PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago
With all the complaints about him that I have heard this year, try to really look at what Jackson was doing on his limited chances. As of today, if you average his totals, he would be on pace for 1100 combined yards. And that with out getting any of the clean up yardage at the end of games.

Had McCarthy actually used him correclty, I easily see him getting 800 rushing and 500 receiving. Had he done that, there wouldn't be all this talk about not having a running game, and the addition of Starks would be bonus instead of a pressing need.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Greg C.
14 years ago
What are your numbers based on? And is 1,100 combined yards really something for a starting RB to be proud of anyway?
blank
nerdmann
14 years ago
Starks is better than Jackson. We all know that. I like Jackson. I think he could get it done if they didn't keep pulling him for Kuhn. Jackson's problem is they reserve him for 3rd down pass pro.
Still, he could get more than he does.
“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.”
zombieslayer
14 years ago
Twins - He's a pretty good 3rd down back. I've never complained about Jackson himself. Just the situation. Specifically, Jackson was a big drop off from Grant because Jackson's a role player. He's not an every down back.

Jackson's blitz pick ups are Solid (as in my rating system of Poor, Fair, Average, Good, Solid). He's an Average screen guy. I like him primarily as a 3rd down back as I like a guy who can protect Aaron. That role is very important, as I see us as a passing team and Aaron's the most important player on our O.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago

What are your numbers based on? And is 1,100 combined yards really something for a starting RB to be proud of anyway?

"Greg C." wrote:



His yards today averaged and run over 16 games. would come out 702 rushing and 405 receiving. And with the limited number of attempts given, 1100 is nothing to sneeze at.

Had his touches not been limited so much by McCarthy he would have been 1300 if not more. Making the passing game easier because it would again make defenses count the RB.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Finley88Beast
14 years ago

Starks is better than Jackson. We all know that. I like Jackson. I think he could get it done if they didn't keep pulling him for Kuhn. Jackson's problem is they reserve him for 3rd down pass pro.
Still, he could get more than he does.

"nerdmann" wrote:



Didn't you say the Jackson was better than Grant before?
That's means your saying Starks is the best.
A Quote from my brother Mike(Bears Fan)
"Fucking Greg Jennings"
After he makes a catch
PackFanWithTwins
14 years ago

Twins - He's a pretty good 3rd down back. I've never complained about Jackson himself. Just the situation. Specifically, Jackson was a big drop off from Grant because Jackson's a role player. He's not an every down back.

Jackson's blitz pick ups are Solid (as in my rating system of Poor, Fair, Average, Good, Solid). He's an Average screen guy. I like him primarily as a 3rd down back as I like a guy who can protect Aaron. That role is very important, as I see us as a passing team and Aaron's the most important player on our O.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



In the run game, yeah he is a big drop from Grant, The point is that if McCarthy would have used Jackson to his strengths that loss would have been greatly covered by shifting those yards. Instead of defenses coming up to play the run, they would have to send a LB or S after Jackson into the flat opening the middle of the field up.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
macbob
14 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.
PackFanWithTwins
14 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.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
macbob
14 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.

"PackFanWithTwins" 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.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (8h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
    packerfanoutwest (13h) : Feliz Navidad!
    Zero2Cool (18h) : Merry Christmas!
    beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
    beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
    Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
    buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
    Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
    Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
    packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
    beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
    bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
    beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
    Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
    Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
    Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 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
    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
    Recent Topics
    15h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

    24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

    24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    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

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