Brandon Jacobs - dynasty (1 Viewer)

[Tornacl]

I was wondering what the other Sharks think about Brandon Jacobs with the re-surfacing of the "Tiki to Retire" rumor.

The way I see it, there are two questions to answer:

1. Will Tiki retire?

2. Will Brandon Jacobs be the featured back?

If you think the answer to either of those questions is "No", then now might be a good time to sell. If you sell, can you get someone good enough to make it worthwhile to miss the chance at a starting RB? Earlier in the season, I was offered a 2nd round pick for him and declined.

If you think that the answer to both of those questions is "Yes", then what is he worth trying to acquire him?

I'm not a Giants homer, so I really don't have a good answer to those two important questions. What do the other Sharks out there think?

 

[Slinger]

Hold for now. Trade him the day after Tiki officially announce his retirement if you want to part ways with Jacobs.

 

[Gopher State]

I would agree to hold for now.

 

[Tick]

Hold. I think he'll be good.

 

[Idiot Savant]

Buy. The Giants have given every indication he'll be the heir apparent in their previous comments, and he's done nothing to disappoint with his performance on the field. His price will only continue to go up as people begin to realize (a) Tiki actually will retire and (b) the Giants will rely on Jacobs. He's as cheap now as he's going to get.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Dynasty comment - please use the "CROWN" symbol to mark dynasty threads.

TIA.

PS - I expect Brandon Jacobs to get more work down the stretch. I also expect the Giants to pursue Michael Turner and also draft a RB, so don't hold your breath on Jacobs starting in 07.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I would be shocked if Jacobs was the Giants starting tailback next season.

 

[Slinger]

I would be shocked if Jacobs was the Giants starting tailback next season.

I don't agree or disagree, but why?

 

[LBH]

Buy. The Giants have given every indication he'll be the heir apparent in their previous comments, and he's done nothing to disappoint with his performance on the field. His price will only continue to go up as people begin to realize (a) Tiki actually will retire and (b) the Giants will rely on Jacobs. He's as cheap now as he's going to get.

I agree, I haven't read anything that would indicate the Giants are unhappy with the progress Jacobs has made. In the games I have watched, which is most of them, Jacobs looks like the real deal. I think Jacobs will be huge next year

 

[Ron_Mexico]

He has to be a Buy or Hold, imo.

As LBH & the Idiot said, this dude has done

nothing to disappoint, the iants are very

pleased with his production.

Brandon Jacobs - The Heir Apparent.

 

[Lash]

What are the FBG thoughts now?

my pick coming up and he is sticking out like a "Quinn/Rodgers in the Green Room" scenario

 

[KING]

What are the FBG thoughts now?my pick coming up and he is sticking out like a "Quinn/Rodgers in the Green Room" scenario

looks like you're trying to sneak a "WSID" thread in

 

[EBF]

Sell. He should be decent in 2007, but he's not a long-term featured back IMO.

 

[brakeyawself]

Sell. He should be a decent in 2007, but he's not a long-term featured back IMO.

While I disagree about Jacobs future, I would still think you should at least hold. Unless you feel he will blow it before the season or halfway through even, I just see his stock rising as it gets closer to camps, and opening day. Maybe you could say then hes a midseason SELL, but for now, I would at least hold. Personally though, I might buy now even if I wanted to sell later.

 

[H.K.]

Sell immediately. Droughns has his job, maybe someone in your league doesn't know or refuses to believe it yet.

 

[KellysHeroes]

hold.. In fact, the Giants Back field is very easy to lock up at the moment.

BJ is the most expensive, Droughns might been seen as worthless to the owner, and Bradshaw is a late flyer to most.

 

[redman]

Hold. Jacobs is a goalline RB, and a good one. That has a fair amount of value given that the trend in the NFL is to go with RBBC on most teams anyway.

 

[Construction Man Jim]

Sell immediately. Droughns has his job, maybe someone in your league doesn't know or refuses to believe it yet.

This is flat out wrong.The consensus among well informed Giants fans is that it's Jacobs job and that he'll have a monster year if healthy.

 

[H.K.]

Sell immediately. Droughns has his job, maybe someone in your league doesn't know or refuses to believe it yet.

This is flat out wrong.The consensus among well informed Giants fans is that it's Jacobs job and that he'll have a monster year if healthy.

Case in point. Best scenario its RBBC. Jacobs will be overvalued, people refuse to see the obvious.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Sell immediately. Droughns has his job, maybe someone in your league doesn't know or refuses to believe it yet.

link?

 

[Construction Man Jim]

Sell immediately. Droughns has his job, maybe someone in your league doesn't know or refuses to believe it yet.

This is flat out wrong.The consensus among well informed Giants fans is that it's Jacobs job and that he'll have a monster year if healthy.

Case in point. Best scenario its RBBC. Jacobs will be overvalued, people refuse to see the obvious.

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

 

[H.K.]

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

They should have, but I guess they are comfortable with Droughns in the short term. Safe to assume they'll let Fassel's replacement draft or add a FA feature RB in 2008.Care to share your projection for Jacobs in 2007? FBG initial projection had Jacobs at 160 carries & 20 recepts....with Droughns at 210 & 32, respectively.Unless you expect a 2006 MJD performance out of Jacobs, he won't get the touches needed to have FF value in standard or PPR leagues.

 

[humans_being]

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

FBG initial projection had Jacobs at 160 carries & 20 recepts....with Droughns at 210 & 32, respectively.

Better check again. Looks like they came to their senses. Still a few yards and a couple of TD's short though.

 

[H.K.]

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

FBG initial projection had Jacobs at 160 carries & 20 recepts....with Droughns at 210 & 32, respectively.

Better check again. Looks like they came to their senses. Still a few yards and a couple of TD's short though.

The key word is highlighted, their first cut on May 3rd had the numbers I posted. They've changed them in the wrong direction since then. What they have now is statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve.

 

[RC94]

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

FBG initial projection had Jacobs at 160 carries & 20 recepts....with Droughns at 210 & 32, respectively.

Better check again. Looks like they came to their senses. Still a few yards and a couple of TD's short though.

The key word is highlighted, their first cut on May 3rd had the numbers I posted. They've changed them in the wrong direction since then. What they have now is statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve.

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

 

[H.K.]

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

Let me qualify my answer: It's statistically impossible for him to achieve those aggregate numbers during the 2007 season starting from zero. If we are talking career numbers then I think he will hit the 210 carry mark this season because he only needs another 80 carries or so to do that.....However, he would need 13 recepts to hit the 24 mark for his career, which seems unlikely to happen as he is only averaging 5.5 catches per season as a pro.

 

[RC94]

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

Let me qualify my answer: It's statistically impossible for him to achieve those aggregate numbers during the 2007 season starting from zero. If we are talking career numbers then I think he will hit the 210 carry mark this season because he only needs another 80 carries or so to do that.....However, he would need 13 recepts to hit the 24 mark for his career, which seems unlikely to happen as he is only averaging 5.5 catches per season as a pro.

Again, how is it statistically impossible for him to achieve these numbers this season starting from zero??? Just because you don't think he will do it doesn't mean it's statistically impossible.

 

[PatsWillWin]

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

Let me qualify my answer: It's statistically impossible for him to achieve those aggregate numbers during the 2007 season starting from zero. If we are talking career numbers then I think he will hit the 210 carry mark this season because he only needs another 80 carries or so to do that.....However, he would need 13 recepts to hit the 24 mark for his career, which seems unlikely to happen as he is only averaging 5.5 catches per season as a pro.

 

[H.K.]

Again, how is it statistically impossible for him to achieve these numbers this season starting from zero??? Just because you don't think he will do it doesn't mean it's statistically impossible.

I've run the numbers, trust me. It can't happen.

 

[brakeyawself]

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

Let me qualify my answer: It's statistically impossible for him to achieve those aggregate numbers during the 2007 season starting from zero. If we are talking career numbers then I think he will hit the 210 carry mark this season because he only needs another 80 carries or so to do that.....However, he would need 13 recepts to hit the 24 mark for his career, which seems unlikely to happen as he is only averaging 5.5 catches per season as a pro.

How is it statistically impossible? Its just statistically unlikley. You're basing your statistics on his past averages? I mean, that's reasonable, but I dont think impossible.

 

[RC94]

Again, how is it statistically impossible for him to achieve these numbers this season starting from zero??? Just because you don't think he will do it doesn't mean it's statistically impossible.

I've run the numbers, trust me. It can't happen.

 

[redman]

Again, how is it statistically impossible for him to achieve these numbers this season starting from zero??? Just because you don't think he will do it doesn't mean it's statistically impossible.

I've run the numbers, trust me. It can't happen.

 

[Construction Man Jim]

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

They should have, but I guess they are comfortable with Droughns in the short term. Safe to assume they'll let Fassel's replacement draft or add a FA feature RB in 2008.Care to share your projection for Jacobs in 2007? FBG initial projection had Jacobs at 160 carries & 20 recepts....with Droughns at 210 & 32, respectively.Unless you expect a 2006 MJD performance out of Jacobs, he won't get the touches needed to have FF value in standard or PPR leagues.

"Fassel"? LOL. That's so perfect.I don't see the Giants running less than last year. And I don't see them rushing for 400 fewer yards.Conservatively I'd project the numbers breaking out something like:Jacobs: 300 carries, 1400 yards rushing, 13 TDs; 40 receptions, 350 yards receiving, 2 TDs.Droughns: 125 carries, 480 yards, 2 TDs; 30 receptions, 220 yards, 0 TDs.

 

[H.K.]

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

Let me qualify my answer: It's statistically impossible for him to achieve those aggregate numbers during the 2007 season starting from zero. If we are talking career numbers then I think he will hit the 210 carry mark this season because he only needs another 80 carries or so to do that.....However, he would need 13 recepts to hit the 24 mark for his career, which seems unlikely to happen as he is only averaging 5.5 catches per season as a pro.

How is it statistically impossible? Its just statistically unlikley. You're basing your statistics on his past averages? I mean, that's reasonable, but I dont think impossible.

Career averages have nothing to do with it. 210 carries and 24 recepts, 1083 total yards and 9 TD's? Do the math, it's statistically impossible.

 

[PatsWillWin]

@ the

 

[redman]

How is 210 carries (average of about 13 carries per game) for 903 yards (4.3 YPC), 9 TDs and 24 receptions for 180 yards (7.5 YPR) and 0 receiving TDs statistically impossible for Jacobs to achieve??

Let me qualify my answer: It's statistically impossible for him to achieve those aggregate numbers during the 2007 season starting from zero. If we are talking career numbers then I think he will hit the 210 carry mark this season because he only needs another 80 carries or so to do that.....However, he would need 13 recepts to hit the 24 mark for his career, which seems unlikely to happen as he is only averaging 5.5 catches per season as a pro.

How is it statistically impossible? Its just statistically unlikley. You're basing your statistics on his past averages? I mean, that's reasonable, but I dont think impossible.

Career averages have nothing to do with it. 210 carries and 24 recepts, 1083 total yards and 9 TD's? Do the math, it's statistically impossible.

I don't care if it's fishing, I need to see the answer to this:How is it "statistically impossible"? Does your calculator only have 3 digits or something?

 

[H.K.]

You have no idea what you're talking about. On the other Jacobs thread you said the Giants were going spend a high draft pick on a RB.

They should have, but I guess they are comfortable with Droughns in the short term. Safe to assume they'll let Fassel's replacement draft or add a FA feature RB in 2008.Care to share your projection for Jacobs in 2007? FBG initial projection had Jacobs at 160 carries & 20 recepts....with Droughns at 210 & 32, respectively.

Unless you expect a 2006 MJD performance out of Jacobs, he won't get the touches needed to have FF value in standard or PPR leagues.

"Fassel"? LOL. That's so perfect.I don't see the Giants running less than last year. And I don't see them rushing for 400 fewer yards.

Conservatively I'd project the numbers breaking out something like:

Jacobs: 300 carries, 1400 yards rushing, 13 TDs; 40 receptions, 350 yards receiving, 2 TDs.

Droughns: 125 carries, 480 yards, 2 TDs; 30 receptions, 220 yards, 0 TDs.

Fassel. Coughlin. Handley. Whatever.Nice projection, but again, we are talking for 2007, not career.

 

[H.K.]

I don't care if it's fishing, I need to see the answer to this:How is it "statistically impossible"? Does your calculator only have 3 digits or something?

Statisitically impossible. It can't happen. You guys are missing the obvious.

 

[coolnerd]

I have no idea what is statistically possible or not, but the Giants currently view Jacobs as their starter with a concern about his ability to play for a full 16 game season.

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=e...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

 

[phthalatemagic]

This is the guy that said in 2006 Gates was done, right?

 

[TheCheat]

Again, how is it statistically impossible for him to achieve these numbers this season starting from zero??? Just because you don't think he will do it doesn't mean it's statistically impossible.

I've run the numbers, trust me. It can't happen.

C'mon guys, he *said* he ran the numbers...he's already done the work for you.

 

[brakeyawself]

Again, how is it statistically impossible for him to achieve these numbers this season starting from zero??? Just because you don't think he will do it doesn't mean it's statistically impossible.

I've run the numbers, trust me. It can't happen.

C'mon guys, he *said* he ran the numbers...he's already done the work for you.

Id like to know the process you used to come to this conclusion. Is it statistically possible for LT to reach those numbers?

 

[H.K.]

Id like to know the process you used to come to this conclusion. Is it statistically possible for LT to reach those numbers?

It's basic math.LT, barring injury, will greatly surpass those numbers.Jacobs...it can't happen. sorry.

 

[brakeyawself]

Id like to know the process you used to come to this conclusion. Is it statistically possible for LT to reach those numbers?

It's basic math.LT, barring injury, will greatly surpass those numbers.Jacobs...it can't happen. sorry.

So it cant happen because it's jacobs? Or it cant happen because the calculations do not come up perfect? You're being vague and cryptic. Jacobs, theoretically can achieve any numbers LT achieves. Realistically he wont come close. But why do you refuse to explain how you statistically came to the conclusion that Jacobs CANT have similar numbers to LT or even what was proposed earlier?

 

[H.K.]

So it cant happen because it's jacobs? Or it cant happen because the calculations do not come up perfect? You're being vague and cryptic. Jacobs, theoretically can achieve any numbers LT achieves. Realistically he wont come close. But why do you refuse to explain how you statistically came to the conclusion that Jacobs CANT have similar numbers to LT or even what was proposed earlier?

Look closer. Dig deeper.It's statistically impossible.

 

[brakeyawself]

So it cant happen because it's jacobs? Or it cant happen because the calculations do not come up perfect? You're being vague and cryptic. Jacobs, theoretically can achieve any numbers LT achieves. Realistically he wont come close. But why do you refuse to explain how you statistically came to the conclusion that Jacobs CANT have similar numbers to LT or even what was proposed earlier?

Look closer. Dig deeper.It's statistically impossible.

theres no where else to dig since you refuse to explain yourself. Where am i supposed to be digging, in the numbers or in the game of football? You are possibly the most unhelpful statistician ive ever encountered.

 

[redman]

So it cant happen because it's jacobs? Or it cant happen because the calculations do not come up perfect? You're being vague and cryptic.

Jacobs, theoretically can achieve any numbers LT achieves. Realistically he wont come close. But why do you refuse to explain how you statistically came to the conclusion that Jacobs CANT have similar numbers to LT or even what was proposed earlier?

Look closer. Dig deeper.

It's statistically impossible.

theres no where else to dig since you refuse to explain yourself. Where am i supposed to be digging, in the numbers or in the game of football? You are possibly the most unhelpful statistician ive ever encountered.

"Jonathan, run a fly pattern all the way to the goal line. (He snaps up the mom's skirt.) Tennessee! Kentucky! Find the meat! Uh, deeper, Jonathan. It's a tough world. These kids nearly got Munsoned, but they're back now. Through the Unified Fund, I found out that if you give a little, you can get back a whole lot more." [/McCracken]

 

[brakeyawself]

So it cant happen because it's jacobs? Or it cant happen because the calculations do not come up perfect? You're being vague and cryptic.

Jacobs, theoretically can achieve any numbers LT achieves. Realistically he wont come close. But why do you refuse to explain how you statistically came to the conclusion that Jacobs CANT have similar numbers to LT or even what was proposed earlier?

Look closer. Dig deeper.

It's statistically impossible.

theres no where else to dig since you refuse to explain yourself. Where am i supposed to be digging, in the numbers or in the game of football? You are possibly the most unhelpful statistician ive ever encountered.

"Jonathan, run a fly pattern all the way to the goal line. (He snaps up the mom's skirt.) Tennessee! Kentucky! Find the meat! Uh, deeper, Jonathan. It's a tough world. These kids nearly got Munsoned, but they're back now. Through the Unified Fund, I found out that if you give a little, you can get back a whole lot more." [/McCracken]

Ive never seen this movie. Statistically, on in an even field, it is just as possible for one player to acheive what another can. Barring personal football skills and conditions. To make a blanket statement like "impossible" is just foolish.

 

[Cookiemonster]

@ the

.........nibble ...... nibble

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Statistically, on in an even field, it is just as possible for one player to acheive what another can. Barring personal football skills and conditions. To make a blanket statement like "impossible" is just foolish.

Because I am embarrassed for you...LT had roughly 5500 more yards than Jacobs has at a similar age, and has added two fine years at 26 and 27. So Jacobs is about 8600 yards behind. Now it's possible that you believe Jacobs will reel off six straight 1500 yard seasons from 26-31 and Tomlinson won't budge from his current total, but most of us aren't banking on that.You're welcome.