What could have been with Jackson· Page 2

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

This was never about, who is better. Just about what could have been had McCarthy used Jackson correclty, and how that could have camouflaged the loss of Grant and better helped opening up the passing game.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

longtimefan
Registered

14 years ago

#12

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:

Hate that argument

Take out all the YAC the WR get and leave Rodgers with only the actual length of the pass..

Then take away EVERY TD Rodgers tosses like the one to Driver last week..That was all Driver, shouldnt count for Rodgers

Let us know when you get those all done okay?

Greg C.
Registered

14 years ago

#13

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Take out Grant or AP big runs and see where they lie.

"macbob" wrote:

No kidding. Every time we discuss running backs on this site, somebody wants to take away their biggest runs.

I agree with others here that Jackson is a good third down back (I actually think he's a VERY good third down back) but not a good primary ballcarrier. Also, I believe that Jackson's averages would go down if he got more carries. I suppose it might open up the passing game, but the cost would be a lot of running plays with little or no gain, and I don't think the trade-off would be worth it. Mike McCarthy pretty much knows what he is doing with the play calling.

blank

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#14

"Greg C." wrote:

Take out Grant or AP big runs and see where they lie.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

"macbob" wrote:

My problem is not rushes as much as receptions. Jackson should have been getting at least 5 catches per game or more, 10 and 10 would be nice for his 20 touches per game

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

macbob
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#15

"longtimefan" wrote:

"macbob" wrote:

I agree--hate that argument too. My point was, we're 12 games into the season, and it was one run.

Since69
Registered

14 years ago

#16

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.

"Finley88Beast" wrote:

Didn't you say the Jackson was better than Grant before?
That's means your saying Starks is the best.

"nerdmann" wrote:

Jackson has more potential than Grant - he just hasn't lived up to it. (Yet(?))

nerdmann
Premier Member

14 years ago

#17

"Finley88Beast" wrote:

Didn't you say the Jackson was better than Grant before?
That's means your saying Starks is the best.

"nerdmann" wrote:

Yep.

“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.”

RajiRoar
Senior Member

14 years ago

#18

12 games into the season and Jackson has had ONE long run, AP and CJ are breaking big-gainers almost weekly.

the argument is very valid IMO.

MintBaconDrivel
Dec, 11, 2012 - FOREVER!

Stevetarded
Registered

14 years ago

#19

Look, Jacksons limited chances are not ALL McCarthys fault. Jackson has not been a very good runner this year. At some point in order to trust a running back you need SOME consistency. Jackson has not had that. Yes, some games like Washington Jackson was running well and should have gotten more carries but there have been far more games where handing the ball off was just getting absolutely nowhere.

Look at it from McCarthys point of view. You can keep banging your head against the wall and running it for 2 or 3 yards max with some negavite runs here and there or you can put it in Rodgers hands. Look what Starks did vs a good run defense. He brought some CONSISTENCY and they stayed running it.

blank

Stevetarded
Registered

14 years ago

#20

"macbob" wrote:

Take out Grand or AP big runs and see where they lie.

"PackFanWithTwins" 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.

blank

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

Zero2Cool (38m) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha

wpr (1h) : Tomorrow is almost here.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?

packerfanoutwest (1h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him

Zero2Cool (3h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.

packerfanoutwest (13h) : don't care

Zero2Cool (18h) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?

packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat

wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.

wpr (22-Apr) : now 3

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?

beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.

dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move

dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish

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

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24