Who Wins the Jacobs/Droughns RB Battle? (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

The debate rages on bwween these two backs after the retirement of Tiki Barber. Some members of the media seem to have annointed Jacobs the primary back and Droughns the backup (there are articles out there for anyone interested). Even this morning there was a blurb in The New York Post . . .

O'HARA ALREADY MISSES BARBER

By DAN MARTIN

May 4, 2007 -- Shaun O'Hara hasn't played a game since Tiki Barber retired, but the Giants offensive lineman said things already are different without the running back around.

"For now, we haven't had much team activity, but when minicamp comes around and we get on the field, I think it's going to be very strange to not see [No.] 21 running around out there and coming out to practice," O'Hara said of Barber, who stunned many around the NFL by playing his final game last season. "It's already been weird to see somebody else get changed in his locker."

That somebody is DB Jason Bell. Though Bell may take Barber's stall, the more important issue is whether Brandon Jacobs can minimize Barber's loss on the field.

O'Hara, who signed a five-year contract in March to anchor the offensive line, said he believes the third-year player will be up to the task.

"Absolutely," said the center, who was at Madison Square Garden yesterday. The Rutgers product was on hand with Scarlet Knights head coach Greg Schiano at the Frank McGuire High School Coaches Seminar.

"That's why he's here," O'Hara said of Jacobs, the bruising back who rushed for 423 yards and nine touchdowns a year ago as Barber's understudy. "Anybody that's met Brandon Jacobs and talked to him knows that he's never backed away from a challenge."

The Giants also brought in 28-year-old Cleveland castoff Reuben Droughns, who had 758 yards on the ground last year. But the majority of work figures to go to Jacobs, who is, in some ways, the anti-Barber, at 6-feet, 4-inches, 264 pounds.

"He's going to be our top dog," O'Hara said. "He has to be ready to go. The organization has put a lot on his shoulders. They have faith in him and so do we. Now it's up to him to fulfill his potential, and I think he can do that."

Our fearless leader here at FBG (David Dodds) isn't buying into that, as he has Droughns with more carries than Jacobs in his initial projections.How doyou (plural) see this one playing out?

 

[H.K.]

Actions speak louder than words. If the Giants signed Rhodes, Jacobs would have been better off. Rhodes is a committee RB at best, who is used to the role of being a back-up.

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Most people around here discount Droughns way too much. He may not be spectacular, but he is in very rare company for what he has done the past few years. It's Droughns job, regardless of the fluff printed before camp opens.

 

[Team Legacy]

SHHHH..

Jacobs could be the secret we're all waiting for this season.

Look, I can completely understand why Tiki was on the field, he was a HOFer.

When Jacobs did play in relief, it was very impressive. 4.4 YPC and 9 TDS.

Granted Barber averaged 5 YPC, but I think when opposing Defenses saw Jacobs in the game they thought run, so IMO, that affected what he was able to accomplish.

Could be a Top 15 year for him.

 

[David Yudkin]

Actions speak louder than words. If the Giants signed Rhodes, Jacobs would have been better off. Rhodes is a committee RB at best, who is used to the role of being a back-up.

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Most people around here discount Droughns way too much. He may not be spectacular, but he is in very rare company for what he has done the past few years. It's Droughns job, regardless of the fluff printed before camp opens.

I don't have an answer on this situation and will be arguing BOTH SIDES in this thread before anyone accuses me of being proDroughns or pro-Jacobs. To that end . . .If Droughns is going to be the starter, then why did he take essentially a 50% pay cut after coming to NY? His salary dropped from:

$1.25M to $750K in 07

$1.75M to $1M in 08

$2.75M to $1.25M in 09

and his 07 bonus was trimmed from $1.75M to $1.5M.

Would that be the normal course of action for a team looking to make him their go to RB? I don't have an answer, but many other people have taken this to mean he is not going to be the primary back this year.

 

[Team Legacy]

Actions speak louder than words. If the Giants signed Rhodes, Jacobs would have been better off. Rhodes is a committee RB at best, who is used to the role of being a back-up.

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Most people around here discount Droughns way too much. He may not be spectacular, but he is in very rare company for what he has done the past few years. It's Droughns job, regardless of the fluff printed before camp opens.

Droughn's job??? What he has done the past few years???Um, 3.4 YPC last year on 220 carries

I seriously doubt he is anything more than a windbreaker for Jacobs. I voted 70/30 Jacobs and that was being nice to ol Sauerkraut.

 

[David Yudkin]

SHHHH..Jacobs could be the secret we're all waiting for this season.Look, I can completely understand why Tiki was on the field, he was a HOFer. When Jacobs did play in relief, it was very impressive. 4.4 YPC and 9 TDS. Granted Barber averaged 5 YPC, but I think when opposing Defenses saw Jacobs in the game they thought run, so IMO, that affected what he was able to accomplish. Could be a Top 15 year for him.

IIRC, Jacobs was often in the game in short yardage situations so if he was in the game there was a very good chance they were looking to only make a few yards on the play.

 

[H.K.]

SHHHH..Jacobs could be the secret we're all waiting for this season.Look, I can completely understand why Tiki was on the field, he was a HOFer. When Jacobs did play in relief, it was very impressive. 4.4 YPC and 9 TDS. Granted Barber averaged 5 YPC, but I think when opposing Defenses saw Jacobs in the game they thought run, so IMO, that affected what he was able to accomplish. Could be a Top 15 year for him.

IIRC, Jacobs was often in the game in short yardage situations so if he was in the game there was a very good chance they were looking to only make a few yards on the play.

Jacobs' TD's 7 came from inside the five, the other two from 10 and in with the longest being from 10 yards. He'll keep the GL role.

 

[H.K.]

I don't have an answer on this situation and will be arguing BOTH SIDES in this thread before anyone accuses me of being proDroughns or pro-Jacobs. To that end . . .If Droughns is going to be the starter, then why did he take essentially a 50% pay cut after coming to NY? His salary dropped from:$1.25M to $750K in 07$1.75M to $1M in 08$2.75M to $1.25M in 09and his 07 bonus was trimmed from $1.75M to $1.5M.Would that be the normal course of action for a team looking to make him their go to RB? I don't have an answer, but many other people have taken this to mean he is not going to be the primary back this year.

Forgot to add:• Droughns will earn a roster bonus next March equal to $15,625 times the number of games in which he's active. So if he dresses for 10 games, he'll be paid $156,250.• In the last two years of the deal, he will earn roster bonuses equal to $31,250 times the number of games in which he's active.• There are also bonuses worth up to $850,000 for rushing-yard and Pro Bowl incentives.Brandon Jacobs is scheduled to earn less than $1 million in salary over the next two seasons combined, so Droughns is getting much more $$$ than him.When Droughns wins the job and puts up good numbers he'll make much more than salary numbers you listed. It makes sense for him to go somewhere with no competition and rack up bonus money if not many starting gigs are avaliable.

 

[BGP]

Droughns fumbles too much and doesn't have the production to back it up anyway. He had 220 carries a year ago and fumbled 5 times. Altho looking at Jacobs' stats he might be a fumbler too. It really depends on how much Coughlin can stomach Droughns' fumbles, and no-one can read his mind to be able to tell for sure.

 

[David Yudkin]

It makes sense for him to go somewhere with no competition and rack up bonus money if not many starting gigs are avaliable.

Droughns did not have a CHOICE where he went . . . he was under contract and was traded.

 

[aposulli]

Ahmad Bradshaw

 

[KellysHeroes]

Ahmad Bradshaw

hey... shut up

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Ahmad Bradshaw might be the best suited back on the roster to compliment Jacobs. I think he's got more explosiveness than Droughns. I can see Bradshaw getting almost as many touches as Droughns if Jacobs transformation to a pounder between the tackles is complete. I can't picture Jacobs doing much outside the tackles, and Droughns doesnt strike me as that kind of back either, but Bradshaw might have the juice to play a similar role to what the Falcons asked Norwood to do last year.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Who here thinks Jacobs will be playing on 3rd down?

 

[H.K.]

It makes sense for him to go somewhere with no competition and rack up bonus money if not many starting gigs are avaliable.

Droughns did not have a CHOICE where he went . . . he was under contract and was traded.

You're right...so then he wasn't forced to restructure, the Giants would have had to renegotiate or release him once they had his rights, correct?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

70/30 - Jacobs.

If droughns was so good why was he traded for some guy who'll be lucky to make the browns roster? and replaced with Jamal?

 

[corpcow]

Actions speak louder than words. If the Giants signed Rhodes, Jacobs would have been better off. Rhodes is a committee RB at best, who is used to the role of being a back-up.

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Most people around here discount Droughns way too much. He may not be spectacular, but he is in very rare company for what he has done the past few years. It's Droughns job, regardless of the fluff printed before camp opens.

While I don't discount what Droughns was able to do with an unimpressive situation in Cleveland, I disagree. I think it's Jacobs job, and getting a guy like Droughns - OR Rhodes - who are similar in style was a vote of confidence. What many who haven't seen Giants preseason games etc. lose sight of is that Jacobs is a lot more than just a bruiser. He's obviously got great size and, when you had Tiki, he was used as a goal line back....but he's more than that. He can be impressive in space, has surprising speed, and decent hands. But we shall see

 

[corpcow]

SHHHH..Jacobs could be the secret we're all waiting for this season.Look, I can completely understand why Tiki was on the field, he was a HOFer. When Jacobs did play in relief, it was very impressive. 4.4 YPC and 9 TDS. Granted Barber averaged 5 YPC, but I think when opposing Defenses saw Jacobs in the game they thought run, so IMO, that affected what he was able to accomplish. Could be a Top 15 year for him.

It's too bad I am in NY and Jacobs is not a secret here for any of my leagues

 

[KellysHeroes]

4.07 in my 14 teamer.. and some said it was a reach

 

[Yenrub]

I went with Jacobs getting 60%

I seems like there will be a somewhat open competition for the job.

Jacobs will probably open training camp as #1 on the depth chart and I think he has enough talent to keep Droughns as the #2.

However because he has never carried the load before (with the Giants or at Auburn or Southern Illinois) Droughns will get plenty of work.

I can see the Giants doing what KC did a couple of years ago with Priest getting two series and LJ getting one series

 

[Zoomanji]

Who here thinks Jacobs will be playing on 3rd down?

neither jacobs or Droughns will be the 3rd down back

 

[Jason Wood]

I think the Giants very much want and hope Brandon Jacobs to be the main ball carrier. Whether he's up to the task remains to be seen.

 

[H.K.]

Actions speak louder than words. If the Giants signed Rhodes, Jacobs would have been better off. Rhodes is a committee RB at best, who is used to the role of being a back-up.

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Most people around here discount Droughns way too much. He may not be spectacular, but he is in very rare company for what he has done the past few years. It's Droughns job, regardless of the fluff printed before camp opens.

While I don't discount what Droughns was able to do with an unimpressive situation in Cleveland, I disagree. I think it's Jacobs job, and getting a guy like Droughns - OR Rhodes - who are similar in style was a vote of confidence. What many who haven't seen Giants preseason games etc. lose sight of is that Jacobs is a lot more than just a bruiser. He's obviously got great size and, when you had Tiki, he was used as a goal line back....but he's more than that. He can be impressive in space, has surprising speed, and decent hands. But we shall see

FWIW, I am not discounting Jacobs. I am merely trying to relay that Droughns should not be discounted either. At this point in time, Droughns has a solid track record as a feature NFL RB, while Jacobs has none (he wasn't even the main man in college)....people should not lose sight of the these facts.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

From a fantasy perspective, I don't think touches is the key stat as Jacobs should continue to get everything near the stripe. As someone mentioned, all 9 of his TD's last year were from the 19 in. The question, is can the Giants effectively move the ball from the 20 to the 20 w/o Tiki, so that Jacobs still gets those TD chances? I'm skeptical...

An interesting average per carry stat on Jacobs from last season:

September games: 7.0 yds/carry

October games: 4.3

November games: 3.9

December games: 3.5

Conversely, Tiki's yards per carry increased in each of those 4 months last year. If the big man can't hold up over the course of the season in limited duty, what happens now?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Actions speak louder than words. If the Giants signed Rhodes, Jacobs would have been better off. Rhodes is a committee RB at best, who is used to the role of being a back-up.

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Most people around here discount Droughns way too much. He may not be spectacular, but he is in very rare company for what he has done the past few years. It's Droughns job, regardless of the fluff printed before camp opens.

I don't have an answer on this situation and will be arguing BOTH SIDES in this thread before anyone accuses me of being proDroughns or pro-Jacobs. To that end . . .If Droughns is going to be the starter, then why did he take essentially a 50% pay cut after coming to NY? His salary dropped from:

$1.25M to $750K in 07

$1.75M to $1M in 08

$2.75M to $1.25M in 09

and his 07 bonus was trimmed from $1.75M to $1.5M.

Would that be the normal course of action for a team looking to make him their go to RB? I don't have an answer, but many other people have taken this to mean he is not going to be the primary back this year.

Maybe not the fairest of comparisons, but Thomas Jones was brought in to be the feature back for Chicago for about that same salary.Reuben Droughns struggled last year, no excuses.

However, just a year prior, he turned the 2 decade long Browns joke of a running game into something half decent. He went from one of the most prolific rushing teams known to the NFL in Denver, to one of the worst rushing teams known to the NFL in Cleveland and still produced similar numbers.

You're not going to overpay to bring a Reuben Droughns to your team, but you are going to bring him in to make a run at the starting job. If the coaching staff felt so sure about Jacobs, they would've brought in a guy who is clearly a backup like a Najeh Davenport. You don't bring in a 3 year starter at RB with the idea that he'll be the backup.

 

[Jason Wood]

The real question, for me, is the state of the offensive line. Droughns ran behind one of the league's worst lines in Cleveland. And I think it caught up with him last year. The Giants offensive line certainly was better than the Browns over the last few seasons, but they have major question marks, too. Does anyone really think David Diehl can hold up as the left tackle for the entire season?

 

[Da Guru]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

 

[H.K.]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

If you use a pen, you can't erase it when he finishes with less.

 

[Jason Wood]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

????As a team, the Giants rushed for 17 and 14 TDs, in the last two seasons. 10-12 TDs is hardly a lock for any one player on a team like that. Exactly nine (9) running backs had 10+ TDs in the league a year ago. Building your draft case for Jacobs on the assumption of 10-12 is setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[packersfan]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

????As a team, the Giants rushed for 17 and 14 TDs, in the last two seasons. 10-12 TDs is hardly a lock for any one player on a team like that. Exactly nine (9) running backs had 10+ TDs in the league a year ago. Building your draft case for Jacobs on the assumption of 10-12 is setting yourself up for disappointment.

Jacobs scored 9 last season. It's hardly a reach to think that if he gets a larger role on offense (which should happen even if Droughns wins the starting job) he could get at least one more touchdown.

 

[Jason Wood]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

????As a team, the Giants rushed for 17 and 14 TDs, in the last two seasons. 10-12 TDs is hardly a lock for any one player on a team like that. Exactly nine (9) running backs had 10+ TDs in the league a year ago. Building your draft case for Jacobs on the assumption of 10-12 is setting yourself up for disappointment.

Jacobs scored 9 last season. It's hardly a reach to think that if he gets a larger role on offense (which should happen even if Droughns wins the starting job) he could get at least one more touchdown.

This is what I like to call the fallacy of the upward projectionCould Jacobs score 10+ TDs? Certainly. Is he more likely to score 10+ TDs than not? Absolutely not.

 

[jaguar100]

Not totally sold on Jacobs. I feel in the end Droughns will get the majority of carries, if Jacobs holds up I can see 60/40 Droughns.

 

[packersfan]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

????As a team, the Giants rushed for 17 and 14 TDs, in the last two seasons. 10-12 TDs is hardly a lock for any one player on a team like that. Exactly nine (9) running backs had 10+ TDs in the league a year ago. Building your draft case for Jacobs on the assumption of 10-12 is setting yourself up for disappointment.

Jacobs scored 9 last season. It's hardly a reach to think that if he gets a larger role on offense (which should happen even if Droughns wins the starting job) he could get at least one more touchdown.

This is what I like to call the fallacy of the upward projectionCould Jacobs score 10+ TDs? Certainly. Is he more likely to score 10+ TDs than not? Absolutely not.

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least. If he wins the starting job I think he's a good beat to reach double-digit TDs on the strength of his past production combined with the increased role in the offense. Even if he just remains the goal-line RB he has a shot at 10 TDs due to the production he's proven he can generate in that role. I would be concerned about Jacobs not being able to reach such a projection if I believed the Giants' offense was going to get flushed into the toilet. But while I'm not sold on their offense overall I do not anticipate that sharp of a decline taking place. I will say I'm high on Jacobs more on the strength of opportunity as opposed to talent. In that respect, he could be like Droughns was in 2005 with the Browns. A solid fantasy option who isn't a standout talent but is simply making the most of a huge role in the offense.

 

[Jason Wood]

Pencil BJ in for 10-12 TDs regardless of the load.

????As a team, the Giants rushed for 17 and 14 TDs, in the last two seasons. 10-12 TDs is hardly a lock for any one player on a team like that. Exactly nine (9) running backs had 10+ TDs in the league a year ago. Building your draft case for Jacobs on the assumption of 10-12 is setting yourself up for disappointment.

Jacobs scored 9 last season. It's hardly a reach to think that if he gets a larger role on offense (which should happen even if Droughns wins the starting job) he could get at least one more touchdown.

This is what I like to call the fallacy of the upward projectionCould Jacobs score 10+ TDs? Certainly. Is he more likely to score 10+ TDs than not? Absolutely not.

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least. If he wins the starting job I think he's a good beat to reach double-digit TDs on the strength of his past production combined with the increased role in the offense. Even if he just remains the goal-line RB he has a shot at 10 TDs due to the production he's proven he can generate in that role. I would be concerned about Jacobs not being able to reach such a projection if I believed the Giants' offense was going to get flushed into the toilet. But while I'm not sold on their offense overall I do not anticipate that sharp of a decline taking place. I will say I'm high on Jacobs more on the strength of opportunity as opposed to talent. In that respect, he could be like Droughns was in 2005 with the Browns. A solid fantasy option who isn't a standout talent but is simply making the most of a huge role in the offense.

Actually that IS the fallacy. Assuming that there's a trend based on 7 and 9 TD seasons is mathematically unfounded, at best. Again, I'm not saying he won't. But too many people are going to straight line him for 10-12 TDs minimum without realizing that Jacobs could easily see a downtick in his TDs.

 

[H.K.]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him. Jacobs will score less this year.

 

[Construction Man Jim]

I can't picture Jacobs doing much outside the tackles

Maybe this will help:http://www.khanhdom.com/cms/htmlos/047.21....0_brandonjacobs

 

[packersfan]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him.

That is a legitimate concern. I think it will be offset to some degree, however, by a healthy Toomer enhancing the passing game. And if Manning shows any improvement there at all that will also be a big help for the offense as a whole. I see your point Jason but I stand by mine. I think Jacobs is a good bet to reach double-digit TDs based on his proven history of production combined with what should be a larger (and perhaps MUCH larger) role in the offense.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him. Jacobs will score less this year.

Exactly. Last year, the Giants AS A TEAM ran the ball 21 times at the goal line [5 yards and in]. They scored 7 TDs. Brandon Jacobs got 14 of those rushes and scored all 7 goal line TDs.He was already getting the Giants full short yardage/scoring workload a year ago. This year, with a less certain offensive line, we have no reason to suggest Jacobs' opportunities or conversion rate will improve any more than they might flatline or decline slightly.

 

[David Yudkin]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him.

That is a legitimate concern. I think it will be offset to some degree, however, by a healthy Toomer enhancing the passing game. And if Manning shows any improvement there at all that will also be a big help for the offense as a whole. I see your point Jason but I stand by mine. I think Jacobs is a good bet to reach double-digit TDs based on his proven history of production combined with what should be a larger (and perhaps MUCH larger) role in the offense.

I don't have time to look it all up, but I generally agree with Jason (although I am higher on Jacobs than he is at the moment). We should be evaluating how many end zone looks the Giants will get without Tiki there and then factor in an appropriate conversion rate for Jacobs if he gets most of them rather than just saying essentially, "well he has to get more because he'll be playing more."

 

[packersfan]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him.

That is a legitimate concern. I think it will be offset to some degree, however, by a healthy Toomer enhancing the passing game. And if Manning shows any improvement there at all that will also be a big help for the offense as a whole. I see your point Jason but I stand by mine. I think Jacobs is a good bet to reach double-digit TDs based on his proven history of production combined with what should be a larger (and perhaps MUCH larger) role in the offense.

I don't have time to look it all up, but I generally agree with Jason (although I am higher on Jacobs than he is at the moment). We should be evaluating how many end zone looks the Giants will get without Tiki there and then factor in an appropriate conversion rate for Jacobs if he gets most of them rather than just saying essentially, "well he has to get more because he'll be playing more."

That should also take into consideration how much the offense will be helped by a healthy Toomer, a healthier Shockey and any improvement from Manning as well and maybe an impact from Smith or even Moss. Red zone opportunities aren't entirely the product of the running game.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him.

That is a legitimate concern. I think it will be offset to some degree, however, by a healthy Toomer enhancing the passing game. And if Manning shows any improvement there at all that will also be a big help for the offense as a whole. I see your point Jason but I stand by mine. I think Jacobs is a good bet to reach double-digit TDs based on his proven history of production combined with what should be a larger (and perhaps MUCH larger) role in the offense.

I don't have time to look it all up, but I generally agree with Jason (although I am higher on Jacobs than he is at the moment). We should be evaluating how many end zone looks the Giants will get without Tiki there and then factor in an appropriate conversion rate for Jacobs if he gets most of them rather than just saying essentially, "well he has to get more because he'll be playing more."

That should also take into consideration how much the offense will be helped by a healthy Toomer, a healthier Shockey and any improvement from Manning as well and maybe an impact from Smith or even Moss. Red zone opportunities aren't entirely the product of the running game.

Why would you presume every Giants skill player will improve this year? They lost their dominant offensive cog; and have suffered losses on an already mediocre offensive line. I would be surprised if the Giants scored more points offensively then they did in 2006.

 

[David Yudkin]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him.

That is a legitimate concern. I think it will be offset to some degree, however, by a healthy Toomer enhancing the passing game. And if Manning shows any improvement there at all that will also be a big help for the offense as a whole. I see your point Jason but I stand by mine. I think Jacobs is a good bet to reach double-digit TDs based on his proven history of production combined with what should be a larger (and perhaps MUCH larger) role in the offense.

I don't have time to look it all up, but I generally agree with Jason (although I am higher on Jacobs than he is at the moment). We should be evaluating how many end zone looks the Giants will get without Tiki there and then factor in an appropriate conversion rate for Jacobs if he gets most of them rather than just saying essentially, "well he has to get more because he'll be playing more."

That should also take into consideration how much the offense will be helped by a healthy Toomer, a healthier Shockey and any improvement from Manning as well and maybe an impact from Smith or even Moss. Red zone opportunities aren't entirely the product of the running game.

I don't disagree, but a trend that I see is that the team became more reliant on Barber than ever before last year. Of the factors that you listed, Toomer is by no means a lock to be a big contributor as a somewhat aging WR that lost a step even before his injury, Shockey never seems to be healthy, rookie (or green) WRs are a dicey proposition at best, and Manning seems to be headed in the wrong direction. No matter how you slice it, the Giants lost 2100+ yards of offense when Tiki called it a day. While they certainly will use other guys to accumulate yardage, I don't see anyone as talanted as Barber that makes it a lead pipe cinch that they can reproduce Barber's production.

 

[packersfan]

It's not a fallacy to say Jacobs' TD production is trending upward. He scored 7 in 2005 and 9 last season. Given that trend, it would not be unrealistic to assume he could reach 10 TDs at the very least.

That was when Barber took the Giants to the stripe, and Jacobs fell over it for the TD credit.Tiki is now gone. NYG won't have nearly the red zone opps without him.

That is a legitimate concern. I think it will be offset to some degree, however, by a healthy Toomer enhancing the passing game. And if Manning shows any improvement there at all that will also be a big help for the offense as a whole. I see your point Jason but I stand by mine. I think Jacobs is a good bet to reach double-digit TDs based on his proven history of production combined with what should be a larger (and perhaps MUCH larger) role in the offense.

I don't have time to look it all up, but I generally agree with Jason (although I am higher on Jacobs than he is at the moment). We should be evaluating how many end zone looks the Giants will get without Tiki there and then factor in an appropriate conversion rate for Jacobs if he gets most of them rather than just saying essentially, "well he has to get more because he'll be playing more."

That should also take into consideration how much the offense will be helped by a healthy Toomer, a healthier Shockey and any improvement from Manning as well and maybe an impact from Smith or even Moss. Red zone opportunities aren't entirely the product of the running game.

Why would you presume every Giants skill player will improve this year? They lost their dominant offensive cog; and have suffered losses on an already mediocre offensive line. I would be surprised if the Giants scored more points offensively then they did in 2006.

I don't presume every Giant skill player will improve. I do think Toomer's return will help the passing game but the rest were merely added to the discussion as points that need to be considered. If one is going to automatically deduct production by virtue of Barber's departure shouldn't one at least take into consideration that other players will improve? I'm not the biggest Eli Manning fan around isn't it possible he shows improvement in his third season as a starter? And if so will that not help the offense offset at least to some degree Barber's departure? And if Manning does show improvement will that not help the passing game which, in turn, could result in scoring chances for the offense and Jacobs? It's all speculation obviously but so is the belief that Jacobs can't handle the starting job at least adequately or fail to reach a level of production in terms of touchdowns that he has reached previously. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Construction Man Jim]

Exactly. Last year, the Giants AS A TEAM ran the ball 21 times at the goal line [5 yards and in]. They scored 7 TDs. Brandon Jacobs got 14 of those rushes and scored all 7 goal line TDs.He was already getting the Giants full short yardage/scoring workload a year ago. This year, with a less certain offensive line, we have no reason to suggest Jacobs' opportunities or conversion rate will improve any more than they might flatline or decline slightly.

Is the o-line really "less-certain"? Pettigout went down in week 10. The Giants ran for over 400 yards in the two games Diehl started at LT (261 wk 17 against Washington and 151 in the wild card game against Philly).Furthermore, the Giants are confident enough in Whimper or Diehl at LT that they waited until the 6th round to draft an OT... Also, the more carries Jacobs gets, the more likely he is to break a long one. That needs to be factored in as well.

 

[Jason Wood]

Exactly. Last year, the Giants AS A TEAM ran the ball 21 times at the goal line [5 yards and in]. They scored 7 TDs. Brandon Jacobs got 14 of those rushes and scored all 7 goal line TDs.

He was already getting the Giants full short yardage/scoring workload a year ago. This year, with a less certain offensive line, we have no reason to suggest Jacobs' opportunities or conversion rate will improve any more than they might flatline or decline slightly.

Is the o-line really "less-certain"? Pettigout went down in week 10. The Giants ran for over 400 yards in the two games Diehl started at LT (261 wk 17 against Washington and 151 in the wild card game against Philly).Furthermore, the Giants are confident enough in Whimper or Diehl at LT that they waited until the 6th round to draft an OT...

Also, the more carries Jacobs gets, the more likely he is to break a long one. That needs to be factored in as well.

Ouch...fallacy alert is on high in this thread. We have no idea how Jacobs will respond to more carries. He's never been a full time starter, so to presume he'll improve with more carries is a coin toss. And, given his style, I don't see why you think he's likely to break long runs regardless of his touches.

 

[Construction Man Jim]

Why would you presume every Giants skill player will improve this year? They lost their dominant offensive cog; and have suffered losses on an already mediocre offensive line. I would be surprised if the Giants scored more points offensively then they did in 2006.

They didn't "suffer losses". They cut Luke Petigout. In 2005 the Giants were 6th in the league with 2209 total rushing yards/ 138.1 yards per game. In 2006 they were 7th with 2156 and 134.8. How does that qualify as "mediocre"?

 

[Jason Wood]

Why would you presume every Giants skill player will improve this year? They lost their dominant offensive cog; and have suffered losses on an already mediocre offensive line. I would be surprised if the Giants scored more points offensively then they did in 2006.

They didn't "suffer losses". They cut Luke Petigout. In 2005 the Giants were 6th in the league with 2209 total rushing yards/ 138.1 yards per game. In 2006 they were 7th with 2156 and 134.8. How does that qualify as "mediocre"?

How much of that do you attribute to Tiki Barber? [Hint: A LOT]

 

[packersfan]

For what it's worth this is from RotoWorld:

In describing Reuben Droughns to the media, Giants RBs coach Jerald Ingram pointed out several characteristics of a third-down back.

"The thing about Reuben," Ingram says, "he is pretty decent out of the backfield as a receiver. He does a great job of picking up blitzes." Brandon Jacobs is still in line to be New York's every-down starter.

 

[massraider]

Also, the more carries Jacobs gets, the more likely he is to break a long one. That needs to be factored in as well.

And the more likely he is to wear down a defense, which gives him more chances to square his shoulders.And once he does that, it's 3 yards. At least. There's no getting stood up in the hole, and stopped for a loss. He gets hit, he is falling forward, and that's 2 yards, minimum. I don't think the Giants brough in Ruben to be part of a RBBC. I think they brought in Ruben in case Jacobs can't handle the load.

 

[switz]

However, grabbing one of only ten RB's in the NFL that has run for at least 1200 yards in 2 of the past 3 seasons is a clear indicator that they want a proven feature RB, not an understudy or someone to split time.

Or maybe they want an experienced back who can teach Jacobs? It unrealistic to think Droughns, who over the course of his career has been far less than spectacular, to beat out the NYG RB of the future.