Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
7 Pages<1234>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline nerdmann  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:39:22 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,362
Applause Received: 599

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
people who want a stud rb are like nations who want a nuke or driving a Lamborghini in any American city. it looks real good sitting there but you can't use it. You only want one because someone else has one.
The stud rb will not get 25 carries and have a 100+ yard game. All you need is some schmoe who will get 15-20 carries and help move the chains. A 3 yard per carry avg is nice but not required.


I'd settle for a dude who's money in short yardage.
“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.”
Offline yooperfan  
#17 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:32:09 AM(UTC)
yooperfan

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Ishpeming Michigan

Applause Given: 539
Applause Received: 247

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
I'd settle for a dude who's money in short yardage.


I'll take Kuhn.
We don't need Stephan Jackson.

thanks Post received 3 applause.
wpr on 10/25/2012(UTC), zombieslayer on 10/25/2012(UTC), macbob on 10/26/2012(UTC)
Offline zombieslayer  
#18 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:02:33 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
people who want a stud rb are like nations who want a nuke or driving a Lamborghini in any American city. it looks real good sitting there but you can't use it. You only want one because someone else has one.
The stud rb will not get 25 carries and have a 100+ yard game. All you need is some schmoe who will get 15-20 carries and help move the chains. A 3 yard per carry avg is nice but not required.


My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Yerko  
#19 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:22:00 AM(UTC)
Yerko

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Chicago, IL

Applause Given: 141
Applause Received: 234

NYRPack...you know your idea would have been amazing had it been after a JJ drop heavy game or earlier in the year before his 3 games where he caught 2 touchdowns each time.

I Applause you for the thought, but I will side with the majority as well. James Jones belongs on the Packers because there truly is no telling what is going to happen with our receivers in the next 1-2 years. Jennings is up for a new contract and DD is on the last leg of his contract. Giving up JJ would leave us pretty bare at the receiver position.

Don't get me wrong, seeing Steven Jackson in a Packers jersey would be friggin' amazing...

UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#20 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:23:48 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

I believe I posted this in anothe thread.

If part of that trade includes an Oline that can run block and an offensive strategy that concentrates on running the ball then maybe. Peterson would be a mediocre back behind our run blocking and play calling. I went back a took a hard look at all our run plays and believe me when I tell you RB is not the problem.

When you see a team that dominates at running, you see lineman taking their blocks 5 yards down field. Our oline seldom block on the defensive side of the ball. And that is not because the guys can't, it seems to be by design. They want it always to look like we are passing so even in run blocking we backup instead of drive forward. There also have been many times, where we have Crabtree single blocking a DE on the front side of the run. Crabtree may be a good blocking TE, but he is not going to drive DE's with 30+ lbs on him off the ball.

Backs don't do well when they don't have anyplace to run.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline dfosterf  
#21 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:47:06 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 174
Applause Received: 390

JAMES JONES!

I saw it. I saw the potential. I defended him. Sometimes I don't know WHY I did, but I did. My wife told me she bought a couch the other day- turned out she she bought a friggin' ROOM. She hit me with my consolation prize after she hit me with the price for the room...

JAMES JONES! (Autographed helmet, probably went for real cheap)

She had/has no clue who James Jones is. She only hears me yellin' from afar, "JAMES JONES!"


I'm married to a good woman, lol

I don't want to trade James Jones. I like him.
UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline nyrpack  
#22 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:07:18 PM(UTC)
nyrpack

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Location: long island, ny

Applause Given: 3
Applause Received: 42

obviously im in the minority here, i have nothing but praise for jones but if want a guy like jackson it would take a guy like jones as tradebait. i truly think cobb, driver and boykin could pick up the slack if jones were not here. remember when the pack is on the road and in hostile stadiums and there pinned in and its 3 and 1 , having a guy like jackson is money, and when teams lineup to stack the line arod could go play action and hit wide open recievers if he so chooses. again its only my opinion and i respect all the counterpoints which do make lots of sense !!
jimmy b.
Offline zombieslayer  
#23 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:54:01 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: nyrpack Go to Quoted Post
obviously im in the minority here, i have nothing but praise for jones but if want a guy like jackson it would take a guy like jones as tradebait. i truly think cobb, driver and boykin could pick up the slack if jones were not here. remember when the pack is on the road and in hostile stadiums and there pinned in and its 3 and 1 , having a guy like jackson is money, and when teams lineup to stack the line arod could go play action and hit wide open recievers if he so chooses. again its only my opinion and i respect all the counterpoints which do make lots of sense !!


With all due respect, you're thinking short term. Ted Thompson and The Zombieslayer are thinking long-term so it's not gonna happen.

JJ will be good for at least 3-4 years and more than likely 5-6. Driver is done after this season. Gregorious will probably follow the $$$. Then what? You expect Boykin to be as good as JJ or Driver? Fat chance.

Aaron Rodgers needs weapons. If anything, we need an improved OL. We absolutely positively do NOT need a 29-year-old RB.

When Jackson gets 450 yards on 150 carries next year, then 200 yards on 70 carries the year after that and JJ is getting 1000 yards on 80 receptions and 10 TDs on another team for 3 straight years, you'd be kicking yourself.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#24 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:04:39 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 11
Applause Received: 352

Don't forget that Jackson will be a Free agent after this year also. This would also double the hit to the cap of Jones bringing Jackson in.


What we should have done is sign Wells and trade him for Jackson.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline Porforis  
#25 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:48:11 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 168
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
Don't forget that Jackson will be a Free agent after this year also. This would also double the hit to the cap of Jones bringing Jackson in.

What we should have done is sign Wells and trade him for Jackson.


I really don't see that either... We brought in Benson to be an effective RB. He was a very effective RB, but got hurt. How would Jackson have been an improvement over Benson when healthy, and who's to say Jackson wouldn't get dinged up as well, putting us in the exact same situation?
UserPostedImage
Offline nerdmann  
#26 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:56:58 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,362
Applause Received: 599

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
With all due respect, you're thinking short term. Ted Thompson and The Zombieslayer are thinking long-term so it's not gonna happen.

JJ will be good for at least 3-4 years and more than likely 5-6. Driver is done after this season. Gregorious will probably follow the $$$. Then what? You expect Boykin to be as good as JJ or Driver? Fat chance.

Aaron Rodgers needs weapons. If anything, we need an improved OL. We absolutely positively do NOT need a 29-year-old RB.

When Jackson gets 450 yards on 150 carries next year, then 200 yards on 70 carries the year after that and JJ is getting 1000 yards on 80 receptions and 10 TDs on another team for 3 straight years, you'd be kicking yourself.


Agreed. Trading for Marshawn was a different scenario, because he had more years in front of him.

No way Ted pulls the trigger for a guy Jackson's age. Especially at that position.
“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.”
thanks Post received 2 applause.
DakotaT on 10/25/2012(UTC), TheKanataThrilla on 10/26/2012(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#27 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:21:37 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 636
Applause Received: 1,313

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Agreed. Trading for Marshawn was a different scenario, because he had more years in front of him.

No way Ted pulls the trigger for a guy Jackson's age. Especially at that position.


If we would just invest a high draft pick in a center that can run block, then the backs we have would be more productive.

I'd rather see us use our running backs in screen passes anyway. Give me a Roger Craig over a Stephen Jackson anyway. Running backs like Jackson are for teams with shitty quarterback in which to play ugly, boring football. But since the Republican Party wants to drag this country back 50 years where women only cooked us supper and bore our children, might as well take football back there too.
UserPostedImage
Offline nerdmann  
#28 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:51:23 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,362
Applause Received: 599

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
If we would just invest a high draft pick in a center that can run block, then the backs we have would be more productive.

I'd rather see us use our running backs in screen passes anyway. Give me a Roger Craig over a Stephen Jackson anyway. Running backs like Jackson are for teams with shitty quarterback in which to play ugly, boring football. But since the Republican Party wants to drag this country back 50 years where women only cooked us supper and bore our children, might as well take football back there too.


lol

I'd love a Roger Craig. Thing is, Green's probably way more explosive than Craig.

I could definitely see Ted taking a C high this year.

Ted will take a WR in the 2nd or 3rd as well. A good one.
“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.”
Online wpr  
#29 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 5:37:16 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,835
Applause Received: 1,367

Originally Posted by: nyrpack Go to Quoted Post
obviously im in the minority here, i have nothing but praise for jones but if want a guy like jackson it would take a guy like jones as tradebait. i truly think cobb, driver and boykin could pick up the slack if jones were not here. remember when the pack is on the road and in hostile stadiums and there pinned in and its 3 and 1 , having a guy like jackson is money, and when teams lineup to stack the line arod could go play action and hit wide open recievers if he so chooses. again its only my opinion and i respect all the counterpoints which do make lots of sense !!


I understand why you want him. Long run we all want the same thing. first downs, touch downs and victories. we just want to do it in different ways.

I would rather focus on the passing game with Rodgers. I don't want to tie a lot up into a rb.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

thanks Post received 1 applause.
zombieslayer on 10/26/2012(UTC)
Offline macbob  
#30 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 4:58:41 PM(UTC)
macbob

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2012

Joined: 10/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 264
Applause Received: 227

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
people who want a stud rb are like nations who want a nuke or driving a Lamborghini in any American city. it looks real good sitting there but you can't use it. You only want one because someone else has one.
The stud rb will not get 25 carries and have a 100+ yard game. All you need is some schmoe who will get 15-20 carries and help move the chains. A 3 yard per carry avg is nice but not required.


I was going to applause until the yard per carry comment. On a single game basis 3 yard per carry may not be required, but over the course of a season I think it is. It wasn't required against St Louis, but would likely be required against a team like Houston (who, coincidentally, we averaged 3 yards per carry against).

Oh, and no, I wouldn't trade JJ for SJ.
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages<1234>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
28m / Green Bay Packers Talk / MintBaconDrivel

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

16h / Around The NFL / Cheesey

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.