Packers by position: Running backs· Page 3

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

I'm in full agreement that Brandon Jackson should get more touches. However, I won't base that on his average per carry through 45 carries when nearly half of them came in two games.

"SlickVision" wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Would Jackson's stats somehow be more meaningful if the carries were distributed more evenly throughout the season? The 7.3 YPC against Carolina was Jackson's best moment, as Grant was sidelined and Jackson was used as an every-down back in the second half of a very close game against a good defensive team.

blank

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

15 years ago

#22

I'm in full agreement that Brandon Jackson should get more touches. However, I won't base that on his average per carry through 45 carries when nearly half of them came in two games.

"Greg C." wrote:

"SlickVision" wrote:

What I'm saying is Grant's 198 carries for 5.1 means more than Jacksons 45 carries for 5.5 a pop. And I'm not going to base my opinion (if any one is, I disagree with that) on his yards per carry after 45 carries.

His stats would have some meaning if they were a 100 or more. 45 carries not how you base a RB's performance. At least, not in my opinion, that's all I'm saying.

dfosterf
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#23

This is a WAG (wild-assed guess).

Wynn was still in the semi-craphouse with Mike McCarthy last year, possibly due to the public airing of the "unfairness" of his IR the previous year. He got released from that doghouse through hard work, which is continuing. Lesson well-learned.

Brandon Jackson was still in the semi-craphouse with Mike McCarthy last year, for his lack of production the previous year when given the job of workhorse back until Grant came on the scene and bailed out our running game. Fair? No.
True? Possibly---not probably---no word twists please.

Grant was given every benefit of the doubt due to having produced during those last games the previous year. Or, they are using him like a bar of soap until Jackson is ready. Again, possibly--not probably.

From what I have seen from all 3 of them (and I see good things from all of them) going into 2009, a big part of me thinks that Wynn should be given the opportunity OVER THE OTHER TWO.

I just see good things, man, good things (mostly) when the rock is in Wynn's hands...comparatively speaking.

Not a stat, and not anything I'm absolutely hung up about, just a personal "feeling".

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#24

While I like Jackson because of what I see as more versatility, the Yards Per stats are skewed because of McCarthy play calling. Look how much more time Grant had on the field. He caught 18 passes. Jackson with far less time caught 30.

I all but guarantee that defenses looked at who was in the back field, and played different. Almost like when they saw the dreaded U71 come out. Jackson is out, they have to cover the flats better and be more concerned about the back coming out of the back field. When Grant is in, they can play the WR and the run and give up the flats more because he is seldom thrown to.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

ILikeThePackers39
Registered

15 years ago

#25

"dfosterf" wrote:

I can see giving Wynn a fair shot, but while he's good between the tackles, I don't see a lot of shimmy when he runs. He's more straight-line like Grant is, and while that's good, the ex-RB in me wants to see something a little more exciting out there. Jackson's got some nice, elusive moves. I'd like to see him mixed in on 1st and 2nd downs, since he's a threat to catch the ball as well as run it, and when you see Grant or Wynn you pretty much know they're running the ball. Mean to say, I can see Wynn taking some carries from Grant (especially if Grant doesn't show some toughness like he did in '07), but I think Jackson's skill set needs to be on the field more, regardless.

And I still say that people shouldn't sleep on Lumpkin - I really liked what I saw from him last pre-season.

blank

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

15 years ago

#26

Hm, interesting reading people's opinion on Grant... I disagree with most of them. I think Grant has exactly the right tools to be in this offense, I rate his ability on the second level as second to less than a handful of guys in the entire NFL. I really do; I think Grant has great elusiveness that can be utilized in our offense.

My problem with the overall running game is McCarthy's lack of commitment to establishing it. McCarthy talks big about establishing the run... well great, but how many times does he come out intending to do that? Not very many in my opinion...

What I'm liking this-offseason is that Mike McCarthy seems to realize that he needs to tweak some things. Continuity on the offense will be a great thing, and should help Grant.

As for the FB, I'm curious to see who wins the competition. The interesting thing is that I'm not sure who has a leg up going into the off-season workouts. Hall and Khun are vets, but they don't come close to blocking like QJ. Yet Quinn Johnson is inexperienced, even if a punishing lead blocker - you have to think it'll be tougher blocking bigger/stronger/quicker players right away.

I wonder if the Packers could keep Johnson on the PS for one year. Obviously that would mean Johnson makes a commitment that he won't sign elsewhere, which I'm not sure he would... should definitely be a fun TC battle to keep an eye on.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#27

Screw the run. I'd actually like to see a more pass oriented offense with a lot more screens. If I were running the show, we'd be seeing a lot more of Jackson and Wynn and less of Grant, because I'm all about the screen pass when it comes to RBs. Yes, throw in the occasional run, but I see nothing wrong with a 70/30 pass/run ratio if it's scoring you points, getting first down after first down, and wearing opposing Ds down.

I miss the days of Ahman Green and to a lesser extent William Henderson. I like to make defenses worry where the ball is going.

If you have a guy like AP, you set up a run first team. Our offensive star isn't Ryan Grant, it's Greg Jennings (and Aaron Rodgers and Donald Driver).

You play the cards you got. If Ryan Grant wants to be on the field more, he better learn how to catch a screen pass. Jackson and Wynn can both do it.

Let's not forget the last SB we won was without even a 900 yard RB.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

15 years ago

#28

Ahman Green was not appreciated by some, I feel. Those who claim he was not an elite back I think are sadly mistaken. He could run, catch, block, he was the man during his prime. That was one helluva good move by Sherman.

DakotaT
Select Member

15 years ago

#29

"SlickVision" wrote:

Boy, I'm sorry I called you DA yesterday. This was a good post. Who was the loser DB we traded for him again?

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#30

"SlickVision" wrote:

Who the heck said he wasn't an elite back? Whoever said that is now on my idiot list.

In terms of fantasy football (yes, fantasy football matters for RB production), he was #3 in 2001 and #3 in 2003. He was #3 in '01 and '03 in total yards from scrimmage. He got 20 TDs in '03, which was 2nd in the NFL (for any position). He was a Pro Bowler in '01, '02, '03, and '04. He was a damn good screen back.

Geez, I guess some people smoke too much crack. Anyone who would be disappointed in that much production in 4 years for a RB is an idiot. Realistically, the life expectancy of a RB is very short. He's 29th all-time in career rushing yards, which is pretty impressive.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

packerfanoutwest (31m) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (2h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (12h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (12h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (12h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (16h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (16h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (16h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (18h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (18h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (18h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (18h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (18h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (18h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (18h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (19h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (20h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (20h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (20h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (20h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (20h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (21h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (21h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (21h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (21h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (22h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (22h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (22h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS