Green Bay Packers Forum
7 Pages<1234>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline nerdmann  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, October 24, 2012 9:39:22 PM(UTC)
wpr said: 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.
Offline yooperfan  
#17 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:32:09 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: 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)
wpr said: 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.


Offline Yerko  
#19 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:22:00 AM(UTC)
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 =d> 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...

Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#20 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:23:48 AM(UTC)
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.
Offline dfosterf  
#21 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:47:06 PM(UTC)
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.
Offline nyrpack  
#22 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:07:18 PM(UTC)
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 !!
Offline zombieslayer  
#23 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:54:01 PM(UTC)
nyrpack said: 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. [tt] 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.

[ar] 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.
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#24 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:04:39 PM(UTC)
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.
Offline Porforis  
#25 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:48:11 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins said: 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?
Offline nerdmann  
#26 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:56:58 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer said: Go to Quoted Post
With all due respect, you're thinking short term. [tt] 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.

[ar] 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.
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)
nerdmann said: 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.
Offline nerdmann  
#28 Posted : Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:51:23 PM(UTC)
DakotaT said: 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.
Offline wpr  
#29 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 5:37:16 AM(UTC)
nyrpack said: 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.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
zombieslayer on 10/26/2012(UTC)
Offline macbob  
#30 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 4:58:41 PM(UTC)
wpr said: 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.
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
17m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

45m / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann


Tweeter