Raiders use franchise tag on Josh Jacobs

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 6, 2023, 4:31 PM EST
SPORTS-FBN-GRANEY-COLUMN-LV
Getty Images

As expected, the Raiders have applied the franchise tag to running back Josh Jacobs.

The Raiders officially put the tag on Jacobs today, according to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network.

If he wants to play on the one-year franchise tender, Jacobs can sign it at any time and have a guaranteed salary of $10.091 million for the 2023 season.

Jacobs and the Raiders can negotiate a long-term contract until July 15. After that deadline, Jacobs could only play the 2023 season on a one-year deal.

A first-round pick in 2019, Jacobs is a free agent because the Raiders decline to pick up his fifth-year option. But after Jacobs led the NFL with 1,653 rushing yards and 2,053 yards from scrimmage last season, the Raiders decided they couldn’t afford to lose him.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Back to top

18 responses to “Raiders use franchise tag on Josh Jacobs”

  2. Player’s almost always play at their very best during their “contact year.” If I’m the Raider’s, I’m expecting him to play well on this season’s tag in order to get a good FA contract. However, I would expect them to franchise him again next season. Then let him go into FA market in 2025.

  5. They had to, no choice. Last minute desperate move, the Raiders are going to suck for many years to come.

  6. My Radiers finally doing the right thing for the first time in about 20 years. Welcome back to the Silver and Black Josh. He has maybe 2 good years left we might win 2 games but that might be too positive w/ no QB

  7. 1000 yard rusher in 19 and 20. Could’ve easily picked up the 5th year option on the dude who had a down year during a regime change. Now they pay premium for him.

    Is Josh McDaniels doing any better this time than his last time as an HC? Decision making still sus.

  8. Smart move. You never give running backs a big 2nd contract. They fall off quickly.

  9. Which version of the Tag? Exclusive? I could see them letting him go for two firsts 🙂

  11. If the Raiders had properly evaluated Jacobs with the new regime, they only would be paying $8.034 million this year on his 5th year option.

  12. 1000 yard rusher in 19 and 20. Could’ve easily picked up the 5th year option on the dude who had a down year during a regime change. Now they pay premium for him.

    Is Josh McDaniels doing any better this time than his last time as an HC? Decision making still sus.
    ————————————————————
    The 5th year option for an RB is $8 million.
    $2 million more isn’t premium especially after leading the league last year.

  13. I just wouldn’t want to pay an RB 10 mil per. He’s a solid player, but he’ll probably do worse this year or battle injuries.

  14. The RB situation is now draft a good one every four years and cut them when they’ve reached the end of their rookie contract. Don’t pay them like Dallas paid Zeke. It just doesn’t make sense.

    Spend that money on other positions – like CB or left tackle – where a dominant player can (potentially) play well for a decade or more.

  15. As a percentage of cap, 10M isn’t much for a productive back. He’s gonna earn it, as the Raiders won’t have a QB that scares anyone.

  16. I always think the the franchise tag should be higher for a RB – you’re taking one year off a guy’s short career, and there are only maybe two other positions that can have a bigger impact on a game. I understand why long-term deals for RBs need to build in risk that they’re not going to play, but a 1 year deal at such a low relative rate is pretty unfair.

  18. raiderapologist says:
    March 6, 2023 at 6:18 pm
    As a percentage of cap, 10M isn’t much for a productive back. He’s gonna earn it, as the Raiders won’t have a QB that scares anyone.
    ————————————
    Carr didn’t exactly scare anyone, especially in the 4th quarter.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.