Greg C.
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
13 years ago
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
13 years ago

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
13 years ago

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
13 years ago

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.
13 years ago

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
13 years ago

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.
13 years ago

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.
13 years ago

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
13 years ago
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!"
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (57m) : beast, forecast is looking like 27-28 degrees at kickoff, slight chance of snow flurries
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Oh? It wasn't on the injury report. That sucks, but it's what is best.
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : Doubs is out due to concussion
    beast (6h) : What does the weather look like?
    Martha Careful (11h) : You can wear long-johns mittens and a hat. We want Hill and their other skill guys FROZEN
    Zero2Cool (15h) : I'm not sure I hope for that. I'll be at the game.
    Martha Careful (25-Nov) : I hope it is colder than a well-diggers ass on Thanksgiving night.
    Zero2Cool (25-Nov) : doubt he wants to face the speedsters
    beast (25-Nov) : Dolphins offense can be explosive... I wonder if we'll have Alexander back
    Zero2Cool (25-Nov) : No Doubs could be issue Thursday
    Mucky Tundra (25-Nov) : Bears. Santos. Blocked FG
    Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : Bears. Vikings. OT
    Mucky Tundra (24-Nov) : Thems the breaks I guess
    Mucky Tundra (24-Nov) : Two players out and Williams had an injury designation this week but Oladapo is a healthy scratch
    Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : Packers inactives vs 49ers: • CB Jaire Alexander • S Kitan Oladapo • LB Edgerrin Cooper • OL Jacob Monk
    TheKanataThrilla (24-Nov) : Aaron Jones with a costly red zone fumble
    Zero2Cool (24-Nov) : When we trade Malik for a 1st rounder, we'll need a new QB2.
    packerfanoutwest (23-Nov) : Report: Aaron Rodgers wants to play in 2025, but not for the Jets
    beast (23-Nov) : That's what I told the Police officer about my speed when he pulled me over
    packerfanoutwest (23-Nov) : NFL told Bears that Packers’ blocked field goal was legal
    packerfanoutwest (22-Nov) : 49ers are underdogs at Packers, ending streak of 36 straight games as favorites
    Zero2Cool (22-Nov) : 49ers might be down their QB, DL, TE and LT?
    packerfanoutwest (22-Nov) : Jaire Alexander says he has a torn PCL
    Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : Even with the context it's ... what?
    Mucky Tundra (20-Nov) : Matt LaFleur without context: “I don’t wanna pat you on the butt and you poop in my hand.”
    beast (20-Nov) : We brought in a former Packers OL coach to help evaluate OL as a scout
    beast (20-Nov) : Jets have been pretty good at picking DL
    Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He landed good players thanks to high draft slot. He isn't good.
    Zero2Cool (20-Nov) : He can shove his knowledge up his ass. He knows nothing.
    beast (20-Nov) : More knowledge, just like bring in the Jets head coach
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : What? Why? Huh?
    beast (19-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers might to try to bring Douglas in through Milt Hendrickson/Ravens connections
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : The Jets fired Joe Douglas, per sources
    packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Jets are a mess......
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Pretty sure Jets fired their scouting staff and just pluck former Packers.
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Jets sign Anders Carlson to their 53.
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : When you cycle the weeks, the total over remains for season. But you get your W/L for that selected week. Confusing.
    packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks
    packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the total and percentage are the same as the previous weeks
    packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : the totals are accurate..nrvrtmind
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : I don't follow what you are saying. The totals are not the same as last week.
    packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : ok so then wht are the totals the same as last week?
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : NFL Pick'em is auto updated when NFL Scores tab is clicked
    Martha Careful (19-Nov) : The offense was OK. Let's not forget the Bear defense is very very good.
    packerfanoutwest (19-Nov) : Who updates the leaderboard on NFLPickem?
    beast (19-Nov) : Has the Packers offense been worse since the former Jets coach joined the Packers?
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Offense gets his ass in gear, this could be good.
    Zero2Cool (19-Nov) : Backup QB helped with three wins. Special Teams contributed to three wins.
    bboystyle (18-Nov) : Lions played outside thats why. They scored 16 and 17 in the only 2 outside games this year
    Zero2Cool (18-Nov) : The rest of the NFL is catching up to Packers ... kicking is an issue throughout league
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    12m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    19m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    4h / Featured Content / Martha Careful

    5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    24-Nov / GameDay Threads / Zero2Cool

    23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    23-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.