Well, I don't do stats - not because I don't believe in them, but because, frankly, I'm lazy. I just go by what I see and what my gut tells me - and I don't at all disagree that Grant is the better back. I also think Jackson's got a ton of potential and what I recall (hazily, at this point - I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to revisit some games and refresh that memory) is Grant going down more often last year (especially early - if memory serves he continually improved throughout the season) at first contact than Jackson did. That may well have been due to the hamstring issue, and I certainly have not given up on him - I think he's got the physical tools to be a 1600+ yards-per-season guy, though our current system isn't going to get him enough carries to do that.

I simply don't think Jackson is overrated - I think he's a little underrated, mostly because he got hurt so quickly his rookie year. I think a lot of fans decided he was soft, and then when Grant came on they forgot him.

Now, as for everyone calling for Jackson last year, I do agree with you on that point - it was silly, and while I was certainly wanting him to get more touches, I didn't support the idea of him supplanting Grant as the number one back, other than in case of injury.

I've also been wrong about running backs more than I've been right, so I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to take what I say on the matter without a good-sized grain of salt.

---

Saying Jackson should be starter over Grant because of his yards per carry would be like saying that Rodgers should be MVP after no picks through a few games.

The more carries you get, the less your average is. Some run plays are set up to be jus 2 - 3 yard pops and of course some are there to break it the distance. It's backs who make the 2 - 3 yard pops into 12 yard plus gains that are special. (i.e. Barry Sanders)

---

I'm going to agree and disagree with what you said ...
agree that the less carries generally more yards (could be because the other team doesnt expect you to run the ball; you are less tired/beat up ... want to make a bigger impression? various things).

Then again jackson looks like a bigger/stronger runner. I like his style.
They always say grant is a downhill runner (not sure where these hills are) 😉
ie grant his the hole and runs as fast as he can.

I don't think it's fair to blame Aaron Rodgers for being 6-10. If anyone's to blame for losing the close games, it's MM.

Why? I'll explain.

When we have a small lead, Mike McCarthy starts getting all conservative. Also, Aaron Rodgers was near perfect in the red zone, yet we keep running two out of 3 plays. We need to stop doing that. If you have a QB who is near perfect, you pass 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3.

We lost so many games by 4 points or less last year.

---

I would say that a lot of those people won't like Rodgers even if he wins two superbowls, and here's why:

1. They see him as the reason Brett got "railroaded" (see it from their perspective - that's what they think went down) out of GB. They think he was behind the scenes agitating and creating an environment where the FO felt they HAD to make a choice. They will never forgive him for this, and more importantly they'll never forgive him for not being Brett Favre.

2. He is inextricably linked to Thompson, who is inextricably linked to the Favre soap opera. He is thought of as "Ted's son" and a million other inaccurate things. Those that hate Thompson will always hate Rodgers by extension.

Packers fans are not normal fans, as we all know. For some of them, Favre was, is, and will always be a golden god, and none of them will be happy until Thompson and Rodgers are gone - and if you think those people aren't willing to sit through as much losing as necessary to see that happen, you're underestimating just how rabid about this they are.

Where DHazer is absolutely correct is that Rodgers has only started @ the position for one year, and football history is littered with guys who rocked for one season and then petered out. Where he's absolutely wrong is that you do NOT leave your best viable option at the QB position twisting in the wind when you know that roughly a third of the other NFL teams would be more than happy to pay him handsomely - and by no means do you do so if that QB is already taking metric shit-tons of heat from psychotic Packers fans (I mean, really - who wouldn't rather go to another team and be greeted as a hero instead of spat on as a Judas?) for no other reason than he happened to be second on the depth chart when Favre left town. You pay him if you have any indication that he can get the job done, because you have nothing better @ that position.

And there is where the Thompson/Rodgers haters really screw the pooch. Other than the totally non-plausible "Bring Brett back!" argument, what alternative to Rodgers have they ever suggested? Who is their choice to play starting QB for the Packers? I've yet to hear one. All we ever hear or read is that Rodgers is going to fail - we never hear who SHOULD be the Packers QB. And until someone can answer that question, all the hand-wringing and angry typing adds up to a big fat goose egg - it's clear that they're not concerned about watching a winning team, just hell-bent hoping that a couple guys they don't like will lose their jobs.

---

Well, I may become a Ted Thompson hater if we have another 6-10 season. However, love AR. He's going to be a winner, if Mike McCarthy will stop making Aaron Rodgers play with one hand tied behind his back.

---

I noteced that too; we have one of the best passing games in the league and when it came to the red zone. We often ran the ball.

Its tough thou ... we dont have that great of a Oline to protect arod so hes got time to make the throw; and then we dont have the best running game to make the play to the goal line.

basically I am agreeing - we should throw the ball more when it counts. Even screens or something.

*they are planning on making the reg-season longer* I'm def. looking forward to this. Sucks that we only get so many games that could. Theres like 6 months of soccer here in the UK - I need more NFL (hate soccer).

Just to be sure it doesn't appear that I'm jumping on DHazer, I'm not dead-convinced that Rodgers is some perennial pro-bowler or anything, yet. I do agree that you can't make that kind of determination after a single season, even if it was a very promising season. Where I differ is that I don't have any preconceived bias against the kid - I don't hate him because he's not Favre or because I think he's "Ted Thompson's kid". I don't hate him at all - nor do I love him.

He's got plenty to prove; I'm just willing to allow him to try to prove it.

---

I wonder if I would get chewed out by anyone for saying I think Nick Barnett is overrated....at his current position.

But I do think he would be better in another position.

---

Spot on.. that is the approach all Packer fans should have towards Rodgers at this moment.

But I think Ted was a little trigger happy on the timing of his extension.. I know he was playing the cap game, but wee bit risky.

---