Greg C.
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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.
14 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
14 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.
14 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.
14 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
14 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
    wpr (54m) : Me do-ed it gooderly,
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Bahah, I was like WTF why isn't anyone posting on PP.com ... oops no one has permissions
    dfosterf (16h) : tell her I reckon
    dfosterf (16h) : Micah Robinson cut. Probable PS player tomorrow. Has to call mom back and t
    Zero2Cool (19h) : New site so much better. Might make switch and deal with it.
    dfosterf (19h) : Mecole Hardman to our practice squad
    dfosterf (19h) : Nick Nieman from Texans our 5th linebacker. Special teams signing
    TheKanataThrilla (20h) : Looks like we signed Clayton Tune as QB3
    wpr (21h) : TKT people lose their minds over QB3. Point is almost none of them are ready that's why they are on the PS and other teams don't take them.
    TheKanataThrilla (21h) : Unfortunately he doesn't seem ready to be an emergency QB.
    TheKanataThrilla (21h) : As a Canadian and a follower of Canadian University football. I am rooting for him
    dfosterf (22h) : I bet a lot of us will follow the Taylor Elgersma journey with interest. Personally, got a Kurt Warner vibe goin' on. I like him
    TheKanataThrilla (22h) : Not sure if either will be claimed though.
    TheKanataThrilla (22h) : Tune or Hooker would make sense
    dfosterf (22h) : Clayton Tune cut by the Cards? Don't know if that's the guy, we shall see
    TheKanataThrilla (22h) : Per Bill Huber, the Packers will not be bringing back Taylor Elgersma or Sean Clifford on the practice squad, so a new third quarterback
    Mucky Tundra (23h) : Schefter must have deleted his tweet
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : Hopefully Jerry reaches under the seat cushions and ashtrays of his jet and scrapes up the 45 million apr and spares us further nonsense
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : Have to admit the PO'd Cowboy fan videos would be fun to watch. Problem with draft picks is half their fanbase barely knows what that is
    beast (27-Aug) : I think Cowboys fans are ready to get their pitch forks and burning sticks if Jerry were to trade Micah
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : If Jerry traded Micah to GB, here in northern Va. they would have to quick build yet another data center to handle the internet hate traffic
    Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : its signing and trades that you don't hear about, other then announced
    Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : If you hear rumors about Packers sign or trade, won't happen. Not how they work
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : 19 players in a contract year. Jones called loss to us worst loss in Cowboy history. Forget Parsons trade. Not happenin' Cap'n
    packerfanoutwest (27-Aug) : The Packers, meanwhile, are the youngest team in the league for the third consecutive year.
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : That it was darkest before the dawn in Bengals and Commanders before they got deals done
    Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : what is Schefter saying?
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : He was getting Dorito infusion therapy
    dfosterf (27-Aug) : He's outta shape. Why, just the other day I saw him splayed out on the trainers table
    Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Parsons has followed Rasheed Walker on Twitter. Quite the choice
    Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Kuhn is a former player who works for the team, if somethings going down, he would be close to it
    Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : @kuhnj30 Micah Freaking Parsons
    Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : A LOT of buzz on the Bird App regarding Parsons; even Schefter is saying it's serious
    dfosterf (26-Aug) : *Orzech*
    dfosterf (26-Aug) : Orzich long snapper 3 yr extension
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : Packers signed someone for three year deal
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : lol i know it's insane ... sign up for the waiver wire then you'll know
    wpr (26-Aug) : YES!!!!!!
    Mucky Tundra (26-Aug) : WE WANT THE LIST! WE WANT THE LIST!
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : @JJLahey · 2m Holy crap, Packers, where the heck is the list?
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : haha folks on Tweeter every year this time ... 'where is list Packers!!" hahaha
    wpr (26-Aug) : He played pretty good.
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : NAZIR STACKHOUSE HAS MADE THE 53
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : NOOOOO KALEN IS GONE
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : Kalen King and Kamal Hadden making it. me thinks
    schroeder84 (26-Aug) : @dfosterf I suspect Elgersma WILL be hard to hide. Raw, but talented
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : pp.com is broken, halt testing, gotta go do work things for a bit
    hardrocker950 (26-Aug) : Mecole Hardman was released, to the surprise of few
    Zero2Cool (26-Aug) : PP.com updated. Reset Password works, and now User Profile pages are a thing
    Zero2Cool (25-Aug) : Soft hope plan is having fantasy football weekly on-site that i build. cannot do that with this setup.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    39m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    15h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    15h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

    26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    25-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    24-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    24-Aug / Around The NFL / beast

    23-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    22-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    20-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.