Steven Jackson rumors

[ivo610]

As for rushing highlights, that would not be me, as repeatedly stated.

I like wins, but if you think this was a championship performance today, you missed something...a lot in fact. A running game this bad takes too much pressure off the D and puts too much pressure on the O.

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.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Steven jackson has also had the ALL ABOUT ME TUDE going for awhile

Not the way I see it. He's played for a lot bad teams going nowhere, and has always run the ball hard.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

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.

 

[lambeaulambo]

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.

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.

 

[melvin dangerr]

Not the way I see it. He's played for a lot bad teams going nowhere, and has always run the ball hard.

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.

 

[Bensalama21]

Word on the street is Shaun Alexander is available, anyone think TT will make a move. He does have the second most TD in a season ever, just the kind of production we need from a RB this season.

Since we are also injured quite badly at WR, I can't believe we haven't picked up Jerry Rice

 

[melvin dangerr]

Since we are also injured quite badly at WR, I can't believe we haven't picked up Jerry Rice

 

[melvin dangerr]

Since we are also injured quite badly at WR, I can't believe we haven't picked up Jerry Rice

I heard Micheal Irvin is available if U can keep him away from the pipe.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

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.

 

[FrankRizzo]

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.

 

[jaybadger82]

Still waiting for proof you need a run game to succeed... Maybe you should check the grassy knoll

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:

In addition to eating up key chunks of yardage throughout the game and whittling the clock to preserve the lead in the fourth quarter, the running attack came with plenty of other benefits. Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger threw 37 times for 278 yards and a touchdown in the win over Cincinnati. By winning often on first and second down, the Steelers converted their third-down attempts at a great rate (10-for-16).

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...

 

[longtimefan]

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...

You REALLY think TT will trade for a big name?

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

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

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.

 

[jaybadger82]

You REALLY think TT will trade for a big name?

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.

 

[jaybadger82]

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.

Definitely. Defenses are adjusting to today's pass happy offenses. The offensive counter punch for aggressive pass rushing is to run the ball.

 

[ivo610]

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.

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.

 

[ivo610]

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...

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.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

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.

That exactly what I said... The threat of a run game has to be there... As I noted from the Seattle game.

 

[ivo610]

That exactly what I said... The threat of a run game has to be there... As I noted from the Seattle game.

Early in your post you said there is a correlation between ineffective running and losing games. That's simply not true.

 

[ivo610]

Even Bill Parcells has been quoted as saying its not how well you run the ball, but how often.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Early in your post you said there is a correlation between ineffective running and losing games. That's simply not true.

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!

 

[ivo610]

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!

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

 

[12theTruth]

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.

 

[Hype]

If the Rams want a 3rd rounder for S.Jax, TT should pull the trigger

 

[jaybadger82]

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.

It's been proven there is a correlation between the amount of runs and winning, but nothing to prove ineffective running loses games.

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?"