Looks like he is out for the year. It's going to be a very different backfield.
Just to clarify, they didn't pick Dillon over Jones. It basically came down to Jones or Jacobs and each player's age and contract demands. THAT was the either/or.Dang… I just came across this. I’m def not looking forward to playing against Aaron Jones in Minn, but I thought it was the right move to pick AJ Dillon over him as to which back you should’ve kept. Also seemed to be a genuinely good human being.
Hate to see a young guy injured….especially at RB the way the position is as under-valued as it’s ever been in the history of the game….
Hope he can get healed up and come back with a vengeance.
I don't see it this way at all. Stats aside, I believe staff and mgmt wanted the continuity and comfort level in Dillon's knowledge, blocking and pass receiving skills in the RB room. No one else provides those aspects. The fact that they found a way to sign him at a reduced cost for two years speaks to me in how interested they were in keeping Dillon. Also, it seems that they like the way he fits the team's culture and could provide steady leadership for the young guys is an added bonus.They really paid Dillon like he was the #3 RB. I think they would’ve almost preferred to move on after a pretty tough statistical season. However at his minimal contract it was basically giving the team an open option to move on at any juncture. Which is what they did.
I dont think it helped Dillon’s cause that several other RB’s looked good in Preseason. Particularly Wilson’s upwards trend put him in conversation as a feasible #2 option in a pinch and a definitive RB3.
The Packers didn’t spend an #88 overall on a RB unless they thought he was going to be part of a 1-2 punch. Someone is going to be the odd man out and an injury is the perfect excuse to do so. It’s a tough business but that’s why these guys get paid.
So I’d agree with you those other things are importantly also. However I was speaking to the economics of a decision. That doesn’t infer I don’t like a players full character or array of positive attributes. Almost Different arguments. But thank you for defending Dillon he probably deserves some of that! It’s always sad to lose a player like this, I get it.I don't see it this way at all. Stats aside, I believe staff and mgmt wanted the continuity and comfort level in Dillon's knowledge, blocking and pass receiving skills in the RB room. No one else provides those aspects. The fact that they found a way to sign him at a reduced cost for two years speaks to me in how interested they were in keeping Dillon. Also, it seems that they like the way he fits the team's culture and could provide steady leadership for the young guys is an added bonus.
Yeah, I'm happy to defend Dillon. The fantasy football warriors have already soundly spoken regularly on why he's not worthy of being here.So I’d agree with you those other things are importantly also. However I was speaking to the economics of a decision. That doesn’t infer I don’t like a players full character or array of positive attributes. Almost Different arguments. But thank you for defending Dillon he probably deserves some of that! It’s always sad to lose a player like this, I get it.
It’s always sad to lose a player like this, I get it.