What could have been with Jackson· Page 4

Greg C.
Registered

13 years ago

There was a time when 100% of Jackson's yardage this year came on a single run.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

And man, was he ever awful back then. Thankfully, he got better and better with each carry, until that 71 yarder ruined his season.

blank

Pack93z
Select Member

13 years ago

#32

Jackson's real value is in pass protection and receiving, IMO if I may.

He is a very solid pass blocking back.. probably underrated.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#33

As a 3rd down blocker/receiver, I'd rate him above Grant and Starks at this time. But as the primary (1st/2nd down) running back, I'd have to rank him (carrying the ball) below Grant and probably Starks, though I want to see Starks do it in more than one game.

Jackson's run 136 times for 527 yds. He got 13% of those yards (71) on one play against Washington. With that one run he's averaging less than 4 yds per carry, and if you subtract that one run out he's averaging less than 3.4 yds per carry.

"Greg C." wrote:

Take out Grand or AP big runs and see where they lie.

"Stevetarded" wrote:

Yeah, I agree--take out anybody's successful plays, and the rest of their plays don't look nearly as good. But it was one run. The entire rest of the season hasn't looked so good.

I'm not bashing Jackson. Just giving my opinion. As a runner, I haven't been impressed with him and would rate him 3rd and would go with Grant or Starks first. As a receiver, I'd want Jackson.

"macbob" wrote:

Exactly, I hate that argument when it relates to a small sample size (like only 1 game) but compared to an entire seasons worth of plays IMO it's valid. When 13% of a starting running backs yards for the ENTIRE SEASON come off of 1 run that is very bad.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

What's so bad about 13%? That statistic means nothing. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that long runs are a GOOD thing? Long runs are what really force defenses to honor the running game. One of Jackson's biggest shortcomings is that he doesn't break ENOUGH long runs, yet people continually use his longest run (his BEST run) in order to discredit him. I don't get it.

"macbob" wrote:

Greg-that was my point. It was 1 run. In 12 games. Other than that, pedestrian production.

Nothing special other than 1 stinking run. When you say he doesn't break enough runs, you're saying the same thing.

musccy
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#34

You shouldn't cherry pick the stats that you want to remove from a players' resume to fabricate an argument. But at the same time, we all know that Bjack provides very little threat to pop appreciable gains with any regularity (relative to NFL RB standards) and the 13% stat is an illustration of that.

"Greg C." wrote:

It is, huh? Then how do you explain the following: If Brandon Jackson had tripped and fallen at the line of scrimmage instead of gaining 71 yards on that play, his percentage of yards on his longest run of the season would be considerably LESS than 13%. So you're saying that would make him a better runner?

Stats are great when they actually mean something, but when people start pulling stuff out of their asses (in this case, percentage of total yards gained on the longest carry of the season), stats do nothing but muddy the waters.

"musccy" wrote:

No, but his seasonal average would drop from 3.9 to 3.4. So does a 3.9 avg make him a good back now?

IMO, Bjack seems slow, doesn't 'fall forward,' and can't seem to break through to the 2nd level of the defense with any consistency to give you the perception that he can break it open on any given play. I felt the complete opposite with Starks, but subjective 'intuitions' and observations about a player can even muddier than a manipulated statistic. To me, the 3.4 avg is more indicative of the threat that Bjack provides than the 3.9 avg.

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#35

You shouldn't cherry pick the stats that you want to remove from a players' resume to fabricate an argument. But at the same time, we all know that Bjack provides very little threat to pop appreciable gains with any regularity (relative to NFL RB standards) and the 13% stat is an illustration of that.

"Greg C." wrote:

It is, huh? Then how do you explain the following: If Brandon Jackson had tripped and fallen at the line of scrimmage instead of gaining 71 yards on that play, his percentage of yards on his longest run of the season would be considerably LESS than 13%. So you're saying that would make him a better runner?

Stats are great when they actually mean something, but when people start pulling stuff out of their asses (in this case, percentage of total yards gained on the longest carry of the season), stats do nothing but muddy the waters.

"musccy" wrote:

I understand that you don't like the fact that I tried to back up my opinion with a stat. Sorry it torked you off. I retract the 13%.

Now, back to the discussion, other than 1 stinking long run, Jackson hasn't done a whole lot as a runner this year through the 1st 12 games. Is that better?

Greg C.
Registered

13 years ago

#36

As a 3rd down blocker/receiver, I'd rate him above Grant and Starks at this time. But as the primary (1st/2nd down) running back, I'd have to rank him (carrying the ball) below Grant and probably Starks, though I want to see Starks do it in more than one game.

Jackson's run 136 times for 527 yds. He got 13% of those yards (71) on one play against Washington. With that one run he's averaging less than 4 yds per carry, and if you subtract that one run out he's averaging less than 3.4 yds per carry.

"macbob" wrote:

Take out Grand or AP big runs and see where they lie.

"Greg C." wrote:

Yeah, I agree--take out anybody's successful plays, and the rest of their plays don't look nearly as good. But it was one run. The entire rest of the season hasn't looked so good.

I'm not bashing Jackson. Just giving my opinion. As a runner, I haven't been impressed with him and would rate him 3rd and would go with Grant or Starks first. As a receiver, I'd want Jackson.

"Stevetarded" wrote:

Exactly, I hate that argument when it relates to a small sample size (like only 1 game) but compared to an entire seasons worth of plays IMO it's valid. When 13% of a starting running backs yards for the ENTIRE SEASON come off of 1 run that is very bad.

"macbob" wrote:

What's so bad about 13%? That statistic means nothing. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that long runs are a GOOD thing? Long runs are what really force defenses to honor the running game. One of Jackson's biggest shortcomings is that he doesn't break ENOUGH long runs, yet people continually use his longest run (his BEST run) in order to discredit him. I don't get it.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Greg-that was my point. It was 1 run. In 12 games. Other than that, pedestrian production.

Nothing special other than 1 stinking run. When you say he doesn't break enough runs, you're saying the same thing.

"macbob" wrote:

I agree with you 100%. I don't think Jackson has been a very good #1 back. My reply was directed at Stevetarded. My point was that if you are arguing that an RB is not very good, it is nonsense to manipulate the numbers in such a way that you try to turn his longest carry into a liability.

blank

macbob
Veteran Member

13 years ago

#37

As a 3rd down blocker/receiver, I'd rate him above Grant and Starks at this time. But as the primary (1st/2nd down) running back, I'd have to rank him (carrying the ball) below Grant and probably Starks, though I want to see Starks do it in more than one game.

Jackson's run 136 times for 527 yds. He got 13% of those yards (71) on one play against Washington. With that one run he's averaging less than 4 yds per carry, and if you subtract that one run out he's averaging less than 3.4 yds per carry.

"Greg C." wrote:

Take out Grand or AP big runs and see where they lie.

"macbob" wrote:

Yeah, I agree--take out anybody's successful plays, and the rest of their plays don't look nearly as good. But it was one run. The entire rest of the season hasn't looked so good.

I'm not bashing Jackson. Just giving my opinion. As a runner, I haven't been impressed with him and would rate him 3rd and would go with Grant or Starks first. As a receiver, I'd want Jackson.

"Greg C." wrote:

Exactly, I hate that argument when it relates to a small sample size (like only 1 game) but compared to an entire seasons worth of plays IMO it's valid. When 13% of a starting running backs yards for the ENTIRE SEASON come off of 1 run that is very bad.

"Stevetarded" wrote:

What's so bad about 13%? That statistic means nothing. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that long runs are a GOOD thing? Long runs are what really force defenses to honor the running game. One of Jackson's biggest shortcomings is that he doesn't break ENOUGH long runs, yet people continually use his longest run (his BEST run) in order to discredit him. I don't get it.

"macbob" wrote:

Greg-that was my point. It was 1 run. In 12 games. Other than that, pedestrian production.

Nothing special other than 1 stinking run. When you say he doesn't break enough runs, you're saying the same thing.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

I agree with you 100%. I don't think Jackson has been a very good #1 back. My reply was directed at Stevetarded. My point was that if you are arguing that an RB is not very good, it is nonsense to manipulate the numbers in such a way that you try to turn his longest carry into a liability.

"macbob" wrote:

Unfortunately, I was the one who started the 13% nonsense. The point which I was trying to make (obviously poorly) was that outside of that one run, he hadn't done a lot.

Greg C.
Registered

13 years ago

#38

You shouldn't cherry pick the stats that you want to remove from a players' resume to fabricate an argument. But at the same time, we all know that Bjack provides very little threat to pop appreciable gains with any regularity (relative to NFL RB standards) and the 13% stat is an illustration of that.

"musccy" wrote:

It is, huh? Then how do you explain the following: If Brandon Jackson had tripped and fallen at the line of scrimmage instead of gaining 71 yards on that play, his percentage of yards on his longest run of the season would be considerably LESS than 13%. So you're saying that would make him a better runner?

Stats are great when they actually mean something, but when people start pulling stuff out of their asses (in this case, percentage of total yards gained on the longest carry of the season), stats do nothing but muddy the waters.

"Greg C." wrote:

No, but his seasonal average would drop from 3.9 to 3.4. So does a 3.9 avg make him a good back now?

IMO, Bjack seems slow, doesn't 'fall forward,' and can't seem to break through to the 2nd level of the defense with any consistency to give you the perception that he can break it open on any given play. I felt the complete opposite with Starks, but subjective 'intuitions' and observations about a player can even muddier than a manipulated statistic. To me, the 3.4 avg is more indicative of the threat that Bjack provides than the 3.9 avg.

"musccy" wrote:

Okay, I get it now. If your intuition tells you that a player is not as good as his stats suggest, you can just change the stat to a number that is more to your liking.

My intution tells me that James Starks is the best RB ever, so I am going to take away his 17 shortest carries and save the 16 yarder. Therefore, James Starks has a 16 yard average and is the best RB in the history of the league.

But wait--this also means that 100% of his yardage came on his longest run of the season. So he is simultaneously the WORST RB in the history of the league. This is so confusing!

Seriously, I think the problem here is that people assume that they can't make their point without some kind of stat, no matter how bogus, to back them up. But that's not the case. There's nothing wrong with saying that Brandon Jackson, in spite of his respectable YPC, has not been a very good RB for us, and a better player probably would've gained more yards. You don't have to cook the books to make your point.

blank

Greg C.
Registered

13 years ago

#39

Unfortunately, I was the one who started the 13% nonsense. The point which I was trying to make (obviously poorly) was that outside of that one run, he hadn't done a lot.

"macbob" wrote:

Okay, gotcha. I will call off the dogs. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I think I've made my point several times over by now, so I will try to let it go.

blank

Pack93z
Select Member

13 years ago

#40

The simple point in this case is that the 71 yarder is an abnormality to the rest of his body of work.. and being duly noted.

At least how I read it.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Important Information: