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

beast (3m) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (6h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : 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.

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