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 or

    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!
    Dismiss Notice

Steven Jackson rumors

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,283
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    You're damn right I'm missing something, it's two damn good WRs that are on the sidelines.

    No proof exists of correlation between a good run game and winning games.

    If you blame today on the run game, you're the one who is missing something.
     
  2. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,788
    Ratings:
    +2,660
    Not the way I see it. He's played for a lot bad teams going nowhere, and has always run the ball hard.
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,788
    Ratings:
    +2,660
    I'm not looking for a good run game...I'm looking for an adequate run game. Yes, poor running contributed to the poor showing today. Constant 2nd. and long, 3rd. and long takes it's toll.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. lambeaulambo

    lambeaulambo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Messages:
    545
    Ratings:
    +181
    And just imagine if the running game was halfway decent....That would open the passing game up even more. The Packers need a running bulldozer OL before a RB, so I say no to Jackson, he would just run up the verticle Olineman's backsides.
     
  5. melvin dangerr

    melvin dangerr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +105
    You are right He is a beast,and has stayed with a bad team, I don't question that, but he has made comments of he should be the focus of the offense, the Packers were his first TD of the year.
     
  6. Bensalama21

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,571
    Ratings:
    +607
    Since we are also injured quite badly at WR, I can't believe we haven't picked up Jerry Rice
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. melvin dangerr

    melvin dangerr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +105
     
  8. melvin dangerr

    melvin dangerr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    407
    Ratings:
    +105
    I heard Micheal Irvin is available if U can keep him away from the pipe.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  9. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    I would love to see the Packers trade for Jackson. He's a proven runner with a contract that ends at the end of the season. The Packers would only be on the hook until the end of the season.

    The Problem: The Rams are going to want a hefty return for player who has been the face of their organization for the past six years. The Packers, or any other team for that matter, will not give away anything of value for an eight week rental. If the price is right, there is no reason not make the trade.
     
  10. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    The way these softies on the OL run-block, I don't think it matters who the RB is. Unless you can find a back who can break thru brick walls, it's worthless trading anything for a RB.
     
  11. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +387
    See Week 5, Indianapolis Colts. It's difficult to step on an opponent's throat when you hold the lead without a reliable running game. This isn't some fringe conspiracy theory, this is NFL reality.

    Here's an interesting discussion about the Steelers in this context after last week's game. From the article:
    Keep in mind, Pittsburgh is running effectively behind an o-line that has been mangled by injuries. I know we're not the Steelers, but your dismissive attitude toward the ground game is remarkable...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Old Old x 1
  12. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,757
    Ratings:
    +2,994

    You REALLY think TT will trade for a big name?
     
  13. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    But there is a correlation between an ineffective run game and losing games. Just watch the Indy game and Seattle game. Seattle's defensive line was able to pin their ears back and destroy Aaron Rodgers for an entire half of football. Bruce Irvin was about to win DROY after that first half. Why was this possible? Because the Packers ran the ball three times all half. Without the threat of a run game, defenses have no reason to hesitate. The Packers lost an 18 point halftime lead to the Colts (worst team in the league last year). Why did that happen? Packers couldn't run the ball, drain the clock and gain yards. Incomplete passes stop the clock. An offense has to be effective in both phases of the game.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  14. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +387
    I don't know what TT will do. I was just responding to ivo's comment about needing a run game to succeed.

    Such a trade would definitely be a departure from Thompson's M.O., though.

    Edit: Sorry to hijack the thread (i.e., turn it into a discussion about the run game instead of a discussion about Jackson rumors). Just seems like ESPN analysts will continue to throw the Packers into any discussion about available RBs until we develop a respectable run game.
     
  15. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +387
    Definitely. Defenses are adjusting to today's pass happy offenses. The offensive counter punch for aggressive pass rushing is to run the ball.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,283
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Incorrect, you are reading your own evidence wrong. It's been proven there is a correlation between the amount of runs and winning, but nothing to prove ineffective running loses games.
     
  17. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,283
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Pointing to a single game is proof of nothing. You could easily point to the struggle to cover reggie wayne, the pass rush, mistakes by rodgers ect in that game. To be true it has to be a trend over time between different teams. No one has proved it and no one will bc it doesn't exist. I know it's hard for some people to accept you can win in the modern era with an ineffective run game but its true.
     
  18. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    That exactly what I said... The threat of a run game has to be there... As I noted from the Seattle game.
     
  19. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,283
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Early in your post you said there is a correlation between ineffective running and losing games. That's simply not true.
     
  20. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,283
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    Even Bill Parcells has been quoted as saying its not how well you run the ball, but how often.
     
  21. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,217
    Ratings:
    +626
    Wouldn't "ineffective" also include not running the ball? We're saying the same thing, but you keep telling me I'm wrong. Again, check what I said about the Seattle game.

    Thanks!
     
  22. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,283
    Ratings:
    +4,131
    No it's not the same thing. 3 carries during a game is more or less not running the ball. Ineffective running is running it 26 times for 48 yards.

    Both are just top of the head examples
     
  23. 12theTruth

    12theTruth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    29 carries 134 yards
    28 carries 84 yards
    25 carries 81 yards

    The totals above were from Packer running backs and fullbacks during the 2010 playoffs. That is an average of 27 carries and 100 yards per game. I'd say that although not a great attack a credible enough running game which adds balance to A-Rods aerial assault. Below you will find this season so far.

    23 carries 62 yards Jags
    23 carries 51 yards Rams - Cobb had one carry for 19 yards
    29 carries 82 yards Texans
    19 carries 92 yards Colts
    19 carries 89 yards Saints
    18 carries 47 yards Seahawks Cobb had one carry for 20 yards
    24 carries 84 yards Bears Cobb had one carry for 28 yards
    9 carries 18 yards 49ers

    This seasons average is 20 carries for 65 yards.

    The Packers ground game this season from the traditional sets with RB and FB accounted for over 1/3 less production than their Super Bowl run of 2 years ago. This alone proves the importance of a competent running game. And even with Benson in there we were still deficient especially against a strong defense (49ers).

    I wouldn't trade for Steven Jackson because of his age and declining ability. Not much of an upgrade over Benson either. But in next years draft a RB at the top of draft yes.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Hype

    Hype Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Ratings:
    +35
    If the Rams want a 3rd rounder for S.Jax, TT should pull the trigger
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  25. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    811
    Ratings:
    +387
    The thinking that says winning is merely tied to the Packers rushing the ball a threshold number of downs is foolish. It ignores too many variables like score, field position, and game time that go into the coach's play calling. We haven't even talked about adjusting for the fact that the number of offensive snaps varies from week to week.

    Most importantly, the total number of rushes doesn't really explain the win. Coaches are more disposed to run the ball when their team has a lead. Teams will continue rushing the ball where they're having success on the ground. The correlation tends to skew upward because running is the conservative thing to do when playing with a lead and a team that is successful rushing the ball will accumulate more carries. Conversely, when a team is playing from behind or they're having little success with the run, they're going to accumulate fewer rushes. Whatever the case, the number of rushes is not the reason for the win or loss.

    The reason for the win or loss is usually a product of the team's ability to execute on the field. I believe this Packer team has faced and will face game situations in which their ability to run the ball effectively are critical to the outcome of the contest, such as keeping the opponent's offense off the field, protecting Rodgers, and chewing up clock. Needless to say, I think the conclusion that "you can win in the modern era with an ineffective run game" is cavalier and stupid because such game situations are inevitable and there are times when our failure to execute becomes outcome determinative. Portions of the Indianapolis and Seattle games, cited above, both provide good examples.

    Not sure whether anyone can "prove" the importance of an effective running game to your satisfaction, ivo, but I'm concerned by the shortcomings of this year's team in that area. We'll see what happens. Maybe we make go on another run to the Super Bowl but I don't think it happens if we're averaging 2.9 ypc- our passing game isn't efficient enough to compensate for that. Maybe we can revisit this at the end of the season...

    P.S., Is there a place I should be posting on this topic such that you won't mark my posts "Old?"
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page