until he got hurt.I checked Giants.com and found NOTHING from Reese, Coughlin or Gilbride that indicates Bradshaw has a leg up much less is the backup. And given his size and his role as the KR returner, I doubt the team is in a hurry to make him the primary backup tailback, too.

After last year I would say he is a lot closer to #1 than he is #3. During the Giants Super Bowl run he was getting looks when the game was on the line and looking better than Jacobs. In FF we speculate to get a leg up, but the way he was used and how good he looked was obvious in black and white before our eyes. Who knows what next year brings but in dynasty you can't ignore that Jacobs is an injury concern, Bradshaw is the better receiving back, and looked better during the playoff run when both were playing against and equal setting.

Are people forgetting that Brandon Jacobs was hurt throughout the playoffs? :(I worry about his durability but when he's on the field, the dude was money. He averaged more than 100 yards from scrimmage a game and we know he's an excellent goal line back when given the touches. People are WAY overthinking this; I just hope it means Jacobs falls and someone wastes a mid round pick on Bradshaw.

LOL. Your reaction to Bradshaw is borderline irrational.

Irrational? Sorry but I'm the guy writing the New York Giants Team Report and Player Pages and also work in NYC and outside of this forum I've not heard one credible source that's even HINTED that Bradshaw is anything more than competing for RB2. I'm stunned to actually read that so many people think this guy is better than Brandon Jacobs. That stuns me.

Ward went on the market and couldn't find one other team who wanted him. He finally resigned with the G-men for only one year (that doesn't exactly show a lot of confidence) for 1.1 million. He'll be 28 when the season starts and coming off a broken leg. Bradshaw came in as a rookie and played great. Is it really so surprising to think the younger guy who performed well will be the next in line?

It's not surprising at all, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. The Giants didn't bring Ward back to simply slot him RB3 and, he played well as a starter in place of Jacobs let's not forget. Saying that when the dust settles we'll see Ahmad Bradshaw as the RB2 in New York is a fair statement, and one that I don't necessarily disagree with. But I genuinely don't see how anything is settled yet; this is truly a situation that will be settled in training camp. But discussing who is going to win the backup job is a lot different than saying that Bradshaw is one of the best backups in the league or that he could/should be starting ahead of Brandon Jacobs; both of which I've seen in this thread.

I am a big Bradshaw fan and owner in several leagues. I agree with you, he is what he is for now and I think its still Jacobs job to lose.

Almost every Bradshaw owner in here expects the same thing as you. The difference is, based on past history, most of us expect Jacobs to get hurt repeatedly and miss 3-5 games this year. If Bradshaw continues to impress, that might either: a) earn him more PT this year, or b) prevent the team from re-signing Jacobs at the end of '08.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Sounds like Bradshaw is slated to be the primary backup. So much for Ward as a threat.

Published Thu May 8 2:17:00 p.m. ET 2008

(KFFL) USA Today reports New York Giants RB Ahmad Bradshaw is expected to enter the 2008 season as RB Brandon Jacobs' primary backup.

Ask H.K.

Let me add a bit to your facts. First of all, you failed to mention that Jacobs scored in 3 of those 4 playoff games. Bradshaw only had 1. When it mattered, Jacobs was given the ball and he delivered into the endzone. Second of all, in 2 of the 4 games, Bradshaw only had 6 and 9 carries. In those 2 games, his ypc was 5.7 and 5.0 respectively. In the other 2 games, he was given 16 and 17 carries and only had a 3.9 ypc in those games. Which brings me to my final point and why some of you may want to temper your enthusiasm about Bradshaw. Despite how good he has looked (which I agree he has), he is definitely a small back and likely not suited to be a feature back. Here are some interesting splits for the 2007 season:
Attempts Att Yds Avg Lng TD 1stAttempts 1-Through-10 51 339 6.6 88 2 13Attempts 11-Through-20 20 59 3.0 8 0 2Those are #'s consistent with a guy who does best with a limited # of carries. While it's a small sample size, there's a drastic difference in those #'s that is not surprising. Those of you thinking he's going to get the majority of the carries are being a little bit optimistic in terms of how the coaching staff feels, how big he is, and how he's performed when given more than 10 carries/game. The guy is a talented back and looks good on the field, but I don't know if he's really feature back material at this point.

You cherry picked the stats on 10+ carries that don't account for the quality of competition or the situational game conditions.Here is how Bradshaw performed in the three games he had more than 10 carries.

Week 16 @ Buffalo (defense avg. YPA 4.4) - 17 for 151 & TD with a 8.9 YPA

****Six carries were with less than four minutes to go and the Giants running out the clock with a 10 point lead after he iced the game with an 88 yard TD run.

Wildcard @ Tampa Bay (defense avg. YPA 3.8) - 17 for 66 with a 3.9 YPA

****Again, six carries were with less than four minutes to go and the Giants running out the clock with a 10 point lead. TB loaded up against the run fighting for their playoff existence.



Conf. Final @ Green Bay (defense avg. YPA 3.9) - 16 for 63 & TD with a 3.9 YPA

****Let's look at how the game ended and notice two very important things - 1) The chance to go to the Super Bowl is on the line and Jacobs is nowhere to be found 2) NYG is positioning itself for two game winning field goal attempts and running the ball at a defense that knew it was coming.

New York Giants at 02:15

1-10-GB 48 (2:15) (Shotgun) 44-A.Bradshaw left guard for 48 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on NYG-76-C.Snee, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at GB 47.

1-19-NYG 43 (2:05) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass short right to 85-D.Tyree to NYG 47 for 4 yards (21-C.Woodson).

2-15-NYG 47 (1:59) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass short middle to 12-S.Smith to GB 38 for 15 yards (36-N.Collins). The Replay Assistant challenged the first down ruling, and the play was REVERSED. (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass short middle to 12-S.Smith to GB 39 for 14 yards (36-N.Collins).

3-1-GB 39 (1:17) (Shotgun) 44-A.Bradshaw left end to GB 31 for 8 yards (36-N.Collins, 99-C.Williams).

1-10-GB 31 53) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass short right to 12-S.Smith to GB 20 for 11 yards (20-A.Bigby).

1-10-GB 20 30) (Shotgun) 44-A.Bradshaw right guard to GB 18 for 2 yards (74-A.Kampman; 99-C.Williams).

2-8-GB 18 05) 10-E.Manning spiked the ball to stop the clock.

3-8-GB 18 04) 9-L.Tynes 36 yard field goal is No Good, Wide Left, Center-93-J.Alford, Holder-18-J.Feagles.

Overtime

Green Bay Packers at 15:00

9-L.Tynes kicks 63 yards from NYG 30 to GB 7. 81-K.Robinson to GB 26 for 19 yards (22-R.Droughns).

1-10-GB 26 (14:54) 25-R.Grant left end to GB 28 for 2 yards (58-A.Pierce). NYG-91-J.Tuck was injured during the play.

2-8-GB 28 (14:13) 4-B.Favre pass short right intended for 80-D.Driver INTERCEPTED by 23-C.Webster at GB 43. 23-C.Webster to GB 34 for 9 yards (80-D.Driver).

New York Giants at 14:04

1-10-GB 34 (14:04) 44-A.Bradshaw right end to GB 30 for 4 yards (74-A.Kampman, 56-N.Barnett).

2-6-GB 30 (13:21) (Shotgun) 44-A.Bradshaw right tackle to GB 29 for 1 yard (77-C.Jenkins, 74-A.Kampman).

3-5-GB 29 (12:38) (Shotgun) 10-E.Manning pass incomplete short left to 12-S.Smith.

4-5-GB 29 (12:34) 9-L.Tynes 47 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-93-J.Alford, Holder-18-J.Feagles.

Bradshaw barely even played in the regular season.....he had 6 carries on the entire season going into Week 16....then when he got his chance, he outperformed Jacobs. He'll win the job in camp and be used just like Barber was the season before Jacobs was drafted.

I didn't cherry-pick any stats. I went to nfl.com and I looked at his splits. No cherry-picking whatsoever, I just reported exactly what I saw. it's there on his page right here:Bradshaw splits

You can spin those #'s however you want, but the fact of the matter is, you pulled up his end game #'s that reflected what he did with the first 10 carries as well as the rest. When you look at his #'s and his production with those first 10 carries, it is outstanding. I'm not arguing that. However, his production on carries 11+ is not very good at all. While it's a small sample size, that's the kind of production that will keep him from being a lead ball carrier if he's not able to be effective after 10 carries. They will continue to use him as they did giving him 8-10 carries and allowing him to put up those #'s that he did.

But, in those 20 carries he had that came after 10 carries, his longest run was 8 yds and he had a miserable 3.0 ypc average. And there is a definite discrepancy in those splits. Can he overcome that and be a lead RB? Of course he can. Is that enough information to say he'll never be more than a 10 carry/game guy? Absolutely not. Is it something to be aware of as a possible reason that might keep him from being the main guy? It sure is if you're smart. If that trend continues, no coaching staff is going to give him the rock 15+ times/game if he starts to lose his effectiveness after ~10 carries. Those #'s clearly show that (albeit an admittedly very small sample size). Given his size, it's not terribly surprising.

ETA--And again, this bears repeating. He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

While a speed back will usually do better when he is fresh, the other reason is that when he was getting so many carries he was also being used in those short yardage situations that usually hurt your YPC. It is easier to look good coming in on 3rd and long and getting a handoff instead of 3rd and 1 and getting the ball.I like Bradshaw, but I think the perspective Gianmarco is showing is accurate.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm absolutely baffled at the hype train surrounding Ahmad Bradshaw.Brandon Jacobs averaged nearly 100 yards rushing per game last year and was a force when healthy. Even if you project him to miss some time, let's not forget that it took Derrick Ward going on IR to get Bradshaw more than a carry. Yes, he had a monster game in Week 17 and followed that up with a solid contribution in the playoffs, but that's hardly indicative of his position on the team. Ward was not only effective as a runner in Jacobs' stead, but he was a fantastic (and surprising) receiving option to boot. If the Giants were so high on Ahmad (195 pounds soaking wet) Bradshaw, why then did they re-sign Derrick Ward in free agency?I could see the odd man out as Droughns, particularly because his YPC has fallen for four straight years and his 3.2 last season was just atrocious. But other than using Bradshaw as an occasional change of pace to counterbalance the much larger (and more bruising) Jacobs and Ward, Bradshaw shouldn't be much of a consideration in redrafts IMHO.Given his current ADP, Bradshaw is overvalued while D. Ward is significantly undervalued.

Droughns is most definitely the odd man out as he looked like he lost a wheel later in the year.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think the main points here about Bradshaw are:1. he clearly outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs and last week of the regular season.2. Bradshaw looked impressive enough that the coaching staff trusted him in the closing moments of the playoff games.3. Bradshaw will most likely NOT start, BUT he will put a dent on Jacobs value moving forward.

Are we talking fantasy or real life?Jacobs outscored Bradshaw 46.6 - 29.5 in the postseason, so number 1 is incorrect.2) The coaches trust both guys a lot. Agree on 3.

 

[Koya]

IMO (and those who know that it is the opinion of someone that follows the Giants closely), NEITHER Jacobs NOR Bradshaw are franchise backs.

Jacobs fumbles, runs high (not my kind of high mind you) and gets dinged.

Bradshaw is a solid back with some great late game ability when the D is tired and he can use his quicks... but I don't see him flourishing as a 20-25+ carry a game back on a team without other running options.

Combined they create a very potent running attack upon which team success can be (and has been) built. But neither is going to do it on their own and due to that fact, neither will become a very good or great fantasy option ever, outside of a few game stretch.

 

[Liquid Tension]

He had 4 games in the postseason

Game 1 -- 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 2 -- 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc)

Game 3 -- 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc)

Game 4 -- 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc)

When you look at those #'s, he clearly performed better when he only had 6 and 9 carries. When asked to carry the ball more (only 16 and 17 times), his ypc was mediocre at best.

Yet always better than Jacobs....Game 1 -- Bradshaw 17 carries for 66 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 13 carries for 34 yards (2.6 ypc)

Game 2 -- Bradshaw 6 carries for 34 yds (5.7 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 54 (3.9 ypc)

Game 3 -- Bradshaw 16 carries for 63 yds (3.9 ypc) > Jacobs 21 carries for 67 yards (3.2 ypc)

Game 4 -- Bradshaw 9 carries for 45 yds (5.0 ypc) > Jacobs 14 carries for 42 yards (3.0 ypc)

/thread

Yes, we already know he outperformed Jacobs in the playoffs, that is, if you ignore TDs (Jacobs 4 TDs vs. Bradshaw's 1 TD). But, you did a good job ignoring the point of the post. Bradshaw's #'s indicate he may not be suitable for the lead role. Also, your above comparison would be nice if Jacobs hadn't shown he can perform on the field. His 1000 yds in 10 games and 5.0 ypc show otherwise. But, that was a nice, classic H.K. deflection.

So these games are basically the best comparison point we have between Bradshaw and Jacobs, when they were playing against the same defense. And Bradshaw clearly outperformed Jacobs. So if Bradshaw isn't suitable for the lead role based on the above results, then shouldn't Jacobs be benched?

I care not to read everything on this pissing match, but I'll just say that anyone who watched the Giants play last year rather than just looked at the stats knows that Jacobs pounding the defense creates the opportunity for the shiftier Bradshaw to succeed.I know Jacobs softening the opposing defense doesn't score in fantasy football, but seeing beyond the stats and knowing that the Giants coaching staff sees the value in Jacobs holding the lead roll to open up the defense for Bradshaw should let you know that aside from injury, not to expect Bradshaw to take the lead roll in this offense as long as Jacobs is around regardless of their comparable YPC.

Stop using logic as there is none of that here; people are trying to prove they are right Seriously, your are spot on and anyone with football knowledge knows this. Do you think Jacobs running right over Woodson in GB had any impact on the fact Woodson gave ground on EVERY single tackle after that hit and actually didn't attempt some?

Just one other point, someone said Jacobs isn't fast; he is and he has a higher top speed than Bradshaw according to the Giants. However, Bradshaw is MUCH quicker as Jacobs takes some time to reach top speed. I don't have a link as I looked for it, but it makes sense if you watch them.

 

[H.K.]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

 

[Jason Wood]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

 

[Avery]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Please don't feed into this bizzare, single-minded visceral hatred that H.K. has for Jacobs.Seriously.

 

[gianmarco]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Yeah, but he looked darn good in those 6 receptions!!!!!!!!!

 

[H.K.]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)

Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Are you for real? Jacobs dropped more passes than any other receiver on the Giants last year. It doesn't matter if you compare him to Bradshaw or anyone else.In 2007 Jacobs had 38 targets and 8 drops.....A remarkably astounding 21% of the time Jacobs was thrown to, he flat out dropped the pass. link

You can't tell the difference between Jacobs walking through a cobweb or trying to catch the ball....he's looks identical in either situation.

 

[Jason Wood]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Please don't feed into this bizzare, single-minded visceral hatred that H.K. has for Jacobs.Seriously.

I was actually responding to the comments by dmac. And let's also remember that my analysis didn't include Ward. His receiving numbers were better than Bradshaw's across the board, too. (26 receptions for 179 yards, 6.9 YPC, and 1 TD).

 

[Jason Wood]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Are you for real? Jacobs dropped more passes than any other receiver on the Giants last year. It doesn't matter if you compare him to Bradshaw or anyone else.In 2007 Jacobs had 38 targets and 8 drops.....A remarkably astounding 21% of the time Jacobs was thrown to, he flat out dropped the pass. link

You can't tell the difference between Jacobs walking through a cobweb or trying to catch the ball....he's looks identical in either situation.

The 8 drops are a concern, but what about Bradshaw's numbers indicate he, and not Ward would take over the 3rd down receiving role?

 

[H.K.]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Are you for real? Jacobs dropped more passes than any other receiver on the Giants last year. It doesn't matter if you compare him to Bradshaw or anyone else.In 2007 Jacobs had 38 targets and 8 drops.....A remarkably astounding 21% of the time Jacobs was thrown to, he flat out dropped the pass. link

You can't tell the difference between Jacobs walking through a cobweb or trying to catch the ball....he's looks identical in either situation.

The 8 drops are a concern, but what about Bradshaw's numbers indicate he, and not Ward would take over the 3rd down receiving role?

Wait a minute.....why are you switching gears to Ward....what happened to your support of Jacobs' receiving prowess?

 

[Jason Wood]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Are you for real? Jacobs dropped more passes than any other receiver on the Giants last year. It doesn't matter if you compare him to Bradshaw or anyone else.In 2007 Jacobs had 38 targets and 8 drops.....A remarkably astounding 21% of the time Jacobs was thrown to, he flat out dropped the pass. link

You can't tell the difference between Jacobs walking through a cobweb or trying to catch the ball....he's looks identical in either situation.

The 8 drops are a concern, but what about Bradshaw's numbers indicate he, and not Ward would take over the 3rd down receiving role?

Wait a minute.....why are you switching gears to Ward....what happened to your support of Jacobs' receiving prowess?

1) I didn't realize he had 8 drops; but even so he still outperformed Bradshaw when he did catch the ball2) My contention from start to finish in this thread is why people assume Bradshaw will be the RB2 over Ward; clearly comparing them is equally important as I think Jacobs job as the RB1 is entrenched

 

[dmac37]

Bradshaw is the better receiving back and looked better in an equal setting when it mattered most.

OK...including the playoffs, Ahmad Bradshaw has six (6) career receptions! Talk about small sample size?

And even if we give him credit for those six receptions, how do we come to the conclusion that he's a better receiver than Jacobs?

Receptions -- Bradshaw (6) vs. Jacobs (38)
Yards per reception -- Bradshaw (6.5) vs. Jacobs (9.3)
TDs per reception -- Bradshaw (0.0%) vs. Jacobs (7.9%)Jacobs has more catches, averages 3 yards more per catch and has 3 career receiving TDs to Bradshaw's ZERO. How is anyone coming to the conclusion taht Bradshaw is the better receiver?

Please don't feed into this bizzare, single-minded visceral hatred that H.K. has for Jacobs.Seriously.

I was actually responding to the comments by dmac. And let's also remember that my analysis didn't include Ward. His receiving numbers were better than Bradshaw's across the board, too. (26 receptions for 179 yards, 6.9 YPC, and 1 TD).

I will stick to my belief that long term Bradshaw has a great chance to be the feature back in a RBBC, for the following reasons:Eyeball test- forget stats, he looked like the better back while being compared to Jacobs in games that mattered in equal settings. I will also take the gamble that he will be a better receiver than Jacobs.

Size- if I had to lean toward one of these 2 being the ideal size, I will take Bradshaw's compact frame, over Jacob's frame.

I'm not saying he will be as good as Tiki, but I can see the RB split playing out more like when Tiki was there with Bradshaw now being Tiki.

It is up to us to use a small window of opportunity to speculate on how good a player can be, all things considered I will take my chances on Bradshaw. I was one who also liked his chances and picked him up in a dynasty before the season started.

Bottom line he is not a lock, but these are the type of pickups that can make a difference in FF.

 

[Chachi]

I usually enjoy reading Jason Woods stuff but this is getting really annoying. You are in love with Jacobs, we friggin get it dude. Let it go.

 

[BigJim®]

Interesting takes in this thread. Wood is definitely shoving his head in the sand about Bradshaw, not sure how else to put it. Suggesting he's battling with Ward is silly. The Giants willingly let Ward walk, and when Ward couldn't find a deal anywhere they signed him for a cheap 1-year deal. Anyone can read between those lines with relative ease: He's depth, but the team most familiar with him didn't think him important enough to the team to be signed beyond 1-year. If you want to hitch your wagon to that #2 RB horse he's all yours.

I actually agree Jacobs is still #1 heading into the season, but he's not a #1 I'd look at in a dynasty format. Does anyone really believe that Jacobs is long for the NFL using 100% brute to do a job that often requires finesse? Not me. Even if Bradshaw doesn't get a huge load early in 2008, IMHO it's really just a matter of time before Jacobs tries running through one too many DE/LB types and winds back up back on the medical cart. Who are they going to then, the guy they signed to a 1-year 'depth deal,' or a hopeful young player who surpassed expectations in his rookie season leading the team to a SB? I know where I've invested my FF currency.

 

[gianmarco]

Wood is definitely shoving his head in the sand about Bradshaw, not sure how else to put it.

 

[Jackie Treehorn]

I see Bradshaw as a clear cut change of pace and #2 to Jacobs, assuming Jacobs stays healthy. That's a huge and rather unlikely if- I think Jacobs will frequently be on the injury report with minor strains and sprains- things that allow him to play but also make Bradshaw see more carries. By the end of the year, I see it 65-35 in terms of touches with Jacobs getting the 65 and barring any major injuries.

Also, it will be interesting to see how hard Bradshaw has worked this off season. He's coming of a championship run and he's been a big time problem before (not with laziness, but with off field behavior in general).

 

[BigJim®]

Wood is definitely shoving his head in the sand about Bradshaw, not sure how else to put it.

Care to elaborate?