dfosterf
13 years ago
Jackson's time running out? 

Jackson's time running out?
By Rob Reischel, for the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 14, 2011 5:16 a.m. |(21) Comments

Theres a story on Packer Insider and in Packer Plus this week examining Green Bays soon-to-be free agent class. On Thursday afternoon, we caught up with running back Brandon Jackson, whos part of that group.

Jackson is Green Bays leading rusher and a 13-game starter this season. But Thursday afternoon, Jackson sounded like a player whose career in Green Bay is winding down.
Jackson, whose contract ends after the 2010 season, was asked if he thinks hell be a Packer next year. Interestingly, Jackson spoke in the past tense.
I enjoyed my opportunities here, said Jackson, a second round draft pick in 2007. And I really dont know whats going to happen. But if its here, hey, Im glad to be here. If its somewhere else, then Ill take it somewhere else.
Jackson said he owns a house in Green Bay and would prefer to remain a Packer. But Jackson also said Green Bays management team hasnt made any contact with his people.
Jackson, 25, was a solid third down back during his first three years in the NFL. This year, Jackson was asked to carry more of the load and the results were mediocre, at best.
Jackson led the Packers with 703 rushing yards this season and added 342 receiving yards. But Jackson also averaged just 3.7 yards per rushing attempt.
I think I made the most of my opportunities, Jackson said. I think I showed people Im a back that can handle first and second down. Id already proven myself on third down, in the passing game and in the blocking game. I think I helped myself.
Ryan Grant, Green Bays leading rusher from 2007-09, should be fully recovered from an ankle injury that landed him on the injured reserve list Sept. 14. Grant said this week that he expects to be 100% sometime next month and will be a full participant in Green Bays offseason program if a new labor deal is in place.
When you dont play for as long as I have, youve got a lot of pent up frustration, Grant said. When I get back next year, someones going to have to pay.
Rookie James Starks has also emerged and could team with Grant to give the Packers a solid tandem in 2011.
Just where exactly does that leave Jackson? Probably somewhere else.
Theres been no communication between us whatsoever, Jackson said of his people and the Packers. Is that frustrating? I dont know. A little bit.
But its also going to be exciting to see what happens. Its actually an opportunity to see whats going to happen. Im just excited for me, because after the CBA is signed, I think theres going to be some exciting opportunities out there."



I like that Grant quote.
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
haha someones gonna pay ... yeah our OL that he runs into!!
UserPostedImage
peteralan71
13 years ago
It does kind of make you feel bad for Jackson. Unfortunately, this is a business. If he is not able to give us what we want, he will probably be moving on. I do think that he is certainly capable as a third down back, but we'll just have to see what happens next year. Probably, we will have the proverbial "two-headed monster" on our team, much like many other NFL teams have. I haven't noticed much yet, but how does Starks perform when pass-blocking?
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
13 years ago

haha someones gonna pay ... yeah our OL that he runs into!!

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



As long as he runs THROUGH them. :)

On a serious note though, Starks has one good game (Granted, his first real opportunity) and we're already ready to throw BJack out of town? His real value is as a third down back and in pass protection. He's not bad out of the backfield and great in pass protection, and personally I think that fits our team's talents once Finley gets back better than an every down back.

If we can only have two, I'd rather have Grant and BJack than Grant and Starks, or Starks and BJack if we wanted to take a big gamble.
Tezzy
13 years ago
Luckily we still have another 3 games to let this work itself out. We'll see if Starks is the real deal or not, then I could understand if ties were cut with BJack. Otherwise I say you can't overstate BJack's value when he is being a stud on 3rd downs. Look at what Chester Taylor did for the Queens. Granted Chester was a 6th round pick, but I argue the point for Hawk all the time. I think in the NFL, you don't have to play to your draft pick, you have to play to your team winning. Now look at Chester in Chicago, not much happenings. Sometimes that right mixture can make something special, and I enjoy BJack in that role.
On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."
peteralan71
13 years ago

haha someones gonna pay ... yeah our OL that he runs into!!

"Porforis" wrote:



As long as he runs THROUGH them. :)

On a serious note though, Starks has one good game (Granted, his first real opportunity) and we're already ready to throw BJack out of town? His real value is as a third down back and in pass protection. He's not bad out of the backfield and great in pass protection, and personally I think that fits our team's talents once Finley gets back better than an every down back.

If we can only have two, I'd rather have Grant and BJack than Grant and Starks, or Starks and BJack if we wanted to take a big gamble.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I think the fact that is WAS his first real opportunity, the stage upon which his "one good game" was played (don't forget his 70+ yard game against SF), the fact that the coaches openly like him more than Jackson and Nance (he gets WAY more CPG than the others) all combine to lead us to the assumption that Jackson will either be gone next year or here and sitting behind Grant and Starks, getting very little playing time. Sorry for the run-on 🙂
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
13 years ago
Keep BJack. As was pointed out he is a solid 3rd down back. In a passing game "3rd down formations" can be used on 2nd down as well.

I want the best blockers we can get for ARod. Especially when he HAS to pass such as what happens on 3rd down. ARods 3rd down completions and QB rating last year were off the wall good. BJack had to contribute to that to some degree. (I don't know what they were this year. I assume they were good perhaps not as good.)

If they sign him to a reasonable deal that would be good for the whole team. we saw this year how important it is to have a back up for the back up's back up. I prefer it not be Nance.
If Stark's pans out next year making Jackson expendable they can always trade or release BJack. All they would be out is the signing bonus money.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 years ago
Either Jackson lacks peripheal vision or he is lacking intelligence. Our offensive line hasn't change, so why can Grant rack up 1,200 yards and Starks get 130 last week but Brandon can't do anything?

I say we draft a return specialist that can compete with Brandon for the third down back job, or else just cut him. Kudos to Brandon's blocking ability, he does excel at that.
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
13 years ago
Starks has had two good games in three opportunities. As a rookie. Jackson has had two or three good games in 17 opportunities, or maybe something like 12 or 13 if you consider that the Packers were very pass-oriented at times this season. And this is Jackson's fourth season. Not a lot of upside there.

Starks is already a better runner than Jackson, and because he is so young, he has way more potential and is therefore way more valuable than Jackson. I don't think there will be much of a bidding war for Jackson during free agency. However, it sounds like he may not be comfortable with having been passed up twice now by players who started their careers at a much lower point than he did, so maybe it will be best for him to go elsewhere. I'd love to keep him around as our third down back, with Grant and Starks as the top two RBs.
blank
bozz_2006
13 years ago
I'm with Greg (big shocker). I don't see Jackson getting offered much more money anywhere else but he sounds like he's very confident he can be an every down back. I think he's a good 3rd down back and don't see him ever excelling as an every down back. If he gets the opportunity to try his hand as an every down back somewhere, he'll go there. I don't think he'll get that opportunity again here.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (16m) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (16m) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (1h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (1h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (1h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (1h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (1h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (1h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (1h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (1h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (1h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (1h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (1h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (1h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (1h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (1h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (1h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (2h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (2h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (2h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (2h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (2h) : Packers will get in
beast (2h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (2h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (2h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (4h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (5h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (5h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (6h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (15h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (15h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (15h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (19h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
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
22m / Random Babble / Martha Careful

35m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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