peteralan71
13 years ago

Brandon Jackson is afraid to hit the hole full speed. That translates into nothing to brag about in my eyes.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



That was exactly my problem with him. He half jogs up to the line, always waiting for a hole to open, then when it does open, he is afraid to plunge into it. The guy's taking the idea of waiting for your blockers way too far, and it has cost the team all year long. I loved that Starks would hit the hole at full speed. Thats what you want to see. At least when he does that, if he gets tackled, he has plenty of energy going forward.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
musccy
13 years ago
pack93z made the point I was trying to make. Just brining attention to the fact that his stats are a little misleading, not trying to re-write the books. I never once said we need to discredit him for his 71 yarder, just that it provides a misleading picture of the production we typically see from Bjack.

My original point was to dispute the first point brought up. Someone mentioned if we give the ball to Jackson more, he could have 1,300 all purpose yards. Well big deal, of course we could force feed it to him 40 times/game and he'll have some production, but does saying that you have a 1,000 yard back on your team imply that our running situation is fixed or its the best course of action?

No, that STAT (1k yards) does not a great back make. The team needs a legitimate play maker, and as has been brought up by many, BJack is not that homerun threat, he's really not even someone the team has been able to count on for short yardage situations...that's the point of HIGHLIGTHING, NOT re-writing the statistics.
PackFanWithTwins
13 years ago
You all are to fixated on the run. Jackson would be an 800 yard back. That isn't impressive by any means. But what you seem to miss, is what his impact would be if he was given the ball more in dump offs underneith, in the flat or screens. That is where McCarthy failed with Jackson. 8.5 yards per catch. You keep him in the backfield, and run him into the flat and actually show that you are going to use him, and you pull LBer or S with him. Which does exactly what a run game would. It pulls defenders away from where you want to throw.

Getting the ball more to Jackson would not be more runs, it should have been more passes. Making up for the loss in the run game by shifting those yards to short dump passes. I call it adjusting to your players strength. Which McCarthy refused to do with Jackson.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
peteralan71
13 years ago

pack93z made the point I was trying to make. Just brining attention to the fact that his stats are a little misleading, not trying to re-write the books. I never once said we need to discredit him for his 71 yarder, just that it provides a misleading picture of the production we typically see from Bjack.

My original point was to dispute the first point brought up. Someone mentioned if we give the ball to Jackson more, he could have 1,300 all purpose yards. Well big deal, of course we could force feed it to him 40 times/game and he'll have some production, but does saying that you have a 1,000 yard back on your team imply that our running situation is fixed or its the best course of action?

No, that STAT (1k yards) does not a great back make. The team needs a legitimate play maker, and as has been brought up by many, BJack is not that homerun threat, he's really not even someone the team has been able to count on for short yardage situations...that's the point of HIGHLIGTHING, NOT re-writing the statistics.

"musccy" wrote:



Very wise, Master Yoda ;)

I think that he does have some production in as a 3rd down back because he will change up the pace, and that we need Starks in there if he is able to keep up his production. I'd sure like to see if Starks is able to bust one open. It seems that he has the speed, but he only had 1 (I think?) run to the outside, which was very well defended, and NOT very well blocked. The 71 yard run by Jackson started off with a massive hole up the middle. Starks does well without incredible blocking, but let's see what he can do if he gets past the LBs.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
go.pack.go.
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...

"dfosterf" wrote:



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

"macbob" wrote:



I agree with both of you.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
13 years ago

Starks is better than Jackson. We all know that. .

"Dulak" wrote:



we know this by 1 nfl game?

"nerdmann" wrote:





I've been saying it for months. And I like Jackson.
No RB can get it done on 8 carries per game. And that's all Jackson's getting. Starks is good enough to make the most out of his opportunities, so they're going to feed him the ball.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
peteralan71
13 years ago

Starks is better than Jackson. We all know that. .

"Dulak" wrote:



we know this by 1 nfl game?

"nerdmann" wrote:



The coaches know it and that is why they give 17 carries to Starks, in his first game in two years, compared to their "starter" Brandon Jackson, who got on average 9.7 carries per game this year.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
13 years ago
What's with all the Starks hate? I crown his ass after one game, and ask if anyone wants to bet he WON'T be better than Grant. No one will take the bet, but people wanna keep talking shit.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
peteralan71
13 years ago

What's with all the Starks hate? I crown his ass after one game, and ask if anyone wants to bet he WON'T be better than Grant. No one will take the bet, but people wanna keep talking shit.

"nerdmann" wrote:



??? I'm not hating on Starks. Quite the opposite. I'm saying I think he is better than Jackson, and more importantly, I believe that the coaches think he is better.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
PackOne complains about the Starks love and says Starks won't be shit.

Then we get ...

What's with all the Starks hate? I crown his ass after one game, and ask if anyone wants to bet he WON'T be better than Grant. No one will take the bet, but people wanna keep talking shit.

"nerdmann" wrote:







Which is it? Everyone hating, or loving? Can't have both.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Martha Careful (10h) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
Zero2Cool (12h) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
Mucky Tundra (12h) : 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 (13h) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
Zero2Cool (14h) : Kuhn let go
beast (16h) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
Zero2Cool (16h) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
Zero2Cool (20h) : 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
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Derek

36m / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16h / 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.