Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What's the average height of the average male? Jacobs is the height of some of the greats so therefor he is DESTINED for greatness? I believe Jacobs will be given a chance to start and Ruben is there in case he can't go but to throw some vague correlation together and try passing it off as some great statistic is nonsense.
That is certainly a plausible outcome. Wouldn't be the first time 2 or 3 RBs in a RBBC sucked it up (Cleveland I'm looking at YOU).
Dickerson and Eddie George were 6'3". Jacobs is nothing like them, besides that he weighs 260+, not comparable in the least.Smaller backs can hide behind bigger OL's and pop through cracks, that split second of a LB not being able to locate them enables them to have success...Jacobs will have nowhere to hide, and he does not have the quickness or cutting ability of smaller RB's, either.He's a big guy who can run fast, he is an anomaly. That does not make him feature back material, though.Over the past two seasons, the Giants have rushed the ball 431 and 425 times for 2209 and 2156 yards and 16 TDs and 14 TDs respectively. They have thrown to the RBs 69 and 77 times for 641 and 668 yards and 2 and 0 TDs respectively.That's 500 total touches in 2005 and 502 in 2006. Total production was also remarkably stable with 2,850 and 2,824 yards. During that span the FB Jim Finn had 2.3% of the touches and negligible production (0 rushes for 0 yards and 13 catches for 98 yards in 2005; 2 rushes for 14 yards and 8 catches for 54 yards in 2006).Tiki Barber, the starting RB, had 82.2% of the touches in 2005 and 76.6% in 2006 [357 carries (82.8%) + 54 receptions (78.3%) = 411 total touches; 327 (76.9%) + 58 (75.3) = 385]. Production went from 1860 yards rushing (9 rushing TDs) + 530 yards receiving (2 receiving TDs) = 2390 total yards (11 total TDs) to 1662 (5) + 465 (0) = 2,127 (5). Jacobs total touches went from 7.6% to 21.3% [38 (8.8%) + 0 (0%) = 38; 96 (22.3%) + 11 (14.2%) = 107]. Production went from 99 (7) + 0 (0) = 99 (7) to 423 (9) + 149 (0) = 572 (9).So while overall RB touches and production were relatively consistent for the Giants, Tiki's touches and production trended down, while Jacobs' trended up. Jacobs increased his output significantly and ate into Tiki's totals. Yet with Tiki gone, you would have us believe that Jacobs:- Will get only 54 more carries. Even though last year with Tiki still there his carries jumped by 58.- Rush for only 192 more yards. (An average of just 3.55 yards on his additional carries).- Yards per carry will decrease from 4.4 last season to 4.1. Even though the 4.4 avg was artificially low as a result of being used primarily in goal line, short yardage and obvious running situations.- Have fewer catches than last year.- Have less than half the receiving yards.- Yards per reception will decline by more than half from 13.5 to 6.4. Even though he broke 4 of his 11 catches last year for 20+ yards (including 1 for 40+).- His TDs will decrease by 45%. This despite the fact that he scored 65% of the teams rushing TDs last year. That his 16 rushing TDs over the past two seasons (on limited carries) are 11th best in the NFL. And that his 16 TDs are 3 more than Droughns has in his 7 year career.Meanwhile:- Droughns will get more opportunities to rush the ball despite averaging fewer yards per carry.- The Giants are going to run the ball about 50 times less than their average the past two years.- The combo of Droughns/ Jacobs is going rush for 1335 yards. That's 625 yards (32%) less than the 1,959 yards Tiki/ Jacobs combined for in 2005 and 792 less (37%) than the 2,127 they combined for in 2006. - Eli Manning is going to throw the ball to his RBs at least 15 times less than in last couple years. Even though he checked down and used his RBs more in the pass game last year. - Droughns will catch twice as many balls as Jacobs and average 1.6 yards more per catch.- Droughns/ Jacobs will gain 225 receiving yards. That would be 305 yards less (58%) than Tiki gained by himself in 2005 and 347 yards less (61%) than Tiki/ Jacobs combined for in 2006.- Droughns/ Jacobs will combine for 1560 total yards; 929 yards less (37%) than the 2,489 Tiki/ Jacobs combined for in 2005 and 1,139 yards less (42%) than the 2,699 they combined for in 2006.You're not so much predicting a "dip in production" as a complete implosion.Frankly I'd be shocked to learn that a Tom Couglin led offense had ever experienced such a precipitous decline from one year to the next simply due to a changing of the guard at the RB position. Or that he had ever made such a radical philosophical change (making his offense less "RB focused") between seasons.Based on your projections it's almost hard to fathom just how "great" a player Tiki was... To accept them one would have to believe that o-line and offensive system are virtually irrelevant when it comes to rushing the ball in the NFL.The reality is Tiki had 1500+ rushing yards and 2000 total yards in each of his three season under TC. (He hadn't previously broken either threshold). Coughlin also solved his fumbling problem.I'm not saying it's unreasonable to expect some decrease in production for the Giants. Just that the shortages you are predicting are way EXTREME.I also don't think it's safe to assume Tiki's retirement will lead the Giants to rush less. There has been a lot of talk of getting back to the power running game TC ran in Jacksonville. The goal being to control the clock, wear down defenses and conversely protect the Giants defense against getting worn down. (FWIW that seemed to be how Kevin Gilbride called the last few games after taking over as OC last year). The other stated goal is to also shift some of the offensive burden off of Eli. That was part of the acknowledged problem under Hufnagle, so it would be strange if they reversed course and went back in that direction.I am not "pimping" Droughns. I am just letting people know that Jacobs is not the gold at the end of the rainbow where leagues will be won. Here's my serious analysis of how the Giants backfield will shake out based on what we know today.In 2006 Giants RB's combined for 426 rushes and 77 recepts & 14 TD's.Barber was the primary offensive weapon for the Giants, as such, the RB usage numbers were probably inflated by the team's reliance on him. Also, his success perpetuated his success, meaning his ability to control drives kept the offense on the field and kept him getting the ball.Losing Barber will do two things to the Giants:1) Become less "RB focused" on offense2) Have a dip in production because they lost a great playerTherefore it is fair to conclude that the Giants will run less than last season, and see a decline in RB recepts, and TD's because Barber won't be taking them down the field any more for Jacobs to cash in on Tiki's efforts.I'll estimate 380 carries and 55 recepts for all RB's & 10 TD's in 2007....about 3 fewer rush attempts per game and 1.5 recpts from the RB position.Right off the top, Guys like Ward, Finn, and Bradshaw are going to get some of the work, it could be anywhere from 5% to 15% of the RB load...With Bradshaw eating into some of the coveted catches in PPR leagues. This group will take at least 50 carries and 25 recepts and a few scores from Droughns/Jacobs. This number could be considerably more, but right now Bradshaw is an unknown. If he looks good with live bullets, even more production goes away.That leaves 330 carries and 30 receptions to divide among Droughns/Jacobs. Here is how it should break down right nowroughns 180 for 720 yards and 20 recepts 160 with 3 total TD'sJacobs 150 carries for 615 and 10 recepts for 65 with 5 total TD's
I have no reservations about him handling the load.
Then why are you concerned with injury? If he does anything near what you project and stays healthy for 3/4 of the season, he'll still finish top 20 easily.Seems like an easy bet for you to make based on that statement and your previous post, yet you still won't take it.
I'll even lower the target to RB 21 or better in PPR, right now FBG projections put Jacobs at RB21 in the format I am proposing.As for the actual bet, all you need to do is put: "H.K. was right, Jacobs is not feature back material" in your signature until the Super Bowl ends.I'll let you choose my sig if you win for the same time period.I'll extend the same offer to whoever else is in the Jacobs camp, too.Also, last year the Giants rushed for 2156 yards. Your projection puts them at about 1535. That means you expect the 7th ranked rushing offense of last year to be about the 28th ranked this year.
I'm not concerned about injury with Jacobs anymore than with any other starting RB. If he blows out his knee in week 3 after putting up 250 yards and 4 TDs in the first two weeks it won't prove that he's "not feature back material".Regardless, I already accepted your bet on page 2...Then why are you concerned with injury? If he does anything near what you project and stays healthy for 3/4 of the season, he'll still finish top 20 easily.Seems like an easy bet for you to make based on that statement and your previous post, yet you still won't take it.I'll even lower the target to RB 21 or better in PPR, right now FBG projections put Jacobs at RB21 in the format I am proposing.As for the actual bet, all you need to do is put: "H.K. was right, Jacobs is not feature back material" in your signature until the Super Bowl ends.I'll let you choose my sig if you win for the same time period.I'll extend the same offer to whoever else is in the Jacobs camp, too.
Kudos to you, sir. I apologize for missing it and respect you backing up your position with Jacobs. This will be remembered when I do my 2007 Shark Pool All Pro Team.FYI - I'll leave it open for any others who want to get in on it.
It's utter folly to assume that it won't. That offense ran through Tiki -- they will be nowhere near as productive without him, and with a weaker offensive line too.
I was referring to rushing attempts. And I acknowledged some drop off in production is likely. Just not the 30-40% HK is predicting.What makes you say the offensive line will be weaker?
My projection was a fall from 425 carries to 380 at the RB position, only about 10%. That's less than one carry per quarter variance....it's taking into account series not being extended because they are lacking a big time playmaker like Tiki. He's going to be missed in many ways, and over the course of a season, it will add up.Construction Man Jim said:
As I said earlier you're projecting Droughns/ Jacobs for 1560 total yards which is 1,139 yards less (42%) than the 2,699 Tiki/ Jacobs combined for in 2006. Anyway, you and I know where each other stands. I was just responding to abrecher's comment that the Giant's "will be nowhere near as productive". And pointing out that there's no justification for his "weaker offensive line" remark.
If Steven Jackson retired right now, would you expect the Rams season rushing totals to drop dramatically? If Drew Brees is lost for the season, would you expect the Saints passing totals to drop dramatically?It's folly to assume that someone can step in and fill a player of Tiki's caliber without missing a beat. Is it possible for the Giants to not miss a beat? Sure. But Tiki was a rare talent IMO, and you don't just step in and expect the Giants to be right where they were last year.
There's a considerable difference between a QB and a RB. But if Jackson retired I'd expect a drop off, but I wouldn't expect a loss of 30-40% of the rushing total. If you've been following the Giants, it was plain to see that Tiki had lost half a step last year and Jacobs was a more than capable backup. The Oline is essentially the same as the end of last year. The coaching staff is the same. I just don't see the Giants suddenly becoming one ot the worst rushing teams in the league next year.
Count me in the Bradshaw camp to initially replace Droughns to start the Year and then religate Jacobs back to spot duty by years end. The Giants got the steal of the draft.
Tiki minus half a step >>> most RBs in the NFL last year.So let's define the criteria and see what we come up with.We are looking for teams in the last 10-15 years that had a top 10 rushing attack in year N. Said team goes into year N+1 season with a new RB. It's probably better (and more helpful for your side), that we try to narrow it to teams that knew going into the season that the previous RB would no longer be there. Losing the stud RB in a preseason game isn't quite the same as what is happening in NY now, but we can include them.So I'll start with a good one of the top off my head.1998 Lions w/ Barry Sanders: 10th in rushing (1,995)1999 Lions post Barry retirement: 28th in rushing (1,245)
Well, he got injured right around the middle of the season. But Tiki's production from the first half and the second half is fairly close 889/221 vs 773/244 rushing/receiving. 5.2 vs 4.9 ypc. Seeing as the stats from last year were half from the line they'll have this upcoming year, I don't see that as a reason to significantly downgrade anyone's production.
That stat is misleading as the Lions did not have a starting caliber RB on that roster in 1999. Here is what Detroit had on their roster in the 1999 season: -Greg Hill received the most carries in that season with a whopping 144 attempts for 542 yards. Greg Hill's career year in the nfl was in 1995 when he had a grand total of 667 rushing yards.-The number 2 RB on Detroit that year was Ron Rivers and he had 82 attempts for 295 yards. That was Rivers best year in the pros.-The number 3 RB on Detroit that year was Sedrick Irvin who had 36 attempts for 133 yards and only played 2 years in the NFL. So Detroit went from arguably the best RB to ever play football to 3 RB's who were garbage. In 2000 James Stewart for Detroit (really not a starting RB in the NFL) but he did get RB1 carries and he had 339 attempts for 1184 yards and 10 TD's. Both career highs.So, although I don't expect the Giants to put up the same stats rushing as last year. I don't expect them to decline as much as Detroit did from 98 to 99. Remember R. Droughns has two 1200 yard seasons to his name.
Giants best O-lineman has been Chris Snee. Not even debatable. And they didn't "lose" Petitgout. They cut him. That should tell you something.They are very confident in Diehl and Whimper at LT. Seubert will replace Diehl at LG so not sure what Chris is talking about.
His entire physical make up, not just his height. His size leaves him ill-equipped to be successful. It's not silly, it's science - physiology and biomechanics.
Why should I care how "confident" they supposedly are? Of course they're going to say they're confident. What are they going to do, say "Yeah, our new guys suck, so we'll just have to work around it somehow"?
Point being they were confident enough in those guys to cut Luke when they did. They then passed on signing any free agents and waited until the 6th round to draft Adam Koets...So, we are dealing with some very deliberate (and well documented) actions, not just empty rhetoric.
You should be basing your projection on what you think of the relative talents of the players involved. There seems to be no reason to expect that if Jacobs or Droughns is actually a decent player that they won't be able to put up solid to great numbers.
Statements such as this are completely absurd. I don't believe you deserve the reputation you have, but with posts such as these I can understand why you're generally laughed at and ignored.
Oh, I deserve it....just not in the case of Jacobs.
Jacobs 75/15 Droughns 10 for bradshaw
sticking to this, maybe 65/35. but droughns will carry the load. count on it.
RB24? Which 23 do you have ahead of him?
LT, S.Jax, LJ, Gore, SA, Addai, W.Parker, Westbrook, Maroney, R.Johnson, R.Bush, T.Henry, McGahee, R.Brown, Edge, MJD, Portis, Benson, T.Jones, McCallister, M.Lynch, Caddy & A.Green.The last few are all real close, I have Jacobs a TD away from being top 20gianmarco said:
Not to hijack the thread, but I have Caddy in my top 15 right now.
HK alias?
