Raiders’ Josh Jacobs Expressed ‘Mutual Interest’ With NFC Team: Report

Just as there appears to be some momentum behind the retaining of running back Josh Jacobs with the Raiders, there comes a report that perhaps Jacobs has eyes elsewhere. We’ve heard the speculated landing spots, of course, but this one is a little different—a client who shares an agent with Jacobs says that the agent old him there is “mutual interest’ between Jacobs and the Chicago Bears.

The report comes from the “Chicago Bears Podcast” from ESPN 1000 in Chicago, where former Bears fullback Jason McKie was a guest, looking at the Bears’ offseason. McKie happens to be represented by agent Chad Wiestling, who also represents Jacobs.

Amid some idle chatter, McKie apparently found out that the Bears and Jacobs have been making eyes at each other.

“With Josh Jacobs, right, I know, my agent has Josh Jacobs as well,” McKie said on the podcast. “And he is a guy, I texted my agent and said, ‘Hey, he’d look great in a Bears uniform.’ He’s like, ‘Hey, there’s mutual interest.’ That’s what he told me. There’s mutual interest. So I’m not gonna say the Bears are going to go out and put all their chips in and sign Josh Jacobs but from my understanding, from my source (there’s interest).”

Bears Will Have to Pay Out to Swipe Raiders Star

Just how serious a threat the Bears are to swipe Jacobs from the Raiders can be debated. There is no question Jacobs will look around in free agency, but there is also no question that Raiders coach Antonio Pierce wants to keep him. After getting the job following the firing of Josh McDaniels last October, Pierce made it a point to reconfigure the offense around Jacobs.

  Disneyland closes Critter Country during Splash Mountain renovation

Jacobs figures to be costly, even in an oddly depressed rubbing back market. Spotrac has him warranting a three-year, $31 million contract on the market, while Pro Football Focus has him in the same neighborhood, at three years and $33 million.

Perhaps the Bears would be willing to pay that, or a bit more. McKie reiterated the legitimacy of his information.

“I have a source that actually represents Josh Jacobs,” he said. “It ain’t no damn source that I made up so I can put on Twitter and just say the Bears are gonna sign Josh Jacobs from a source. I am telling you, it comes from a credible source, my agent who represents Josh Jacobs and said there is mutual interest. I know from his standpoint, Josh would love to be in a Bears uniform.”

Is Josh Jacobs Worth a Big Contract?

One of the big questions about Jacobs’ future is not so much the way that Pierce values him, it is how new Raiders general manager Tom Telesco values him. Chances are, there is a gap there, especially with other back s available on the cheap.

It was a long way down for Jacobs last year, who went from a season in which he led the NFL in rushing yardage at 1,658 in 2022, to 805 yards in 2023, which ranked 25th in the league. That will no doubt be costly in free agency this offseason after having held out during last year’s training camp only to get a modest bump up from the franchise tag the Raiders had put on him heading into training camp.

  Caitlin Clark, much like Larry Bird, the focus of talks about race and double standards in sports

It won’t help Jacobs’ case with Telesco when you consider that Jacobs missed the last four games of the season with a pesky quad injury, and that in his place, second-year man Zamir White outplayed him, totaling 397 yards in those four games, and averaging 4.7 yards per carry. It’s not good to head into free agency with your $1 million backup having outdone you in a fairly significant sample size.

Maybe the Raiders won’t stop Jacobs from donning that Bears uniform.

Like Heavy.com’s content? Be sure to follow us.

This article was originally published on Heavy.com

The post Raiders’ Josh Jacobs Expressed ‘Mutual Interest’ With NFC Team: Report appeared first on Heavy.com.

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *