1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Steven Jackson rumors

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by BorderRivals.com, Oct 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slaughter25
    Offline

    slaughter25 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Ratings:
    +211 / 7 / -2
    I disagree. We don't need the running attack to influence a defense all the way back to the safety level. If they do its great and Rodgers can go nuts on their secondary. What the packers running game needs to be able to produce is that influence on the front 7 of the opposing D. The Jags were successful stopping the run with 6 guys in the box...... That is the epitome not influencing the front 7. The more players a team can drop back into coverage against this offense the better off they will be obviously. If the dline, LB, and Safeties can all discount the run and focus on disrupting the pass they can be effective at limiting the effectiveness of the packers offense the way Jacksonville and SF did this year and what the bears are usually pretty successful at doing most times we play them. That half second pause to check for run can be the difference between a TD and a sack and right now we aren't getting a millisecond pause from teams.
  2. rodell330
    Offline

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +832 / 175 / -43
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    Nobody fears this rnning attack lets get real, but say we bring in a guy who can be. A homerun threat it would only help the offense which is to one dimensional. Ill throw out some names we can probably acquire.

    Ben Tate
    Felix Jones
    Mark Ingram
    Johnathan Stewart

    These guys would all be a major UPGRADE at rb.
  3. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?
  4. 7thFloorRA
    Offline

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,503
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +649 / 42 / -2
    A guy like Blount would as he is a very powerful and violent runner.
  5. slaughter25
    Offline

    slaughter25 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Ratings:
    +211 / 7 / -2
    Walter Payton wouldn't have rushed for 85 with the way those guys were blocking yesterday. Both the inadequacies of the line and RB are compounding on each other to make a bad situation worse
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. rodell330
    Offline

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +832 / 175 / -43
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    According to MM its more about attempts but. Even he. Is starting to realize that just wont cut it. If teams are able to discount the run and drop more guys into coverage, it makes our elite qb look very average. Gotta be able to bust one every now and then and we simply cant with what we have. Changes need to be made. We are going to find out real soon how important a run game is in a few weeks...mark my words.
  7. rodell330
    Offline

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +832 / 175 / -43
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    According to MM its more about attempts but. Even he. Is starting to realize that just wont cut it. If teams are able to discount the run and drop more guys into coverage, it makes our elite qb look very average. Gotta be able to bust one every now and then and we simply cant with what we have. Changes need to be made. We are going to find out real soon how important a run game is in a few weeks...mark my words.
  8. rodell330
    Offline

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,451
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +832 / 175 / -43
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    According to MM its more about attempts but. Even he. Is starting to realize that just wont cut it. If teams are able to discount the run and drop more guys into coverage, it makes our elite qb look very average. Gotta be able to bust one every now and then and we simply cant with what we have. Changes need to be made. We are going to find out real soon how important a run game is in a few weeks...mark my words.
  9. jaybadger82
    Offline

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    755
    Ratings:
    +343 / 20 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    This sort of simplistic statement is more argumentative than reflective of the complexity and nuance of football as a sport. Although the passing game is the engine of our offense, I believe there remain situations in which the team must run the ball effectively and that our success or failure to do so will be outcome determinative.

    This is a common logical fallacy: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    I'm not a professional statistician and I don't have statistics that clearly track effective running for you. As Poppa San said, much of it is in the eye test and what constitutes effective running varies according to the circumstances.

    When the defense is rushing six or seven men, we need to be able to break off long runs from time to time in order to punish them for it. The threat of our ground game must be enough to bring a safety down into the box more often. When we're up ten points with 11:00 minutes left in the fourth, we need the running game to keep third downs manageable, the clock ticking, and opposing offenses parked on the sideline. Effective running is an important complement to the passing game and I know that all ten of the previous Super Bowl champs were running effectively within the situations I just described.

    One more time for the cheap seats, an effective ground game ≠ a run-dominant offense.

    Um... OK.

    Again, I think our success as an offense depends on more than simply running the football a threshold number of downs. When our run can be swallowed up by four down defensive linemen, defenses can sell out against the pass. That's not complementing the pass, that's throwing away downs. IMO, our inability to run the ball effectively has already factored significantly into some of our losses this year and I believe it will be a problem in the playoffs if we don't show improvement.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Rodgers in the House
    Offline

    Rodgers in the House Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    CA
    Ratings:
    +108 / 20 / -2
    It would be a dream to see Finely go for Jackson. Hell yeah!!!
  11. HardRightEdge
    Offline

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,073
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    Ratings:
    +1,313 / 65 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    MM: "Need to make 2-3 yard runs 4-5 yard runs."

    MM: "It was not Alex Green's best game yesterday. Starks will probably be given more opportunities."

    Worth a try.
  12. 7thFloorRA
    Offline

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,503
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +649 / 42 / -2
    Blount is way more powerful of a runner than Green. He also fights through contact and weak tackles. Remember the run against the awful Pack D last year?
  13. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,068
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,537 / 86 / -26
    I apologize, I fixed the sentence, sorry for the wrong word in the sentence. I would have hoped you would have been able to understand it still but now I fixed it for you.

    You offer no form of evidence and you are saying bc you dont have any evidence it doesnt prove you wrong, I guess then we will have to agree to disagree.
  14. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,107
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings:
    +579 / 31 / -20
    Well, something is either effective or it's not. I seem to be able to figure it out.
  15. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,776
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,608 / 60 / -33
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
    And that's why I presented getting rid of our cancer (Finley) for Tennessee's Chris Johnson.
    He's still faster than helI, and whether you like him or not, the defenses do consider him a serious threat & that should help open things up in the passing game.

    The best comparison I can think of is what Robert Smith did for the Vikings offense in 1998-2000. Defenses didn't respect him, he torched them for long runs. When they brought the safety up, Randy Moss ran past the CB for long touchdowns.

    The amazing thing about Rodgers historic greatness is he has been doing it with defenses gameplanning to stop him 100% with no worry about him handing it off..... and when he does hand if off, we still run like fat men in quick sand.
  16. jaybadger82
    Offline

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    755
    Ratings:
    +343 / 20 / -6
    Packer Fan Since:
    1992
    Fair enough. But I don't think there's any lack of evidence: watch the games.

    It's just that ineffective running is better seen on film than through stats. As the old saying goes, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Football seasons are too short to accumulate a reliable pool of data, anyway. It's not like baseball, where the sheer number of games make the stats reliable predictors of future performance.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Vltrophy
    Offline

    Vltrophy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,632
    Ratings:
    +378 / 29 / -5
    Packer Fan Since:
    1996
    I'd be willing to trade Finley for S. Jax
  18. Vltrophy
    Offline

    Vltrophy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,632
    Ratings:
    +378 / 29 / -5
    Packer Fan Since:
    1996
    Next April we need to draft a RB by the 2nd rd
  19. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,776
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,608 / 60 / -33
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
    Me too.
    #1- I think we get better without Finley, as I recall 2010 playoff drive, and I think he just doesn't fit in.
    #2- Jackson isn't as good as he was before, clearly, but he's enough of a name/threat that he'd command respect which would A) open things up for our passing game and B) he'd take advantage of the rare hole a lot more than what we currently have.

    Remember, even if Benson comes back, it's gonna be 6, 7 games down the road. I want to win those games.
  20. Alex
    Offline

    Alex Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    406
    Location:
    Eden Prairie, MN
    Ratings:
    +213 / 6 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    It just sucks watching EVERY team have 2-3 serviceable backs who can occasionally break out a big run. When was the last time the team had a big run? I can only think back to Ahman Green way back in the day. I don't expect the Packers to have an outstanding run game, but I think league average isn't too much to ask for.
  21. Bensalama21
    Offline

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings:
    +585 / 13 / -0
    I don't know if anyone else said BUT:

    ESPN is reporting that the Packers are seriously looking into Stephen Jackson since the Trade deadline was pushed back
  22. Rodgers in the House
    Offline

    Rodgers in the House Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    365
    Location:
    CA
    Ratings:
    +108 / 20 / -2
    That doesn't make me as optimistic for getting Jackson now.
  23. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    Reports are from a 5th to a 7th rounder..Thats up TT's alley
  24. Raptorman
    Offline

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    Vero Beach, FL
    Ratings:
    +713 / 20 / -11
    You don't need a top RB to run the ball. But to keep winning, I mean in the playoffs, you need to be able to run the ball effectively for more than 2 yards per carry. Without the threat of a big run, the play action pass becomes a moot point, teams can sell out for the pass every play knowing the run can't hurt them. Kinda like Seattle did to Green Bay. They didn't worry about the run, so the pinned their ears back and came after Rodgers. Look at he first half, 3 rushes from the RB and 8 sacks. Don't tell me there is not a correlation between those two numbers. Then in the second half, holy cow, they run the ball the first and second series and wham o, the sacks stop. Yeah, its only one game. But it's very telling.

    I hope they don't trade for anyone at this point and keep of the season. I kinda like the way they run the pass and run plays now. It gives my Vikings a fighting chance to beat them. :)
  25. 7thFloorRA
    Offline

    7thFloorRA Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,503
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +649 / 42 / -2
    Blount is cheap and he is a restricted FA next year. I would do it for a 6th or 7th but not a 5th.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page