Josh Jacobs facing charges…

[Magooch]

So the most recent reports (Rapaport) are suggesting that Jacobs will be missing 5-8 games minimum at this point. The league has filed a request for the video footage and it seems by all accounts they don't intend to let him return to play until they have seen the tape.

So let's err on the high end there and say it's 8 games. At what point does the team simply decide to move on and just be done with him? This isn't a discussion on "tanking" nor is it even meant to be specifically addressing Jacobs' legal issues per se....

But practically speaking I think it was most likely he wouldn't be back in 2027 in the first place. And now he'd theoretically be returning behind a swiss cheese OL and having been prohibited from practicing with the team for 2+ months. I don't know the precise cap implications between cutting him this season vs cutting in the offseason (pre/post June 1) but I wonder if there's not a certain point where the team basically feels there's little to no benefit in bothering with bringing him back

 

[AKCheese]

We all are talking about this w/o knowing WTF actually happened… I personally would put my money on M$ A$H Ca$h ibasically being a gold digging hooker and Jacobs F’d up. Whatever… screw them both… I care mainly about the GBPs.Can GB recover any cap space via personal conduct clauses by throwing Jacobs under the bus? I’m a Packer fan/owner… but this dragging out this long ago over a bump on the head is getting ridiculous

 

[AKCheese]

We all are talking about this w/o knowing WTF actually happened… I personally would put my money on M$ A$H Ca$h ibasically being a gold digging hooker and Jacobs F’d up. Whatever… screw them both… I care mainly about the GBPs.Can GB recover any cap space via personal conduct clauses by throwing Jacobs under the bus? I’m a Packer fan/owner… but this dragging out this long ago over a bump on the head is getting ridiculous

 

[Magooch]

Like I said I'm not really talking about it from a conduct angle or even about the specifics of the case per se. The bottom line is that we are at best looking at Jacobs missing 1/3rd of the season, probably more likely closer to 1/2 of it.

And outside of all that, he is only under contract through 2027, next year he has a cap hit of ~16.5m and only ~3m of dead cap if we cut him, with no guaranteed money left. IMO there was/is a strong possibility that Jacobs was going to be cut after the 2026 season anyways.

as I understand it there'd be the same ~3.1m dead cap both this year and next year if he were cut now, along with about 11m in savings this season and something like 13.5m next season but that doesn't account for what has theoretically already been paid out this season. I do think they can void some guaranteed if he were in theory cut for conduct detrimental to the team or whatnot but he didn't have any guarantees beyond roster bonus so practically speaking I'm not sure there'd be much to recover one way or another. but I do wonder if the team feels like the season isn't going that great by the time he's ready to return if they just pull off that bandaid early. Regardless of our perception of the case the public perception is NOT good for Jacobs and it would not be a popular look for the team to bring him back into the fold, especially if you're not making an appreciable playoff push or whatnot...

 

[OldSchool101]

Like I said I'm not really talking about it from a conduct angle or even about the specifics of the case per se. The bottom line is that we are at best looking at Jacobs missing 1/3rd of the season, probably more likely closer to 1/2 of it.

And outside of all that, he is only under contract through 2027, next year he has a cap hit of ~16.5m and only ~3m of dead cap if we cut him, with no guaranteed money left. IMO there was/is a strong possibility that Jacobs was going to be cut after the 2026 season anyways.

as I understand it there'd be the same ~3.1m dead cap both this year and next year if he were cut now, along with about 11m in savings this season and something like 13.5m next season but that doesn't account for what has theoretically already been paid out this season. I do think they can void some guaranteed if he were in theory cut for conduct detrimental to the team or whatnot but he didn't have any guarantees beyond roster bonus so practically speaking I'm not sure there'd be much to recover one way or another. but I do wonder if the team feels like the season isn't going that great by the time he's ready to return if they just pull off that bandaid early. Regardless of our perception of the case the public perception is NOT good for Jacobs and it would not be a popular look for the team to bring him back into the fold, especially if you're not making an appreciable playoff push or whatnot...

It’s a messed up situation with no clear outcome. We’re being held for ransom by the NFL and it’s merely on a “guess”. Hypothesis if you would, but a guess either way. People like making examples out of others until THEY are the ones under a microscope. Quick to judge and quicker to beg for mercy.

Just my opinion but a 6 week or
8 week suspension will have zero difference in Josh’s response. He’s already accepted responsibility and taken correct steps to learn from it. At this juncture the NFL is using a hostage situation to create a stink that harmful and against the will of BOTH plaintiff and Defendant without even knowing the full story.
One 15 second clip of a 15 minute back n forth altercation is like watching a football player push someone after they’ve been taunted all day. It’s rarely an accurate depiction of events.

 

[Poppa San]

Whether he stays on the roster after coming off the penalty probably hinges on two things.
1) Is it before the Nov elections? If not the season is half over and it'd be 2-3 weeks of practice before playing.
2} What is the condition of the RB room. Does it look viable and healthy? If not then he's needed as a body if nothing else.

 

[milani]

So the most recent reports (Rapaport) are suggesting that Jacobs will be missing 5-8 games minimum at this point. The league has filed a request for the video footage and it seems by all accounts they don't intend to let him return to play until they have seen the tape.

So let's err on the high end there and say it's 8 games. At what point does the team simply decide to move on and just be done with him? This isn't a discussion on "tanking" nor is it even meant to be specifically addressing Jacobs' legal issues per se....

But practically speaking I think it was most likely he wouldn't be back in 2027 in the first place. And now he'd theoretically be returning behind a swiss cheese OL and having been prohibited from practicing with the team for 2+ months. I don't know the precise cap implications between cutting him this season vs cutting in the offseason (pre/post June 1) but I wonder if there's not a certain point where the team basically feels there's little to no benefit in bothering with bringing him back

Good time to give these other running backs the reps. Even though it will not win games the experience in 2026 can certainly help in 2027 with or without Jacobs. In 2010 we were left with Brandon Jacobs as our only RB in the first week of the season. He did not light up anything but the reps allowed him to execute pieces of the offense like pass blocking and screens. And when rookie James Starks was able to join the team in the back half of the year he was able to spell him. Come playoff time that was valuable.

 

[El Guapo]

Good time to give these other running backs the reps.

That is spot on. We are getting our best look at the other backs and will know what we need to do in the next offseason.

Jacobs handled this poorly. We can assess how his girlfriend handled it, but it really doesn't matter. Jacobs had options and he chose ones that led down this road. If he is truly guilt-free, he would find a way to get his security footage to the NFL. I'm sure that his attorney has advised against this, and therefore things will drag on.

 

[milani]

That is spot on. We are getting our best look at the other backs and will know what we need to do in the next offseason.

Jacobs handled this poorly. We can assess how his girlfriend handled it, but it really doesn't matter. Jacobs had options and he chose ones that led down this road. If he is truly guilt-free, he would find a way to get his security footage to the NFL. I'm sure that his attorney has advised against this, and therefore things will drag on.

Men can be so wise. They can make every scientific discovery in the world. But when it comes to women we can be so dumb. And I for one plead guilty.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That is spot on. We are getting our best look at the other backs and will know what we need to do in the next offseason.

Jacobs handled this poorly. We can assess how his girlfriend handled it, but it really doesn't matter. Jacobs had options and he chose ones that led down this road. If he is truly guilt-free, he would find a way to get his security footage to the NFL. I'm sure that his attorney has advised against this, and therefore things will drag on.

You are absolutely right EG, this cluster f is Jacobs' responsibility. I'm surprised the league hasn't issued a formal suspension, but they want to see the video. And yeah, this could drag on. I do understand why the victim would not want the video released, although she seems to want maximum punishment for Jacobs. Well, that's what I'm reading into this. At the same time, I can understand why both she and Jacobs would not want the video released.

This is a horrible season all around I guess. To paraphrase Bill Bellichik, "On to Tampa Bay."

 

[tynimiller]

That is spot on. We are getting our best look at the other backs and will know what we need to do in the next offseason.

Jacobs handled this poorly. We can assess how his girlfriend handled it, but it really doesn't matter. Jacobs had options and he chose ones that led down this road. If he is truly guilt-free, he would find a way to get his security footage to the NFL. I'm sure that his attorney has advised against this, and therefore things will drag on.

I'm just curious how can we assess how his girlfriend handled it? I've only ever seen the initial filing report with the description of events gathered from her side and that's it? Has there ever been any additional documents or such to come out in court or out?

Now, before ANYONE runs with the above and starts thinking for a second I'm heading towards defending Jacobs decision to in some fashion physically assault her. However, having enough LEO friends and have had some family members or close friends involved in domestic violence or dispute cases (lack of a better all encompassing term)...and the degree of physical assault is something massively wider than people realize. So, I know for my sake I want to see the video because he could have shoved her out of the way just to move her aside in an almost dissmissive way or exerted significant force and intent to harm...yet same charges could be pressed.

I'll share a case a buddy in a local town got a call on. He arrives and the husband is sitting on the front porch smoking a cigaratte while the wife is screaming at him and crying. My police buddy, not having a secondary office present yet (they were incoming). He asked the wife to calm down and if she would come over and talk to him away from the husband (separate the two). He proceeds to get a story about how she came out of the bathroom and entered the living room only to have the husband throw a baseball at her...striking her in the left side of her face (she turned her head seeing it coming). Another officer now arrives and my buddy tells the other officer to go talk to the husband as he hadn't had a chance yet.

LONG story shorter....the husband shares the story farther back than the moment of the baseball...he had admitted to his wife that he had cheated on her that night. She rightly flipped out, kicking and hitting him at times (he had bruises to show for it). She had even scratched his neck, breaking skin. She then had grabbed a baseball off of a shelf in the living room and threw it at him...striking him in the chest. She went to the bathroom to clean her hands from the blood she'd got from his neck...yelling and screaming at him the entire time. In the screaming she hurls at him that she also had cheated on him...with a family member of his.

At this moment she came out of the bathroom and he threw the ball striking her in the head.

The husband never pressed charges...the wife did. He pleaded guilty and was convicted of some kind of domestic charge.

That man in the story had NO just cause for throwing the ball...he did not fear for his life...BUT not that it changes whether a charge is justified...knowing the entirety of context absolutely could change the severity of penalty applied in my opinion.

I personally still don't know enough from Jacobs case whether I'm fine with him coming back, us cutting him or the NFL indefinitely banning him....all are very much in play for me given the extremely limited information known.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm just curious how can we assess how his girlfriend handled it? I've only ever seen the initial filing report with the description of events gathered from her side and that's it? Has there ever been any additional documents or such to come out in court or out?

Now, before ANYONE runs with the above and starts thinking for a second I'm heading towards defending Jacobs decision to in some fashion physically assault her. However, having enough LEO friends and have had some family members or close friends involved in domestic violence or dispute cases (lack of a better all encompassing term)...and the degree of physical assault is something massively wider than people realize. So, I know for my sake I want to see the video because he could have shoved her out of the way just to move her aside in an almost dissmissive way or exerted significant force and intent to harm...yet same charges could be pressed.

I'll share a case a buddy in a local town got a call on. He arrives and the husband is sitting on the front porch smoking a cigaratte while the wife is screaming at him and crying. My police buddy, not having a secondary office present yet (they were incoming). He asked the wife to calm down and if she would come over and talk to him away from the husband (separate the two). He proceeds to get a story about how she came out of the bathroom and entered the living room only to have the husband throw a baseball at her...striking her in the left side of her face (she turned her head seeing it coming). Another officer now arrives and my buddy tells the other officer to go talk to the husband as he hadn't had a chance yet.

LONG story shorter....the husband shares the story farther back than the moment of the baseball...he had admitted to his wife that he had cheated on her that night. She rightly flipped out, kicking and hitting him at times (he had bruises to show for it). She had even scratched his neck, breaking skin. She then had grabbed a baseball off of a shelf in the living room and threw it at him...striking him in the chest. She went to the bathroom to clean her hands from the blood she'd got from his neck...yelling and screaming at him the entire time. In the screaming she hurls at him that she also had cheated on him...with a family member of his.

At this moment she came out of the bathroom and he threw the ball striking her in the head.

The husband never pressed charges...the wife did. He pleaded guilty and was convicted of some kind of domestic charge.

That man in the story had NO just cause for throwing the ball...he did not fear for his life...BUT not that it changes whether a charge is justified...knowing the entirety of context absolutely could change the severity of penalty applied in my opinion.

I personally still don't know enough from Jacobs case whether I'm fine with him coming back, us cutting him or the NFL indefinitely banning him....all are very much in play for me given the extremely limited information known.

Good points. The measure we give is the measure we get. Pressed down and overflowing with abundance. That’s why I try not to supply my own verdict, I don’t need more trouble, I’ve already got enough for the day!

 

[AKCheese]

I’m think the NFL has got to get off the dime soon. IMO they look bad if they wait and give him 6 games after he’s already sat 5.

 

[OldSchool101]

I’m think the NFL has got to get off the dime soon. IMO they look bad if they wait and give him 6 games after he’s already sat 5.

I agree they need to wrap this up.

Punish the player not the team. It’s actually a bad look on the NFL it makes them look scared and indecisive imo. They’ve either

1. Punished a player who’s not deserving of the level of punishment and the NFL is doing this without proper information.

OR

2. They are deserving of punishment because facts are gathered and thus are purposely holding an entire franchise hostage without coming to a determination.

Theres only 2 possibilities and neither are fair or equitable imo.

 

[OldSchool101]

Also even if I yield on the singular player topic? The NFL operated on a “Non-Profit” status until 2015. They essentially stole from the American People itself. They make Brett Favre look like a Saint and nobody is even talking about this. I motion to investigate tax fraud (through their ranks) and let’s hold the NFL responsible by using the same level of scrutiny that they apply to athletes. Let’s shut them down while we investigate Tax Fraud and we can let them know our determination in a couple of seasons.

 

[Poppa San]

It's probably in here but the thread is too long.
When the suspension is announced and then completed, does the team get cap relief for the games he's suspended and isn't paid?

 

[Magooch]

It's probably in here but the thread is too long.
When the suspension is announced and then completed, does the team get cap relief for the games he's suspended and isn't paid?

That's my understanding, yes. Right now Jacobs' salary is still counting against our cap for the games he's missing while on the commissioner's list. If/when the league hands out a suspension, however many games he's given those wages will be forfeited and serve as effective cap relief, I believe

 

[Heyjoe4]

That's my understanding, yes. Right now Jacobs' salary is still counting against our cap for the games he's missing while on the commissioner's list. If/when the league hands out a suspension, however many games he's given those wages will be forfeited and serve as effective cap relief, I believe

Interesting stuff. I didn't know this.

I wish the NFL would issue the suspension and be done with it.

 

[tynimiller]

The likelihood is at this point it will be 6 game suspension which many predicted would be the strongest it would be that seemed close to the situation...BUT I still say the video is the key part. NFL could very well see it and Jacobs could never see the field again...or they could immediately say the suspension matches what he has missed and all done.

What I wonder is what if a world exists where they see it, and it fails to meet the threshold of some of the other guys that have seen less than 4 game suspensions...say we are 5, 6 or 7 weeks in and they levy it should have been a 2 or 4 game suspension...what recourse does Jacobs have?

Every single day this goes on don't get me wrong I think the pendulum swings farther and farther to the bad side for Jacobs in my probablity meter of how bad this really was.

 

[Voyageur]

The likelihood is at this point it will be 6 game suspension which many predicted would be the strongest it would be that seemed close to the situation...BUT I still say the video is the key part. NFL could very well see it and Jacobs could never see the field again...or they could immediately say the suspension matches what he has missed and all done.

What I wonder is what if a world exists where they see it, and it fails to meet the threshold of some of the other guys that have seen less than 4 game suspensions...say we are 5, 6 or 7 weeks in and they levy it should have been a 2 or 4 game suspension...what recourse does Jacobs have?

Every single day this goes on don't get me wrong I think the pendulum swings farther and farther to the bad side for Jacobs in my probablity meter of how bad this really was.

One issue that may be involved is the video. When did the video start and end? Was the entire altercation on video or just a small part where Jacobs was the aggressor? Lots of little things we don't know and could actually taint the perception that the league could have, not knowing the full story.

I wouldn't release the video either. The police investigated, Jacobs pled to charges and that's the only thing that the league really should have a right to know. They are not law enforcement, and their actions are not on a criminal basis but on a contractual agreement with the player. If they make him sit out too long, he just might have a major lawsuit against the league, and I don't believe they'd want their right to inflict double jeopardy challenged because they might find that their clauses in the contracts are not legitimate.

I think they'll let him back after 6 games, possibly 8, but an agreement with him would be made as the punishment is acceptable.

We are in a litigious era.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

One issue that may be involved is the video. When did the video start and end? Was the entire altercation on video or just a small part where Jacobs was the aggressor? Lots of little things we don't know and could actually taint the perception that the league could have, not knowing the full story.

I wouldn't release the video either. The police investigated, Jacobs pled to charges and that's the only thing that the league really should have a right to know. They are not law enforcement, and their actions are not on a criminal basis but on a contractual agreement with the player. If they make him sit out too long, he just might have a major lawsuit against the league, and I don't believe they'd want their right to inflict double jeopardy challenged because they might find that their clauses in the contracts are not legitimate.

I think they'll let him back after 6 games, possibly 8, but an agreement with him would be made as the punishment is acceptable.

We are in a litigious era.

Well stated. While violent, abusive behavior is unacceptable...even with video evidence, it doesn't always capture the whole context. There's usually more to a story.

 

[Poppa San]

Well stated. While violent, abusive behavior is unacceptable...even with video evidence, it doesn't always capture the whole context. There's usually more to a story.

What I recall seeing is it is video from the security camera in the garage where she hit the floor. I don't think the "discussion" started there.

 

[Voyageur]

What I recall seeing is it is video from the security camera in the garage where she hit the floor. I don't think the "discussion" started there.

Exactly the point.

When I was a cop and was investigating an accident, I'd immediately separate all the witnesses so they couldn't talk to each other. Then I'd interview them one at a time. I'd start by making them feel comfortable then out of the clear I'd ask my first question. "What drew your attention to an accident about to occur?"

Surprisingly, the largest number of them would say; "I heard the crash." That immediately eliminated them as a witness to what was going to happen because they only saw what happened after the crash actually occurred. This is essentially the same situation as we see when it comes to this vide. All we really know, visually, is that Josh overreacted at the end. To really know the full extent of what happened you'd need video from the first words through to the end.

The same thing came to auto accidents. Witnesses after the fact do not contribute to the investigation. I would use skid marks and other physical information along with info from witnesses who actually saw what led up to the accident happening.

If I'm Josh's attorneys, and the NFL got hold of the video, I'd be all over it like stink on a skunk because there are so many questions on this issue including privacy rights considering it was "his video," nobody else's.

If I was the NFL, I'd like to see it stand without seeing it so they can make a determination and slap a penalty on him that's acceptable to him and his attorneys without the case moving further.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

Exactly the point.

When I was a cop and was investigating an accident, I'd immediately separate all the witnesses so they couldn't talk to each other. Then I'd interview them one at a time. I'd start by making them feel comfortable then out of the clear I'd ask my first question. "What drew your attention to an accident about to occur?"

Surprisingly, the largest number of them would say; "I heard the crash." That immediately eliminated them as a witness to what was going to happen because they only saw what happened after the crash actually occurred. This is essentially the same situation as we see when it comes to this vide. All we really know, visually, is that Josh overreacted at the end. To really know the full extent of what happened you'd need video from the first words through to the end.

The same thing came to auto accidents. Witnesses after the fact do not contribute to the investigation. I would use skid marks and other physical information along with info from witnesses who actually saw what led up to the accident happening.

If I'm Josh's attorneys, and the NFL got hold of the video, I'd be all over it like stink on a skunk because there are so many questions on this issue including privacy rights considering it was "his video," nobody else's.

If I was the NFL, I'd like to see it stand without seeing it so they can make a determination and slap a penalty on him that's acceptable to him and his attorneys without the case moving further.

Sounds like you were an excellent cop/interrogator at least! Don't blame you at all for doing your job well, but definitely reason to be careful what you say to the cops when you can be implicated at all lol.

But exactly on witnesses. Unless it was a second order to an incident (I.e. I saw so and so guy run into a car with a gun and bag of money) it's irrelevant to the original case. Even then from that incident the witness can't actually say they witnessed said person rob the bank.

Problem is more and more these days everyone grabs their phones and posts stuff. Snippets with their own contextual bias and it poisons an investigation or public perception

 

[Thirteen Below]

The likelihood is at this point it will be 6 game suspension which many predicted would be the strongest it would be that seemed close to the situation...BUT I still say the video is the key part. NFL could very well see it and Jacobs could never see the field again...or they could immediately say the suspension matches what he has missed and all done.

What I wonder is what if a world exists where they see it, and it fails to meet the threshold of some of the other guys that have seen less than 4 game suspensions...say we are 5, 6 or 7 weeks in and they levy it should have been a 2 or 4 game suspension...what recourse does Jacobs have?

There are two possible alternate universes here... one in which the NFL sees the tape, and one in which they do not. Each of these two alternate universes would likely have a very different outcome.

We have no way of assessing which of the two timelines is more likely than the other. All we can do is speculate on which is more probable, but everything would be a lot more tidy if the tape were out there - or if we at least knew for sure the league would see it, and when.

One possibility that I think is very likely would be that if the league does get ahold of the tape at some point while he is suspended, however many games he has missed up to then will magically turn out to to be 1 or 2 fewer than the league actually imposes on him. If the tape is released after 4 games, they'll announce that 6 would be the appropriate penalty. And so on. If he's missed 6 games when the tape is released, and it turns out to be not really make him look all that bad, I seriously doubt this commissioner would admit he should have only been suspended for 3 or 4.

So whenever the tape is released, unless it's something really bad I would bet that he'll probably be back within a couple of weeks afterward. If it is really bad, then there's no way to really guess how long he'll miss.

If I'm Josh's attorneys, and the NFL got hold of the video, I'd be all over it like stink on a skunk because there are so many questions on this issue including privacy rights considering it was "his video," nobody else's.

But if it was introduced as evidence in a criminal case, doesn't that make it a public record? And if so, does he really have any say in the matter? Do any of the involved parties have any say?

It seems pretty certain that the plea agreement to which Jacobs agreed involved a financial payoff that met the woman's expectations, and I think it's likely that any such agreement would include an understanding by both parties that they don't release the tape on their own. But if it's a public record, under Wisconsin law I don't know if either of them can prevent it.

Anyone have an informed opinion? This board really needs to draft an attorney on Day 1 or early Day 2 next April.