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

---

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

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

---

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.

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.

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---