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
    Zero2Cool (12h) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
    Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
    Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
    Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
    Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
    beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
    beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
    Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I would imagine Dallas will resolve this issue with a truckload of money
    Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : Micah pulling a Myles with trade request
    beast (1-Aug) : Packers should make some cheese forks
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : CUT HIM
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : Socieltal collapse imminent
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : The West has fallen
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : But it should be stable
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : It's probably gonna be slower.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : What crap. Site issues galore
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
    Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
    beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
    beast (30-Jul) : RIP site 😭
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site will die, I have to restart it.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Quinn stinks. Lot of underthrows. (my guess)
    beast (30-Jul) : How did Quinn Ewers effect where Golden was drafted?
    dfosterf (30-Jul) : All I've experienced was late at night or early morning. I just figured you were doing something in the background
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site sure seems to be down more than up
    dfosterf (29-Jul) : 50 cent hookers? I'm moving to Green Bay. I thought it was just real estate that was more affordable there. 😂
    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
    11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    13h / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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