Thought that you guys would want to see this.

[BIGBLUE01]

And your point? The Dog (not responding to you in this thread earlier by the way), stated that:

1. the article has merit

2. Jacobs is unproven, Drougns is not.

3. The loss of Barber will have an impact

4. You must go beyond the statistics in analysis

5. You are limited

6. Drougns is successful based on what he has done as a full time back in the NFL (see #4)

7. You are limited

8. You may not fully understand the definition of sarcasm

 

 

...Uhhhhhh, nevermind

[ksm7]

I don't think you are casting unreasonable doubts, but the reporter definitely is putting a serious negative spin on the situation.

 

Tiki's style of running would give him the occasional negative rush--but he would also come up with the 20+ yard rush during a game. That would help balance out Tiki's numbers, and over the last few years with the improvement of our OLine, those negative rushes lessened, really raising his average.

 

Jacobs strikes me as a different style. I don't think he'll give us as many long runs as Tiki did, but in situations where Tiki was getting negative yardage, Jacobs will probably still get one or two yards. As I see it, we're less likely to go from 1st down on our 20 to 1st down on your 20, but we are also going to be less likely to see 3rd and long, or at least 3 and out. From a ball control standpoint, I prefer the latter.

 

Droughns was a good running back behind a miserable OLine in Cleveland--especially last year. I think it was a great pickup by us, and we got him for a steal considering that we traded Tim Carter. Jacobs having 300+ carries a season like Tiki did would probably give him a 4 year career with his current running style, and that would be a waste. Both of them getting around 150-200 carries would be a nice split, maintain the same pounding style regardless of who is in, and still keep them fresh. That, of course, assuming that Droughn's time in Cleveland hasn't ruined him. Neither is likely to get Tiki's numbers by themselves, but the two of them should approximate Tiki's rushing numbers nicely. And neither will feel burnout by the end of the season, when the running game becomes essential at home.

 

(NOTE: I'm assuming that Gilbride won't do something stupid like rush one full-time and leave the other on the bench, in which the previous paragraph goes out the window, along with the season.)

 

We're probably going to miss Tiki in passing and blitz pickup. Believe it or not, probably more in blitz pickup--because for a little guy, Tiki did very well with it. The last couple of years, for some reason, Eli and Tiki never did as much damage as Collins and Tiki did--that might be a combination of scheming, bad passing, and dropped balls. But Jacobs has done ok with the few balls thrown his way, so I'm not as worried about that.

 

Agreed - The article is simply stating that Barber's production will most likely be missed, unless the current question marks pan out...The Dog isn't sold on Jacobs as of yet, and it appears that the Giants organization may not be, as they didn't just turn over the reigns to him...time will tell...

[fishgutmartyr]

Agreed - The article is simply stating that Barber's production will most likely be missed, unless the current question marks pan out...The Dog isn't sold on Jacobs as of yet, and it appears that the Giants organization may not be, as they didn't just turn over the reigns to him...time will tell...

 

I don't think the trade has that appearance at all. The Giants were down 2 RBs (Tiki and Morton) when they made the trade. Ward was injured for the second year in a row, and who knows how long he'll last. Hell, if we had LdT, 1 empty spot, and a chance for a respectable back like Droughns for a waste of space like Tim Carter, I'd STILL make that trade and not look back.

[ksm7]

I don't think the trade has that appearance at all. The Giants were down 2 RBs (Tiki and Morton) when they made the trade. Ward was injured for the second year in a row, and who knows how long he'll last. Hell, if we had LdT, 1 empty spot, and a chance for a respectable back like Droughns for a waste of space like Tim Carter, I'd STILL make that trade and not look back.

 

but the Dog wonders, do you bring in a back that has rushed for over 3000 yards in the three years he has been a starter (2 with the Browns) to spot play for a back that has yet to be anything more then a short yardage specialist? The appearance to the Dog is that they are not sure Jacobs is the man...potential is there, but he has not proven anything as of yet in terms of being the number one guy...

[Nesta]

but the Dog wonders, do you bring in a back that has rushed for over 3000 yards in the three years he has been a starter (2 with the Browns) to spot play for a back that has yet to be anything more then a short yardage specialist? The appearance to the Dog is that they are not sure Jacobs is the man...potential is there, but he has not proven anything as of yet in terms of being the number one guy...

 

If it only costs you a perennially injured widereceiver that you were likely to cut anyway, hell yeah you bring in Droughns. Confidence in BJ or not, it's called insurance.

I think he's shown he's more than a short yardage specialist. He was 4.9 ypc on 1st downs, and 4.5 on 2nd. He's only unproven, imo, in whether or not he can hold up to the workload. Will he take on too many tacklers and bang himself up? That's what I'm worried about, but luckily we'll have Droughns to share a little. And the new kid, don't forget about him.

[fishgutmartyr]

but the Dog wonders, do you bring in a back that has rushed for over 3000 yards in the three years he has been a starter (2 with the Browns) to spot play for a back that has yet to be anything more then a short yardage specialist? The appearance to the Dog is that they are not sure Jacobs is the man...potential is there, but he has not proven anything as of yet in terms of being the number one guy...

Hell yes, if you can get him on the cheap.

 

Even if Jacobs makes you think that you wasted money on the trade, it's no sure thing that he goes through the entire season uninjured. Look how screwed Seattle was when Alexander went down--granted, they lost Hasselbeck for a few games as well, but they never got their running game going last season.

 

Like I said, if I had Tomlinson and could get Droughns, I'd do it. Why do you think San Diego is in no rush to get rid of their backup?

 

Don't get me wrong: I see your point, but I don't consider the trade a lack of faith by the Giants in Jacobs.

[ksm7]

Hell yes, if you can get him on the cheap.

 

Even if Jacobs makes you think that you wasted money on the trade, it's no sure thing that he goes through the entire season uninjured. Look how screwed Seattle was when Alexander went down--granted, they lost Hasselbeck for a few games as well, but they never got their running game going last season.

 

Like I said, if I had Tomlinson and could get Droughns, I'd do it. Why do you think San Diego is in no rush to get rid of their backup?

 

Don't get me wrong: I see your point, but I don't consider the trade a lack of faith by the Giants in Jacobs.

 

fair enough...The Dog agrees that it was a nice pick-up, and perhaps has more faith in droughns then in Jacobs at this time...again, time will tell