Jump to content
jshipp23

Josh Jacobs is Edgerrin James Clone..

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

This, I agree on. If you are on the fence about a RB if you need to spend a late 1st on him, given the RB position attrition, I am not sure I want to spend a 5th year option on him. 

 

For the Colts, unless he is available in the 50s, it does not make sense for us, to be honest. 

Minutes ago Mike Florio just made the opposite argument that the 5th. yr. option is a good thing for a RB because you get the extra year with the wear and tear and after five years you can get another if need be.  It's what Bellicheck did last year with Michel.  Simms mentioned teams at the top of the second as likely teams to do it.   Simms mentioned teams like the Colts at 34 and Raiders at 35 as teams who could do it and used Jacobs as an example of a player they could target if he looks like he will fall out of the 1st.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Minutes ago Mike Florio just made the opposite argument that the 5th. yr. option is a good thing for a RB because you get the extra year with the wear and tear and after five years you can get another if need be.  It's what Bellicheck did last year with Michel.  Simms mentioned teams at the top of the second as likely teams to do it.   Simms mentioned teams like the Colts at 34 and Raiders at 35 as teams who could do it and used Jacobs as an example of a player they could target if he looks like he will fall out of the 1st.   

 

If you use him right, like NE does with a 3 RB RBC, then yeah, you can use him in a disposable fashion. But if they hit a home run with him and he makes the Pro Bowl a couple of times, in all likelihood, he would want extended with a higher contract value before they pick up the 5th year option, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

I've really tried to avoid looking at running backs this year cause we never take one early even though I've been hoping for years we would...So today I decide to watch Josh Jacobs and lo and behold if he doesn't have IDENTICAL running style to James..Maybe it's meant to be?

Not to be super critical, but Edge could block, catch, great between the tackles and outside (stretch). Josh is a home run hitter, however if you'd ask someone who's not a Colts fan who does JJ remind them of, I dont think they would name Edge with all due respect. Lastly Edge ran a 4.38 forty (faster than Saquan Barkley's 4.40, and Josh's 4.5s range). Most importantly Edge had superior Vision that enabled him to cut on a dime (my gosh).

 

Josh is a super talented player but Edge is scary good. If that makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matthew Gilbert said:

My only knock on Jacobs is that he doesn't have that extra gear. But I'm ok with that. He can still rip off 20 and 30 yard runs but isn't likely to break off an 80 yard run.

I agree with that..Edge, Bell, or Bradshaw aren't home run hitters either.. We got that in Mack and Hines already.. I expect Hines to be used more as well..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edge was amazing, even as a prospect. He was a few pounds lighter than Barkley, but his combine performance was on Barkley's level. Faster 40, better 10 yard split, better shuttle... 

 

I think maybe his injury impacts the way he was remembered. Coming out, he was a freakish prospect, and his first two years in the league were outrageous. There is no RB in this year's draft that can compete with Edge as a prospect. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

If you use him right, like NE does with a 3 RB RBC, then yeah, you can use him in a disposable fashion. But if they hit a home run with him and he makes the Pro Bowl a couple of times, in all likelihood, he would want extended with a higher contract value before they pick up the 5th year option, IMO.

 

IMO, the right approach is the Gurley approach. The Rams had the fifth year option, but extended him after three years to spread out the cap hits. They had leverage with two years of control and the tag after that, and he likely wanted to cash in before stepping back on the field, which makes sense. 

 

Of course, that approach requires spending a first on a RB, which is something I don't want to do. At #26, it's more of a conversation (and I'm still opposed, most likely), but not in the top 15 for sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Not to be super critical, but Edge could block, catch, great between the tackles and outside (stretch). Josh is a home run hitter, however if you'd ask someone who's not a Colts fan who does JJ remind them of, I dont think they would name Edge with all due respect. Lastly Edge ran a 4.38 forty (faster than Saquan Barkley's 4.40, and Josh's 4.5s range). Most importantly Edge had superior Vision that enabled him to cut on a dime (my gosh).

 

Josh is a super talented player but Edge is scary good. If that makes sense. 

I'm talking Edge as a Colt post knee injury, which was most his career..He wasn't 4.38 after that.If he never had the injury it's a different conversation... Look at James clips as Colt after the injury..Same running style both all around backs that lack top end speed, patient runners, good vision.. Before injury edge had home run speed but that was short lived here unfortunately..Preinjury edge would already be in Hall of Fame if that didn't happen..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of great running backs didn't have top speed. For every Eric Dickerson there's a Emmitt Smith. Bell isn't a speedster either, but the quality runners have vision and know when to hit the hole..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jshipp23 said:

I've really tried to avoid looking at running backs this year cause we never take one early even though I've been hoping for years we would...So today I decide to watch Josh Jacobs and lo and behold if he doesn't have IDENTICAL running style to James..Maybe it's meant to be?

 

Before or after James ACL tear?  If its before he should go in the top 10. 

 

I haven't looked at RBs at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fluke_33 said:

 

Before or after James ACL tear?  If its before he should go in the top 10. 

 

I haven't looked at RBs at all.

After...Before James was a freak...I still remember when he was a rookie and destroyed the Saints in preseason and was in awe of it, and forgot all about Marshall Faulk..

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Superman said:

his first two years in the league were outrageous

 

I'd say so!  He lead the league in rushing as a rookie and i believe the next year as well.  Loved that guy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jshipp23 said:

After...Before James was a freak...I still remember when he was a rookie and destroyed the Saints in preseason and was in awe of it, and forgot all about Marshall Faulk..

Same here!  I don't hate many former colts but i hate faulk.  I think he quit on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs is very much like Edge post injury which was majority of his career..He will get you 4+ yards a carry, always falls forward, great blocker,vision, protects the ball, will get you between 50 and 70 receptions and 1,000 to 1,400 rushing yards per year and some pro bowl appearances..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ColtJax said:

A lot of great running backs didn't have top speed. For every Eric Dickerson there's a Emmitt Smith. Bell isn't a speedster either, but the quality runners have vision and know when to hit the hole..

He's not Emmitt Smith either .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, krunk said:

He's not Emmitt Smith either .

Yeah it is unfair for anyone to compare players coming out to guys like Emmitt, Walter, Eric, Barry, etc.. Barkley has been the only RB in over a decade I have done that with but Barkley will without a doubt live up to his billing. He already has in his rookie season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 11 years with over 3,000 rushes, E James had 6 rushes that were +40 yds. 

 

In 11 years with over 3,000 rushes E James had 45 rushes that were +20 yds. (1.5 % of carries)

 

So, with even the best of NFL running backs, 98.5 % of the time it's all about getting four or five yards consistently, and then breaking  off some ten, twelve yard runs.

 

If Jacobs can produce well within 15 yards of the LOS, I'm all for drafting him.

 

 

Move the chains!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, akcolt said:

The kid who reminds me of Edge is David Montgomery. He runs with the same patience slow to and fast through. If we go RB day 2 that’s who gets my vote. He’d pair perfectly with Mack.

Exactly.  Same number and everything.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't you comparing Fournette to Bo Jackson a few hrs ago??

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fournette isn't what he was , he got ran into the ground at LSU...He doesn't have the explosion he used to possess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so i will eat my hat. I was wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...