OT: For All You Giants Fans, Jacobs Requested A Trade Today.

atribecalledrch · Post #41 » by **atribecalledrch** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:38 pm

Rich Rane wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:Look Jacobs is not gonna find a team. He is in the second year of his 25 mil contract so why should the Packers pay that much for a backup? And Jacobs isnt even a top 20 RB in this league. Theirs alot of guys more coveted than him.

Well if the Packers are really willing to let A.J. Hawk go and trade him for someone like Jacobs, I believe they would save around almost $1 million. However, the Giants could face stiff competition from the Bills with Lynch and the Ravens with McGahee.

Exactly.

MikeTheIntern32 · Post #42 » by **MikeTheIntern32** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:40 pm

knicks9784 wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:Look Jacobs is not gonna find a team. He is in the second year of his 25 mil contract so why should the Packers pay that much for a backup? And Jacobs isnt even a top 20 RB in this league. Theirs alot of guys more coveted than him.

if mcfadden goes down, he's a raider lol

You're actually probably right. I don't know what they would give up for Jacobs or if the Giants would even want that but if I was the Giants I'd trade him to Oakland out of spite. Over the past years Oakland has destroyed the careers of players how were scouted with high potential. Jamarcus Russel, Darren Mcfadden and now Jason Campbell. I'd trade him there just to put the final nail in the coffin in his bust career. Mcfadden has been looking pretty good though, who's their backup RB? Fargas signed with Denver, they might try and trade for Jacobs whether Mcfadden is healthy or not.

hobojoe2131 · Post #43 » by **hobojoe2131** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:42 pm

Rich Rane wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:Look Jacobs is not gonna find a team. He is in the second year of his 25 mil contract so why should the Packers pay that much for a backup? And Jacobs isnt even a top 20 RB in this league. Theirs alot of guys more coveted than him.

Well if the Packers are really willing to let A.J. Hawk go and trade him for someone like Jacobs, I believe they would save around almost $1 million. However, the Giants could face stiff competition from the Bills with Lynch and the Ravens with McGahee.

Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

hobojoe2131 · Post #44 » by **hobojoe2131** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:43 pm

knicks9784 wrote:

i'll give u bart scott (i'll never forget when i had to shake my head for his comments after the dolphin game and the wildcat shredded them up), but what have the other 2 done since being with the jets to make them immature babies?

Cromartie just sounds stupid between the not remembering his own kids' names and the scottie pippen, but that isn't really immature. And wasn't Jenkins the main culprit of the Ines Sainz thing?

bishnykfan · Post #45 » by **bishnykfan** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:43 pm

All this talk about the Giants trading him are pretty insignificant IMO. Even if he demanded a trade the Giants are not going to give in and leave themselves with just Bradshaw and Danny Ware. If they could get AJ Hawk sure they would help themselves at LB, but they would open a huge hole at RB. Bradshaw has not been the most durable guy the past few years. They will wait until the offseason IMO, and move him for a couple middle of the road picks.

MaseInYourFace · Post #46 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:45 pm

Jets fan here, but I don't hate the Giants and I follow them casually. I think Jacobs is done personally. Dude just doesn't have that burst, that force he had during their SB year...

atribecalledrch · Post #47 » by **atribecalledrch** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:45 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:
Rich Rane wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:Look Jacobs is not gonna find a team. He is in the second year of his 25 mil contract so why should the Packers pay that much for a backup? And Jacobs isnt even a top 20 RB in this league. Theirs alot of guys more coveted than him.

Well if the Packers are really willing to let A.J. Hawk go and trade him for someone like Jacobs, I believe they would save around almost $1 million. However, the Giants could face stiff competition from the Bills with Lynch and the Ravens with McGahee.

Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

McGahee is a seasoned vet. His leadership and the fact that he has no problem not getting a bunch of snaps helps his chances. Plus he has no problem being on the bench so he can be there next season. The Paclers are not gonna trade for a guy who has 3 years left, intends to start after this season, and will only do the same thing after Grant gets his job back.

hobojoe2131 · Post #48 » by **hobojoe2131** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:50 pm

atribecalledrch wrote:
hobojoe2131 wrote:
Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

McGahee is a seasoned vet. His leadership and the fact that he has no problem not getting a bunch of snaps helps his chances. Plus he has no problem being on the bench so he can be there next season. The Paclers are not gonna trade for a guy who has 3 years left, intends to start after this season, and will only do the same thing after Grant gets his job back.

There are no season vets at the RB spot. RB"s are just a ticking time bomb until they're irrelevant. The point about Grant is valid though. But still, the Pack want to win this year, and moving for Jacobs would be a solid move for them.

Post #49 » by **Rich Rane** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:54 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

I wouldn't put it past them. Lynch could've made it easier for the Bills' FO after bolting the locker room after they lost to the Packers. Adam Schefter reported McGahee could be had for a pick and isn't a far dropoff, if at all, from Jacobs, who is being more finesse than physical the last two years. I'm willing to bet Giants wouldn't mind not trading him and holding him to the offseason for a pick by then.

atribecalledrch · Post #50 » by **atribecalledrch** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:55 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:
hobojoe2131 wrote:
Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

McGahee is a seasoned vet. His leadership and the fact that he has no problem not getting a bunch of snaps helps his chances. Plus he has no problem being on the bench so he can be there next season. The Paclers are not gonna trade for a guy who has 3 years left, intends to start after this season, and will only do the same thing after Grant gets his job back.

There are no season vets at the RB spot. RB"s are just a ticking time bomb until they're irrelevant. The point about Grant is valid though. But still, the Pack want to win this year, and moving for Jacobs would be a solid move for them.

Really? Explain LT. Who everyone says was washed up. Yet he looks like he's in 2006. Look at Emmit. He played until he was 35 where he still managed to get 900 yards rushing. And McGahee isnt even 30 yet.

hobojoe2131 · Post #51 » by **hobojoe2131** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:55 pm

What did I tell you about confirming before posting? Silly interns...

Adam_Schefter
Giants RB Brandon Jacobs is unhappy in NY -- no secret. But he has not requested a trade at this time, nor is NY willing to deal him.
1 minute ago from web

I am Ra · Post #52 » by **I am Ra** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:56 pm

Im not reading through this, but Ill say what ive been saying for a bit now, CUT BRANDON JACOBS

He is only hurting this team IMO.

MikeTheIntern32 · Post #53 » by **MikeTheIntern32** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:56 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:
Rich Rane wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:Look Jacobs is not gonna find a team. He is in the second year of his 25 mil contract so why should the Packers pay that much for a backup? And Jacobs isnt even a top 20 RB in this league. Theirs alot of guys more coveted than him.

Well if the Packers are really willing to let A.J. Hawk go and trade him for someone like Jacobs, I believe they would save around almost $1 million. However, the Giants could face stiff competition from the Bills with Lynch and the Ravens with McGahee.

Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

In 109 carries last year McGahee averaged 5.0 yards per and had 12 TD's.
In 224 carries last year Jacobs averaged 3.7 yards per carry and had 5 TD's
Yes McGahee is mostly a red zone runner but that isn't all he's worth, he catches as well.
This is my cue to stop taking anything this guy says seriously, he's clearly a delusional **** and I hope the rest of you Giants fans aren't this blind.

hobojoe2131 · Post #54 » by **hobojoe2131** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:59 pm

MikeTheIntern32 wrote:
hobojoe2131 wrote:
Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

In 109 carries last year McGahee averaged 5.0 yards per and had 12 TD's.
In 224 carries last year Jacobs averaged 3.7 yards per carry and had 5 TD's
Yes McGahee is mostly a red zone runner but that isn't all he's worth, he catches as well.
This is my cue to stop taking anything this guy says seriously, he's clearly a delusional **** and I hope the rest of you Giants fans aren't this blind.

Very few teams would take McGahee over Jacobs. Not realizing this is just sad.

aveboogie7 · Post #55 » by **aveboogie7** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:59 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:
atribecalledrch wrote:
hobojoe2131 wrote:
Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

McGahee is a seasoned vet. His leadership and the fact that he has no problem not getting a bunch of snaps helps his chances. Plus he has no problem being on the bench so he can be there next season. The Paclers are not gonna trade for a guy who has 3 years left, intends to start after this season, and will only do the same thing after Grant gets his job back.

There are no season vets at the RB spot. RB"s are just a ticking time bomb until they're irrelevant. The point about Grant is valid though. But still, the Pack want to win this year, and moving for Jacobs would be a solid move for them.

Jacobs does nothing for GB besides damage their salary cap.

They're a passing offense first and foremost. You need better hands than Jacobs to play there.

Lynch and McGahee are much better options.

All that, AND Jacobs is done as a RB.

MikeTheIntern32 · Post #56 » by **MikeTheIntern32** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:00 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:What did I tell you about confirming before posting? Silly interns...

Adam_Schefter
Giants RB Brandon Jacobs is unhappy in NY -- no secret. But he has not requested a trade at this time, nor is NY willing to deal him.
1 minute ago from web

Lol Shut the hell up, you act like RealGM has some no rumor policy. If the Jets were reported to trade Sanchez and it wasn't confirmed you would be giddy and say we gave up on him or some ****. The point is, Jacobs is a crybaby and poison to your team. Its obvious.

MaseInYourFace · Post #57 » by **MaseInYourFace** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:01 pm

McGahee had elite RB talent but the injuries made him a backup. Jacobs IMO has always been best used as part of a 2 or 3 RB attack. What ruins it with him is that he had a couple of good years and is now making some money and he's gotten an ego. He thinks he's much better than what he is...

MikeTheIntern32 · Post #58 » by **MikeTheIntern32** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:05 pm

hobojoe2131 wrote:
MikeTheIntern32 wrote:
hobojoe2131 wrote:
Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.

In 109 carries last year McGahee averaged 5.0 yards per and had 12 TD's.
In 224 carries last year Jacobs averaged 3.7 yards per carry and had 5 TD's
Yes McGahee is mostly a red zone runner but that isn't all he's worth, he catches as well.
This is my cue to stop taking anything this guy says seriously, he's clearly a delusional **** and I hope the rest of you Giants fans aren't this blind.

Very few teams would take McGahee over Jacobs. Not realizing this is just sad.

Jacobs is done for! If very few teams would take McGahee over Jacobs, McGahee a RB that actually produces and is versatile then many teams have a poor GM. Why would anyone want a power RB who doesn't have power anymore over a power RB with power (Lynch) or a balanced RB who can catch out the backfield (McGahee)? Jacobs does one thing, run people over and he can't even do it anymore, he's battered. Live with it.

Jammer345 · Post #59 » by **Jammer345** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:20 pm

MikeTheIntern32 wrote:
knicks9784 wrote:
Jammer345 wrote:the funny thing is, that a lot of Jet Fans I know were quiet after the week one loss. Now that they won and the Giants lost they come out and talk ****. To be honest, Jacobs is frustrated, fine, who cares? Our O-line was terrible, looked slow and old, but the fact that the Topic starter essentially baited Giant fans is wrong. Grow up. What was the point to sticking it to Giant fans? Childish antics.

lol well the same thing happened last week by giants fans when the jets lost

so i dont know what you would have expected. the skys not falling on either team, but the backlash to the jets loss by giants fan's / jet's haters is why the giants are getting it stuck them now after their loss and drama.

I don't give two **** about the Giants honestly. Unless they're playing the Jets IDGAF. But since someone decided to quickly make a post to shame Jets fans after their lost to the Ravens, you better believe we aren't gonna just sit and take that ****. You sound like a little girl. "C'mon guys, why are you kicking me while I'm down and at my lowest point? Thats uncalled for and childish." Grow up...? STFU, stop crying like a bitch and man up, you lost. Take the punishment, don't start nothin' won't be nothin'. Its already been started so it's gonna be sometin'. Live with it. If you don't like it GTFO the topic and read something else.

Im glad you can read my post where I knew we got massacred, our O-Line was exposed Eli had exactly half a second to get throws off and we looked terrible. how am I not stating that we got kicked around? how am I crying when I explicitly stated we essentially played like a pop warner team last night? BTW IDGAF about the jets either, I'll root for any team in the NFL before I back the Jets. So the feeling is mutual.

Jammer345 · Post #60 » by **Jammer345** » Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:23 pm

Well if the Packers are really willing to let A.J. Hawk go and trade him for someone like Jacobs, I believe they would save around almost $1 million. However, the Giants could face stiff competition from the Bills with Lynch and the Ravens with McGahee.[/quote]

Once again, Lynch isn't going anywhere, and Jacobs is better than McGahee.[/quote]
In 109 carries last year McGahee averaged 5.0 yards per and had 12 TD's.
In 224 carries last year Jacobs averaged 3.7 yards per carry and had 5 TD's
Yes McGahee is mostly a red zone runner but that isn't all he's worth, he catches as well.
This is my cue to stop taking anything this guy says seriously, he's clearly a delusional **** and I hope the rest of you Giants fans aren't this blind.

[/quote]

I do agree with you that Jacobs either A) Needs to run the way he used to and not dance at the hole or B) at least become a reliable short yardage guy but he also is too talented to just release, so he'll still be here. The thing with McGahee is that he is more effective since he has Rice to take most of the punishment or McClain.