Steven Jackson rumors

[slaughter25]

This is a problem.

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.

 

[rodell330]

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.

 

[longtimefan]

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.

With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?

 

[7thFloorRA]

With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?

A guy like Blount would as he is a very powerful and violent runner.

 

[slaughter25]

With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?

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

 

[rodell330]

With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?

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.

 

[rodell330]

With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?

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.

 

[rodell330]

With how our ol blocked yesterday, would those guys get yards?

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.

 

[jaybadger82]

Games are won and lost by the passing game.

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.

You're right, no one can prove it bc it doesn't exist.

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

But by all means you should run the numbers yourself, if you can find something to prove your point I would love for you to lay it out. It would be ground breaking and would get alot of attention in the football world.

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.

For those that are wondering the packers rank 16th in attempts this season and 22nd in attempts.

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.

 

[Rodgers in the House]

It would be a dream to see Finely go for Jackson. Hell yeah!!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

 

[7thFloorRA]

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?

 

[ivo610]

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.

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.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

I would hope to think it would fall under the text definition and we aren't having to redefine words for the sake of arguing.

But do you have your own personal definition? Or is "not capable of performing efficiently" ok? Do we need to define effectively?

Well, something is either effective or it's not. I seem to be able to figure it out.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Instead of typing "IMO" every other sentence, ALL of the following is just my opinion:..............The Jags are not good defending the run but Green didn't present enough of a threat to bring a safety down in the box. ..... The Jags were daring the Packers to run.....

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.

 

[jaybadger82]

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.

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.

 

[Vltrophy]

I'd be willing to trade Finley for S. Jax

 

[Vltrophy]

Next April we need to draft a RB by the 2nd rd

 

[FrankRizzo]

I'd be willing to trade Finley for S. Jax

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.

 

[Alex]

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.

 

[Bensalama21]

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

 

[Rodgers in the House]

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.

That doesn't make me as optimistic for getting Jackson now.

 

[longtimefan]

A guy like Blount would as he is a very powerful and violent runner.

Reports are from a 5th to a 7th rounder..Thats up TT's alley

 

[Raptorman]

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.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Reports are from a 5th to a 7th rounder..Thats up TT's alley

Blount is cheap and he is a restricted FA next year. I would do it for a 6th or 7th but not a 5th.