Steven Jackson rumors

[Raptorman]

Currently the Packers are a one dimensional team. They pass. If teams can get pressure on Rodgers with 4 d-lineman the other 7 can cover and make it tough for Rodgers to get completions. There is no or little threat of a run. At least not one to do any real damage. The Packers average pass to rushing plays: 2009, 56% to 44%, 2010 56% to44%, 2011 58%to 42% pass to run ratio, this year it's 61% to 39%. Note this is number of plays, not yardage.

 

[SpartaChris]

Still won today. Won the most games in franchise history in 2011. Won the SB in 2010. Can't imagine what would make anyone think the packers are wrong for not investing in the run game.

Some people like rushing highlights. Others like wins.

The Packers make investments in the running game, just not huge ones. We generally have positions of need that are much bigger than running back, and most of the top shelf running backs are long gone by the time our draft position comes.

As far as trades go, unless the player is going to be in your long term plans, there is no point in making an in-season trade. Jackson wouldn't be in our long term plans, mainly because his career isn't going to last much longer and he has a history of injury. Plus he's not going to be any help to us this season since it would take as long just to learn the playbook and the protections. You'd be crazy to cough up a 3rd round pick for him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Blount does not strike me as a guy for a zone scheme. A road grader who has not been grading much lately does not strike me as the answer. Getting stoned on 3 straight runs from the NO 1 yard line two weeks ago, then going 8 for 16 against MIN (while Martin seemed to have no trouble) is less than auspicious for a 1/2 season rent-a-player.

 

[ivo610]

The Packers make investments in the running game, just not huge ones. We generally have positions of need that are much bigger than running back, and most of the top shelf running backs are long gone by the time our draft position comes.

As far as trades go, unless the player is going to be in your long term plans, there is no point in making an in-season trade. Jackson wouldn't be in our long term plans, mainly because his career isn't going to last much longer and he has a history of injury. Plus he's not going to be any help to us this season since it would take as long just to learn the playbook and the protections. You'd be crazy to cough up a 3rd round pick for him.

Completely agree. People see a name and get excited. I see 8 games with a worn out RB.

 

[longtimefan]

Completely agree. People see a name and get excited. I see 8 games with a worn out RB.

Not to mention they think a named rb can just walk in and get 20-25 touches per game and be solid

Takes a while to learn the book and by the time said rb has somewhat grasp on it, he wont get but maybe 10 touches...Then when he really knows the book Benson is back

How long was it before Benson was really playing more than a handfull of touches, and he was picked up in preseason?

But will say this..... the time comes perfect to get a rb..Thursday is the deadline..Say they get someone then, he would have over 3 weeks to learn the book

 

[longtimefan]

Currently the Packers are a one dimensional team. They pass. If teams can get pressure on Rodgers with 4 d-lineman the other 7 can cover and make it tough for Rodgers to get completions. There is no or little threat of a run. At least not one to do any real damage. The Packers average pass to rushing plays: 2009, 56% to 44%, 2010 56% to44%, 2011 58%to 42% pass to run ratio, this year it's 61% to 39%. Note this is number of plays, not yardage.

And isnt it odd how supposedly every team knows we can't run but we beat 3 in a row that way?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not to mention they think a named rb can just walk in and get 20-25 touches per game and be solid. Takes a while to learn the book and by the time said rb has somewhat grasp on it, he wont get but maybe 10 touches...Then when he really knows the book Benson is back.

That didn't make much sense. By that logic Benson should not have been effective in his 2nd. game with the Packers.

 

[Raptorman]

Not to mention they think a named rb can just walk in and get 20-25 touches per game and be solid

Takes a while to learn the book and by the time said rb has somewhat grasp on it, he wont get but maybe 10 touches...Then when he really knows the book Benson is back

How long was it before Benson was really playing more than a handfull of touches, and he was picked up in preseason?

But will say this..... the time comes perfect to get a rb..Thursday is the deadline..Say they get someone then, he would have over 3 weeks to learn the book

He has 20 carries in the second game, 17 in the third and 18 in the fourth. Problem is Green has 1/5 of his total yards on one play. Without that one play he is averaging 2.4 yards per carry. Not going to scare anyone.

And isnt it odd how supposedly every team knows we can't run but we beat 3 in a row that way?

Works fine as long as all your WR's can play.

 

[Raptorman]

I don't see the Packers trading for anyone...I think TT stands pat and trys to use Starks.

After all, he had an 8 yard per carry average last game.

 

[longtimefan]

That didn't make much sense. By that logic Benson should not have been effective in his 2nd. game with the Packers.

I did say he was signed in pre season....more specifically Aug 12th...So had 3 weeks of pre season...

Nine touches vs the Niners on Sept 9...That was about one full month of learning playbook...I said new guy might get 10 touches when he has a slight grasp..One would say Benson had a grasp on book for 1st week of the season.

Then 2nd game he got 20 carries...5 weeks after being signed He knew enough to play enough.

The new rb after 5 weeks would put us at Dec 2nd Vikings..

Benson can start to practice week of Nov 25th ( 6 weeks..) then can start to play after 8 games...The Dec 2 Viking game New rb would be at 5 weeks for Vikings game

Make more sense now?

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't see the Packers trading for anyone...I think TT stands pat and trys to use Starks.

We can only hope. MM keeps saying he'll use him, and then doesn't.

 

[longtimefan]

Conditioning is a valid point...But that is easier than learning the book...

my main point was any rb that comes in is probably going to need a few weeks at least to know enough of the book to play..

Why bother trading for a guy when more than likely Benson would be back by the time a new guy would know enough to make a difference

But as I pointed out...A new guy would have 3 weeks till the Pack would use him...He wouldnt play this week, then has the bye, then has that entire week after the bye

 

[HardRightEdge]

I did say he was signed in pre season....more specifically Aug 12th...So had 3 weeks of pre season...

Nine touches vs the Niners on Sept 9...That was about one full month of learning playbook...I said new guy might get 10 touches when he has a slight grasp..One would say Benson had a grasp on book for 1st week of the season.

Then 2nd game he got 20 carries...5 weeks after being signed He knew enough to play enough.

The new rb after 5 weeks would put us at Dec 2nd Vikings..

Benson can start to practice week of Nov 25th ( 6 weeks..) then can start to play after 8 games...The Dec 2 Viking game New rb would be at 5 weeks for Vikings game

Make more sense now?

Sort of. Whatever edge Benson might have had in learning the playbook over 5 weeks was offset by lack of game conditioning...no camp, 1/2 of a preseason, 10 preseason carries. Unless a TB is immersed in the passing game, the learning curve is not that steep, especially in this offense...the run call repertoire is pretty limited. A guy like Jackson is in game condition, and he's a vet...he could be up and going in a couple of weeks.

Besides, when Starks carried the load in the 2010 playoff run he had a tenuous grasp of the playbook by all accounts. Probably still does...assignment-sure is not a characteristic anybody has attributed to Mr. Shields, particularly his head coach. But he has shown in the past the ability to run the d*mn ball, and I for one would like to see if he can again. MM seems reluctant to give it to him, despite his comments over the last 3 weeks that he would. I'm not holding my breath.

The point being, waiting around until Dec. for Benson ASSUMES we'll have made the playoffs without him. 8 more games with Green is cutting it thin. And there is no guarantee Benson will be back on schedule...it seems the Packers public estimates on injuries are best case (should I say "glass half full"?) scenarios that frequently do not pan out.

We need a plan B.

 

[Alex]

I saw on yahoo sports they claim the Saints could trade Mark Ingram or Chris Ivory. They would be less as far as salary and may not be as big of a name as Jackson but they're younger and I feel like either could do better than what we have right now.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I saw on yahoo sports they claim the Saints could trade Mark Ingram or Chris Ivory. They would be less as far as salary and may not be as big of a name as Jackson but they're younger and I feel like either could do better than what we have right now.

Ingram's 2011 season ended early with turf toe which lingered into preseason where he missed time with it. He has not shown much this year. Turf toe can be a serious injury, stubborn to heal, and has been career ending in some cases. Can't say if it's the cause of Ingram falling off NO's radar. Vitt says "no way" they're trading Ivory.

Whether Starks is playing (such as it is) through a less-than-healed turf toe or is 100% is anybody's guess.

 

[7thFloorRA]

The problem with Starks and Green is that they are both soft and go down on contact. We all saw what a beast back like Ced Ben could do. He battles for yards and doesnt fall down.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I was not aware of this until a minute ago, and I don't think it has been mentioned in this thread, but Chris Mortenson reported that TT tried to trade for Jackson in the past.

If TT still has interest, the sticking point might be less a modest draft pick than getting STL to eat some part of the $3.5 mil he's due for the rest of this season.

 

[Vltrophy]

Blount does not strike me as a guy for a zone scheme. A road grader who has not been grading much lately does not strike me as the answer. Getting stoned on 3 straight runs from the NO 1 yard line two weeks ago, then going 8 for 16 against MIN (while Martin seemed to have no trouble) is less than auspicious for a 1/2 season rent-a-player.

Blount does not strike me as a guy for a zone scheme. A road grader who has not been grading much lately does not strike me as the answer. Getting stoned on 3 straight runs from the NO 1 yard line two weeks ago, then going 8 for 16 against MIN (while Martin seemed to have no trouble) is less than auspicious for a 1/2 season rent-a-player.

i personally wouldn't want Blount. I don't see us trading for S.Jax either. I wouldn't mind having Jax. Trade Finley for Jax. In order for us to go far in the playoffs we have to have a much better running game. I say we should draft a top tier RB by the 2nd rd in next yrs draft

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Just remember this about S. Jackson: He has been a dome RB for a long time, he plays 8 gauranteed dome games each season. Then you have to account for the other teams they play, do they play in a dome as well..??...or do they play out west? Depends on their road schedule each year, but I am willing to bet that out of the 16 games that he plays in each season, at least 12 are either in a dome or in a temperate climate. Bringing him up to GB to run the ball in November/December would be a MASSIVE change for that guy. Running on slick grass or frozen tundra is much different than running on his fake grass he is usedd to. I doubt that he would produce much for us at a home game setting. He is also not used to the temperature that he would be exposed to for 3 hours straight. We need a ground and pound in the trenches cold weather RB

 

[rodell330]

Everybody keeps talking about how Steven Jackson is old and is not the same back he used to be, uhhh maybe the guy is tiered and worn out from loosing? A place like Green Bay who has a shot at winning every game and where he has a chance to get a ring might revitalize his career with the extra motivation.

 

[rodell330]

I saw on yahoo sports they claim the Saints could trade Mark Ingram or Chris Ivory. They would be less as far as salary and may not be as big of a name as Jackson but they're younger and I feel like either could do better than what we have right now.

I mentioned Ingram...now heres a young guy with good character, can run, catch, and block who could be the answer long term. He's not being used right in N.O. that's why you don't hear about him like you did last year because Peyton knew how to utilize his strengths. The Saints are more concerned with Brees breaking records then having a balanced attack. I'm sure MM want's us to have a balanced attack but we just don't have the personel to do it.

 

[longtimefan]

Sort of. Whatever edge Benson might have had in learning the playbook over 5 weeks was offset by lack of game conditioning...no camp, 1/2 of a preseason, 10 preseason carries. Unless a TB is immersed in the passing game, the learning curve is not that steep, especially in this offense...the run call repertoire is pretty limited. A guy like Jackson is in game condition, and he's a vet...he could be up and going in a couple of weeks.

Besides, when Starks carried the load in the 2010 playoff run he had a tenuous grasp of the playbook by all accounts. Probably still does...assignment-sure is not a characteristic anybody has attributed to Mr. Shields, particularly his head coach. But he has shown in the past the ability to run the d*mn ball, and I for one would like to see if he can again. MM seems reluctant to give it to him, despite his comments over the last 3 weeks that he would. I'm not holding my breath.

The point being, waiting around until Dec. for Benson ASSUMES we'll have made the playoffs without him. 8 more games with Green is cutting it thin. And there is no guarantee Benson will be back on schedule...it seems the Packers public estimates on injuries are best case (should I say "glass half full"?) scenarios that frequently do not pan out.

We need a plan B.

I do agree conditioning would not be an issue with Jax...

Maybe you have insider knowledge of playbook and being easy, If so I can't argue it...but I know there was talk of Benson learning the playbook..

I spent some time searching it..

http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/bensonpackersplaybook.html?31134

Benson has put in the film and tablet study since signing with the Packers last Sunday, yet the eight-year veteran admits his transition from a numbers based playbook to one with language has been difficult.

"It's coming along," he said. "I got a nice grasp of a large part of it, but there are times where things get tricky. Just gotta get the repetitiveness of it, keep hearing it, and it'll lock in. It's quite different. They like to call it a West Coast philosophy and I've never played in a West Coast philosophy or heard the plays so it's a little tricky at times. I'm used to a numbers system and it's a lot of calls."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/n...-down-in-camp-rb-cedric-benson-still-learning

Benson has been crash-course cramming trying to learn the Packers offense the past few weeks. He sits in on quarterback meetings, buries his nose in the playbook and peppers teammates with questions. Coach Mike McCarthy said Thursday that the effort is noticeable and the knowledge is emerging.

“I feel very comfortable that he knows the game plan,” McCarthy said. “It's not the football understanding that's an issue, it's just once in a while a term comes up – our language is not a constant language, our playbook isn't a book that you just change the date on. The language is ever evolving and things change. This was called something last week, it's called something different this week. That's just kind of part the way we operate right now.”

Benson had preseason to learn it...The new guy wont have that time..He will have to learn on the fly...

Let me clarify this once more...

If a guy is picked up this week..He wont play Sunday (believe there is a rule they cant play the 1st week picked up???) then will have the bye week, then another full week of learning things...There would be no reason why when the Pack play Lions after the bye that the new guy couldnt get enough touches to make a difference..

My only claim is that it would take 2 more weeks to have a pretty good grasp on the book..Which would be Dec 2...


As far as Starks, he should have known the playbook by the playoffs..He had the entire season to learn it lol....

But I dont believe any of this will matter....I dont see Ted trading for anyone..We will have Starks and Green sharing the roll till Benson comes back

 

[ivo610]

Everybody keeps talking about how Steven Jackson is old and is not the same back he used to be, uhhh maybe the guy is tiered and worn out from loosing? A place like Green Bay who has a shot at winning every game and where he has a chance to get a ring might revitalize his career with the extra motivation.

While I disagree with your premise, there has been a handful of Running backs in NFL history who have bucked the 30 yr old curse we will call it and played well despite their age. The ones I found were curtis martin, walter Payton, John Riggins, Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams, and Marcus Allen.

Ricky took a few years off during his career, so I would like to think that helped him later in his career to buck the dreaded 30 mark. Marcus Allen was famous for being traded and doing well in KC late in his career, but his circumstances were different as well as he upset al davis and rode the bench for a few years.

Could Steven Jackson buck the trend and play well into his 30s? Sure, its possible, but he would be joining a short list of players who have.

 

[TJV]

IMO rushing attempts keeps the front 7 engaged but it's consistent rushing success that causes defenses to bring a safety up. It looks to me like the lesson opponents learned over the off season is generally the two deep safeties scheme is the best way to contain McCarthy's offense. The Packers have seen a lot of that look with the exception of the Texans game - Phillips stubbornly stuck with his single deep safety D and the Packers made him pay for that.

When was the last time the team had a big run? I can only think back to Ahman Green way back in the day.

Ryan Grant had some big runs during his first three seasons in Green Bay. He gained over 1,200 yards per season twice and would have been on pace to in his first season but just started 7 games - still he averaged 5.1 ypc in 2007. He averaged 4.3 yards per carry during his Packers career and his worst average per carry in a season was 3.9 ypc. He was good enough to make defenses respect the threat of a run IMO. And there's very good evidence the James Starks of 2010 was good enough to win a title with. He only averaged 3.5 ypc in the three regular season games of 2010 (4.2 over his Packer career) and in the playoffs only averaged 3.9 ypc but that was good enough to keep defenses honest.

BTW, HardRightEdge is correct about Starks. He was inactive for two games after being activated to the roster in 2010 either because he didn't know the playbook well enough or they didn't like his practice habits.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I honestly don't think that any RB could be an ideal fix for us right now. It's not just the RB that is not making the yards we need per carry, it's also th O line not helping create the proper lanes. Short of us going back in time and drafting Barry Sanders over that steroid freak Tony Mandrich, there is really no resolve for our running game....just my opinion.