dfosterf
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.

"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.

"Greg C." 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.

"Stevetarded" 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.

"PackFanWithTwins" 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.

"macbob" wrote:


This line of reasoning is starting to look like a tunnel. Oops, sorry, wrong thread.
Pack93z
13 years ago
At least the quote boxes here can be followed.. unlike those at the PPO. My Gawd is it difficult there to follow a nested quote.

Anyway.. I think some are missing the point of removing the lone high abnormality just to reaffirm the rest of his body of work.. which is remarkably consistent but not to our advantage.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Stevetarded
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:



You just don't get it. Nobody is saying take away his big run. We are saying that it isn't a good thing when 1 play (out of 136) represents that BIG of a margin of your production. (meaning you've done jack shit the rest of the season.) That run wasn't even a TD, all it represents is he was extremely helpful on 1 play on 1 drive in 1 game. What about the rest of the games?

Long runs only force the defense to honor the running game if you have them with some sort of consistency. 1/136 is not very consistent. It isn't that Jackson doesn't break "enough" long runs it's that he really doesn't break ANY. Just 1 freaking run after an entire season being the starter.
blank
Greg C.
13 years ago

At least the quote boxes here can be followed.. unlike those at the PPO. My Gawd is it difficult there to follow a nested quote.

Anyway.. I think some are missing the point of removing the lone high abnormality just to reaffirm the rest of his body of work.. which is remarkably consistent but not to our advantage.

"pack93z" wrote:



But "abnormalities" count. I'm not giving an inch on this one. If the stats don't support your argument as well as you would like, you shouldn't just make up your own stats.
blank
Pack93z
13 years ago
I don't think they are trying to change the stats.. more or less highlight the one carry to the rest and its impact.

Of course at the end of the day.. it counts as one of the carries.

I should dig into my old statistics books from college (what a dry class) and pull out what they call normalizing the statistics with culling equal amounts form the high and low end of the pool.. the ones that are abnormal from the rest. (Queue Nonstop doing a google, speed reading the page and then talking upon the subject with expertise. 🙂 )

Example.. removing his 71 and his worst negative run to balance out the normals of the stat pool.

But I care less. even with that carry his numbers are not impressive and I am not looking for a fight on this small issue, especially on something stat related.. as I think they are over valued for the most part.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Brandon Jackson is afraid to hit the hole full speed. That translates into nothing to brag about in my eyes.
UserPostedImage
macbob
13 years ago
Basically, the thread has degenerated into a discussion of how I (poorly) made a point. Personally, I'm abandoning this thread, never to darken it's door again, for more enjoyable reading in other threads.

TTFN...
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Basically, the thread has degenerated into a discussion of how I (poorly) made a point. Personally, I'm abandoning this thread, never to darken it's door again, for more enjoyable reading in other threads.

TTFN...

"macbob" wrote:

:idea: :twisted:
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
13 years ago

Basically, the thread has degenerated into a discussion of how I (poorly) made a point. Personally, I'm abandoning this thread, never to darken it's door again, for more enjoyable reading in other threads.

TTFN...

"macbob" wrote:



Your argument was legitimate, personally I wouldn't sweat it, but that's just me.
peteralan71
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.

"dfosterf" 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.

"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.

"Greg C." 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.

"Stevetarded" 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.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:


This line of reasoning is starting to look like a tunnel. Oops, sorry, wrong thread.

"macbob" wrote:



LOL!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (12h) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
Zero2Cool (14h) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
Mucky Tundra (14h) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
hardrocker950 (15h) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
Zero2Cool (16h) : Kuhn let go
beast (18h) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
Zero2Cool (18h) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.
Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren
packerfanoutwest (3-Nov) : Malik Willis: My focus is helping the Packers win, not proving I can start elsewhere. But he could
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : I had Texans, but the loss of another WR flipped me
wpr (1-Nov) : I thought about taking the Jets but they've been a disaster. Losing to the Pats last week
Zero2Cool (1-Nov) : Surprised more didn't pick Jets in Pick'em.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Derek

2h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2-Nov / Around The NFL / wpr

1-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Nov / Around The NFL / beast

31-Oct / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

31-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

30-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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