Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
5 Pages<1234>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
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.
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 !!
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. 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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
User is suspended until 5/28/2018 11:54:40 AM(UTC) 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.
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.
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.
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.
wpr  
#31 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 5:02:53 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
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).


i guess you missed what I meant. a 3 yard avg is not required every single game. Some games you can get by with a 1.5 avg. sometimes 2 others 3 or 3.5.
zombieslayer  
#32 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 7:21:16 PM(UTC)
macbob said: Go to Quoted Post
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.


Just an FYI - we're averaging 3.9 ypc this year. In 2010, we averaged 3.8.

I'd guess Aaron Rodgers inflates those totals. Too lazy to take his stats out and see what our RBs are getting.

And yes, I wouldn't trade JJ for SJ either.
Porforis  
#33 Posted : Friday, October 26, 2012 8:06:40 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer said: Go to Quoted Post
Just an FYI - we're averaging 3.9 ypc this year. In 2010, we averaged 3.8.

I'd guess Aaron Rodgers inflates those totals. Too lazy to take his stats out and see what our RBs are getting.

And yes, I wouldn't trade JJ for SJ either.


169 rushes for 655 yards overall.

ARod: 24 for 125
Graham Harrell: 1 for 0

144 rushes by non-QBs, for 530 yards or 3.68 YPC.

Randall Cobb ran 3 times for 67 yards. If you're only counting Benson, Green, Kuhn, and Starks, 3.28 YPC.

Personal stats:

Code:
Player      	No	Yds	Avg
Cedric Benson	71	248	3.5
Alex Green      54	165	3.1
John Kuhn       11	39	3.5
James Starks    5	11	2.2
zombieslayer  
#34 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 10:22:31 AM(UTC)
Porforis said: Go to Quoted Post
169 rushes for 655 yards overall.

ARod: 24 for 125
Graham Harrell: 1 for 0

144 rushes by non-QBs, for 530 yards or 3.68 YPC.

Randall Cobb ran 3 times for 67 yards. If you're only counting Benson, Green, Kuhn, and Starks, 3.28 YPC.

Personal stats:

Code:
Player      	No	Yds	Avg
Cedric Benson	71	248	3.5
Alex Green      54	165	3.1
John Kuhn       11	39	3.5
James Starks    5	11	2.2


Thank you.

Now I'm really hoping we win the SB this year to shut up the "we need an elite RB" crowd once and for all. Hell, when was the last time someone won a SB with an elite RB anyways?
Gaycandybacon  
#35 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:19:48 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer said: Go to Quoted Post
Thank you.

Now I'm really hoping we win the SB this year to shut up the "we need an elite RB" crowd once and for all. Hell, when was the last time someone won a SB with an elite RB anyways?


Probably a dozen years ago Marshall Faulk [aiee]
zombieslayer  
#36 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 2:48:34 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon said: Go to Quoted Post
Probably a dozen years ago Marshall Faulk [aiee]


Thank you Gay.

Marshall Faulk was unarguably an elite RB. In that SB, he had 10 carries for 17 yards and the Rams won it. However, he did have 90 yards receiving. That's why I liked Faulk so much. He was a dang good receiver and if I remember correctly, not a bad blocker too.
vikesrule  
#37 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:50:17 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer said: Go to Quoted Post
Thank you.

Now I'm really hoping we win the SB this year to shut up the "we need an elite RB" crowd once and for all. Hell, when was the last time someone won a SB with an elite RB anyways?


Last year it was "we don't need a good defense"....but I digress.


Faulk was in 1999

In addition......

2000 Ravens - Jamal Lewis - 1,364 yards
2001 Patriots - Antowain Smith - 1,157 yards
2004 Patriots - Corey Dillon - 1,635 yards
2005 Steelers - Willie Parker - 1,202 yards
2006 Colts - Joseph Addai - 1,081 yards
2007 Giants - Brandon Jacobs - 1,009 yards

Along with Faulk, I would consider Corey Dillon elite. The others are all very good.

If your team has a good to very good running back, it makes your offense that more viable and more difficult to defend against.

If "your" team doesn't have a running back that is even mediocre, well, you are one dimensional.

Hell, sometimes even an "elite" quarterback doesn't get you to the Super Bowl.....and sometimes even one and done...:-"



beast  
#38 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:06:08 PM(UTC)


I think the question is weather or not you want to pay Jackson the big contract he wants or not... I rather save the money and try to resign Rodgers Jennings, Raji, Matthews, Burnett, Benson or Starks, and two of the three following Pickett, Wilson and/or Neal. That's a good number of contract coming up... the rookie deals ending will be the ones that go up a lot...

And if you want another RB then draft one... normally I don't prefer RBs in the 1st... just seem like too many of them turn out to be just average.
Gaycandybacon  
#39 Posted : Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:18:03 PM(UTC)
vikesrule said: Go to Quoted Post
Last year it was "we don't need a good defense"....but I digress.


Faulk was in 1999

In addition......

2000 Ravens - Jamal Lewis - 1,364 yards
2001 Patriots - Antowain Smith - 1,157 yards
2004 Patriots - Corey Dillon - 1,635 yards
2005 Steelers - Willie Parker - 1,202 yards
2006 Colts - Joseph Addai - 1,081 yards
2007 Giants - Brandon Jacobs - 1,009 yards

Along with Faulk, I would consider Corey Dillon elite. The others are all very good.

If your team has a good to very good running back, it makes your offense that more viable and more difficult to defend against.

If "your" team doesn't have a running back that is even mediocre, well, you are one dimensional.

Hell, sometimes even an "elite" quarterback doesn't get you to the Super Bowl.....and sometimes even one and done...:-"







I'd rather have a QB in the postseason than a running back... you're gonna face more explosive teams and stouter defenses. You'll find yourself down if you rely on running the ball. You think your RB can bring yourself back down 20? I don't think so.. I'd say 2 teams won the SB without a great qb in the last decade, 3 if you count that horrid game by Big Ben in 05' I'll take those odds...
wrolly  
#40 Posted : Sunday, October 28, 2012 7:37:17 AM(UTC)
Can' do it. Especially with the injury issues for Jennings. Jones is the number one receiver this week with Nelson injured too. We are fine with sub-par running backs.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 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

Fan Shout
beast (3h) : Packers once again facing some former Packers this season, OLVan Roten, DE Peppers and CB Gunter
beast (6h) : Darn, and I was already worried about Spriggs possibly vs Peppers
Zero2Cool (7h) : Jason Spriggs added to the injury report
Zero2Cool (7h) : whoa
beast (8h) : Packers are the only team to have less only 1 top 20 draft pick in the last decade... all other teams had more.
Zero2Cool (12h) : McCarthy's last two conferences ... much more jovial than last two months, huge difference.
Zero2Cool (12h) : If you picked Home for every NFL game, you'd have 115 correct picks. 55% success
Zero2Cool (14h) : Cincinnati Bengals co-founder Pete Brown dies
Zero2Cool (13-Dec) : Rodgers says he doesn't expect to adjust way he plays: "I wouldn’t be playing if I didn’t feel confident playing the way that I played my en
Zero2Cool (13-Dec) : Panthers Trai Turner enters concussion protocol
Zero2Cool (13-Dec) : Great stat from Mike Zimmer just now at his presser. No team has beaten three above .500 teams on the road in a row since 1967.
Zero2Cool (13-Dec) : Brett Hundley or Blake Bortles if you're the Jaguars?
Zero2Cool (13-Dec) : @ESPNStatsInfo Last season, Aaron Rodgers threw 13 TD and 0 Int while going 5-0 in Dec./Jan. regular season games
FLORIDA PACKER88 (13-Dec) : 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
buckeyepackfan (13-Dec) : THAT BAAAAAAAAD MAN IS BACK!!!!!
cheeseheads123 (13-Dec) : 12 is back baby lets go!!!
Zero2Cool (12-Dec) : WR Davante Adams nominated for Clutch Performer of the Week
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : lol coach with jokes MM: "If i don't know tomorrow, they'll be putting Pat McKenzie on IR."
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : Rod of Airs here to fook you up!
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : Packers gonna play coy until Saturday night and go SURPRISE BITCHES
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : Mike McCarthy on Rodgers timetable: "This is in the hands of the experts. ... Let's just wait until the experts make their decision."
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : You can freaking localize ads too to region. This is NOT hard. Lazy asses.
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : I think so too, but it's time they get with it. You can have ads in streaming too.
Nonstopdrivel (11-Dec) : You've been able to stream postseason games for a few years now, I think.
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : last 4 games played, Packers have worst pass efficency, Browns 2nd worst
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : On @oath @YahooSports and @NFL Apps
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : Good news for NFL fans: starting with this season’s playoffs you can stream games on your phone. All phones. All carriers. For free. On
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : Verizon to pay NFL $500 million a year to stream games
beast (11-Dec) : Packers can't catch Eagles so it doesn't directly effect our playoff chances.
Nonstopdrivel (11-Dec) : yoffs?
Nonstopdrivel (11-Dec) : So . . . could in theory be a severe sprain. Which might still sideline him for the rest of the season, but perhaps he'd be back for the pla
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : That's regarding Carson Wentz
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : @AlbertBreer Doctors determined with manual test there was damage to ACL, extent unknown until MRI tomorrow.
Zero2Cool (11-Dec) : Read reports that's what is feared and yes, you're right, usually if that's the fear = done
Nonstopdrivel (11-Dec) : MRI would me mostly a formality. He walked off on his own power, so possibly just a sprain? But I doubt it.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
1m / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

1m / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

42m / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

51m / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

14-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

13-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

Headlines