Greg C.
14 years ago

There was a time when 100% of Jackson's yardage this year came on a single run.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



And man, was he ever awful back then. Thankfully, he got better and better with each carry, until that 71 yarder ruined his season.
blank
Pack93z
14 years ago
Jackson's real value is in pass protection and receiving, IMO if I may.

He is a very solid pass blocking back.. probably underrated.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
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.

"Greg C." wrote:



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

"Stevetarded" 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.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



What's so bad about 13%? That statistic means nothing. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that long runs are a GOOD thing? Long runs are what really force defenses to honor the running game. One of Jackson's biggest shortcomings is that he doesn't break ENOUGH long runs, yet people continually use his longest run (his BEST run) in order to discredit him. I don't get it.

"macbob" wrote:



Greg-that was my point. It was 1 run. In 12 games. Other than that, pedestrian production.

Nothing special other than 1 stinking run. When you say he doesn't break enough runs, you're saying the same thing.
musccy
14 years ago

You shouldn't cherry pick the stats that you want to remove from a players' resume to fabricate an argument. But at the same time, we all know that Bjack provides very little threat to pop appreciable gains with any regularity (relative to NFL RB standards) and the 13% stat is an illustration of that.

"Greg C." wrote:



It is, huh? Then how do you explain the following: If Brandon Jackson had tripped and fallen at the line of scrimmage instead of gaining 71 yards on that play, his percentage of yards on his longest run of the season would be considerably LESS than 13%. So you're saying that would make him a better runner?

Stats are great when they actually mean something, but when people start pulling stuff out of their asses (in this case, percentage of total yards gained on the longest carry of the season), stats do nothing but muddy the waters.

"musccy" wrote:



No, but his seasonal average would drop from 3.9 to 3.4. So does a 3.9 avg make him a good back now?

IMO, Bjack seems slow, doesn't 'fall forward,' and can't seem to break through to the 2nd level of the defense with any consistency to give you the perception that he can break it open on any given play. I felt the complete opposite with Starks, but subjective 'intuitions' and observations about a player can even muddier than a manipulated statistic. To me, the 3.4 avg is more indicative of the threat that Bjack provides than the 3.9 avg.
macbob
14 years ago

You shouldn't cherry pick the stats that you want to remove from a players' resume to fabricate an argument. But at the same time, we all know that Bjack provides very little threat to pop appreciable gains with any regularity (relative to NFL RB standards) and the 13% stat is an illustration of that.

"Greg C." wrote:



It is, huh? Then how do you explain the following: If Brandon Jackson had tripped and fallen at the line of scrimmage instead of gaining 71 yards on that play, his percentage of yards on his longest run of the season would be considerably LESS than 13%. So you're saying that would make him a better runner?

Stats are great when they actually mean something, but when people start pulling stuff out of their asses (in this case, percentage of total yards gained on the longest carry of the season), stats do nothing but muddy the waters.

"musccy" wrote:



I understand that you don't like the fact that I tried to back up my opinion with a stat. Sorry it torked you off. I retract the 13%.

Now, back to the discussion, other than 1 stinking long run, Jackson hasn't done a whole lot as a runner this year through the 1st 12 games. Is that better?
Greg C.
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.

"Greg C." 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.

"Stevetarded" 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.

"macbob" wrote:



What's so bad about 13%? That statistic means nothing. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that long runs are a GOOD thing? Long runs are what really force defenses to honor the running game. One of Jackson's biggest shortcomings is that he doesn't break ENOUGH long runs, yet people continually use his longest run (his BEST run) in order to discredit him. I don't get it.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



Greg-that was my point. It was 1 run. In 12 games. Other than that, pedestrian production.

Nothing special other than 1 stinking run. When you say he doesn't break enough runs, you're saying the same thing.

"macbob" wrote:



I agree with you 100%. I don't think Jackson has been a very good #1 back. My reply was directed at Stevetarded. My point was that if you are arguing that an RB is not very good, it is nonsense to manipulate the numbers in such a way that you try to turn his longest carry into a liability.
blank
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.

"Greg C." 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.

"Greg C." 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.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



What's so bad about 13%? That statistic means nothing. Where do people come up with this stuff?

Why is it so hard for people to understand that long runs are a GOOD thing? Long runs are what really force defenses to honor the running game. One of Jackson's biggest shortcomings is that he doesn't break ENOUGH long runs, yet people continually use his longest run (his BEST run) in order to discredit him. I don't get it.

"macbob" wrote:



Greg-that was my point. It was 1 run. In 12 games. Other than that, pedestrian production.

Nothing special other than 1 stinking run. When you say he doesn't break enough runs, you're saying the same thing.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:



I agree with you 100%. I don't think Jackson has been a very good #1 back. My reply was directed at Stevetarded. My point was that if you are arguing that an RB is not very good, it is nonsense to manipulate the numbers in such a way that you try to turn his longest carry into a liability.

"macbob" wrote:



Unfortunately, I was the one who started the 13% nonsense. The point which I was trying to make (obviously poorly) was that outside of that one run, he hadn't done a lot.
Greg C.
14 years ago

You shouldn't cherry pick the stats that you want to remove from a players' resume to fabricate an argument. But at the same time, we all know that Bjack provides very little threat to pop appreciable gains with any regularity (relative to NFL RB standards) and the 13% stat is an illustration of that.

"musccy" wrote:



It is, huh? Then how do you explain the following: If Brandon Jackson had tripped and fallen at the line of scrimmage instead of gaining 71 yards on that play, his percentage of yards on his longest run of the season would be considerably LESS than 13%. So you're saying that would make him a better runner?

Stats are great when they actually mean something, but when people start pulling stuff out of their asses (in this case, percentage of total yards gained on the longest carry of the season), stats do nothing but muddy the waters.

"Greg C." wrote:



No, but his seasonal average would drop from 3.9 to 3.4. So does a 3.9 avg make him a good back now?

IMO, Bjack seems slow, doesn't 'fall forward,' and can't seem to break through to the 2nd level of the defense with any consistency to give you the perception that he can break it open on any given play. I felt the complete opposite with Starks, but subjective 'intuitions' and observations about a player can even muddier than a manipulated statistic. To me, the 3.4 avg is more indicative of the threat that Bjack provides than the 3.9 avg.

"musccy" wrote:



Okay, I get it now. If your intuition tells you that a player is not as good as his stats suggest, you can just change the stat to a number that is more to your liking.

My intution tells me that James Starks is the best RB ever, so I am going to take away his 17 shortest carries and save the 16 yarder. Therefore, James Starks has a 16 yard average and is the best RB in the history of the league.

But wait--this also means that 100% of his yardage came on his longest run of the season. So he is simultaneously the WORST RB in the history of the league. This is so confusing!

Seriously, I think the problem here is that people assume that they can't make their point without some kind of stat, no matter how bogus, to back them up. But that's not the case. There's nothing wrong with saying that Brandon Jackson, in spite of his respectable YPC, has not been a very good RB for us, and a better player probably would've gained more yards. You don't have to cook the books to make your point.
blank
Greg C.
14 years ago

Unfortunately, I was the one who started the 13% nonsense. The point which I was trying to make (obviously poorly) was that outside of that one run, he hadn't done a lot.

"macbob" wrote:



Okay, gotcha. I will call off the dogs. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I think I've made my point several times over by now, so I will try to let it go.
blank
Pack93z
14 years ago
The simple point in this case is that the 71 yarder is an abnormality to the rest of his body of work.. and being duly noted.

At least how I read it.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
    beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
    Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
    Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
    Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
    dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
    Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
    dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
    dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
    dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
    Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
    wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
    Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
    Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
    Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
    Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
    Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
    Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : reported, but not expected to practice
    Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jenkins has REPORTED for mandatory camp
    Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : I really thought he'd play for Packers.
    buckeyepackfan (9-Jun) : Packers releasing Jaire Alexander.
    Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : (Context: he wants his defense to create turnovers)
    Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : Giants DC Shane Bowen tells players to “be a damn pirate."
    dfosterf (6-Jun) : Semper fi !
    Cheesey (6-Jun) : This is why I have so much respect for those that have gone through battles
    Cheesey (6-Jun) : I can't even imagine what that would have been like
    wpr (6-Jun) : "Come on, you sons of bitches. Do you want to live forever?"
    wpr (6-Jun) : Facing a line of machine guns 2 time medal of Honor recipient, First Sergeant Dan Daly told his men,
    wpr (6-Jun) : Another detachment went into the Belleau Wood.
    wpr (6-Jun) : On the 6th the Marines took Hill 142 but suffered terrible losses.
    wpr (6-Jun) : It’s time to remember dfoster’s Marine brothers in Belleau Wood. The battle went on from June 1-26. Nearly 10,000 casualties.
    packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : Nick Collins and Morgan Burnett have signed with the PACK
    packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : he won't be wearing #12, maybe he will wear number two
    packerfanoutwest (6-Jun) : He will fail this season, should have retired
    Mucky Tundra (5-Jun) : Thus the cycle of Hall of Fame Packer QBs going to the Jets and then the Vikings is broken
    bboystyle (5-Jun) : Rodgers to steelers on 1 year contract
    Zero2Cool (5-Jun) : It's the cycle of civilizations. Get lazier, lazier, softer, softer and vanish.
    Martha Careful (5-Jun) : great point. every aspect of society, including art, culture and sports has degraded.
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : Green Bay sweep meant something to society about stopping pure excellence. We have the tush push now
    dfosterf (4-Jun) : We old Martha.
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

    14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

    13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Adam

    12-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.