PDA

View Full Version : Packers RB ranked 35th!


]{ilr]3
08-09-2007, 10:33 AM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/RBFantasyRankings.htm

35. Brandon Jackson, Packers: Someone has to play tailback in Green Bay.

I think they are seriously under estimating the improvements the O-line has made in running the ZB scheme. If Denver and Atlanta have proven anything its that this scheme produces yards even from average RB's

And i think our RB are not all that bad either. 8-) Cool-Aid! 8-)
HarveyWallbangers
08-09-2007, 10:39 AM
These are fantasy rankings. The fact that Vernand Morency will likely split carries with Jackson hurts his value. If he were the full-time starter, he'd probably be ranked around where Jamal Lewis is ranked--mid 20s or so.
The Leaper
08-09-2007, 11:03 AM
I think 35 is high. I wouldn't put any of our RBs in the top 40 with the RBBC approach we are likely to take. The chances of any of them topping 700 yards and 5 TDs is pretty slim at this point.
]{ilr]3
08-09-2007, 02:39 PM
These are fantasy rankings. The fact that Vernand Morency will likely split carries with Jackson hurts his value. If he were the full-time starter, he'd probably be ranked around where Jamal Lewis is ranked--mid 20s or so.

Yes, i should have pointed that out. Morency is not even on that list. They are listing multiple backup RB's over any potential starter GB has :shock:

Again, i think they are under estimating the system and what it will bring.
retailguy
08-09-2007, 03:35 PM
{ilr]3]
These are fantasy rankings. The fact that Vernand Morency will likely split carries with Jackson hurts his value. If he were the full-time starter, he'd probably be ranked around where Jamal Lewis is ranked--mid 20s or so.

Yes, i should have pointed that out. Morency is not even on that list. They are listing multiple backup RB's over any potential starter GB has :shock:

Again, i think they are under estimating the system and what it will bring.

KB, I understand your "gut feel" but can you base your opinion on ANYTHING concrete? What has this OL done to date that suggests that your feeling will come to fruition? I'm all for optimism, but just like to base it on something tangible, which quite honestly, I don't see.
wist43
08-09-2007, 03:36 PM
If Morency stays on the sidelines, Jackson's value may go up slightly, but he's a rookie, running behind a suspect line, on a team with very few legitimate weapons - actually only one (Driver) - and, the likelihood of them being behind a lot.

Add to that the fact that there are legitimate questions about his durability and ability to pass protect - which could land him on the bench - and you don't have a very good formula for a fantasy RB.

Any Packer running back is going to be a low end #3/4.
woodbuck27
08-09-2007, 03:45 PM
I think 35 is high. I wouldn't put any of our RBs in the top 40 with the RBBC approach we are likely to take. The chances of any of them topping 700 yards and 5 TDs is pretty slim at this point.

I agree.

When trying to rank our RB's the questions that come up immediately are:

How many OL's have a higher ranking for the run?

How experienced are our RB's in the NFL?
The Leaper
08-09-2007, 04:46 PM
If Morency stays on the sidelines, Jackson's value may go up slightly, but he's a rookie, running behind a suspect line, on a team with very few legitimate weapons - actually only one (Driver) - and, the likelihood of them being behind a lot.

I disagree about the RBs being downgraded due to the Packers being behind a lot. Our defense is going to be very solid...and I doubt we see many double digit deficits this year, so I don't feel there will be too many instances where our running game has to be abandoned.

The issue is simply that the backs either don't have the talent or experience to contribute consistently. This team only had 1650 yards and 9 TDs on the ground last year. I don't expect a huge increase in that production, and we don't have a workhorse like Green to eat up the bulk of that production.

There are just too many other NFL teams that can put up 2000+ combined yards on the ground, so there are plenty of other backup RBs who will put up as good of numbers as our guys...plus have the upside to post huge numbers if the guy in front of them gets hurt. That is why we don't have any top 40 fantasy RBs.
BEARMAN
08-09-2007, 06:40 PM
WoW :shock: Benson is ranked 17th ! 8-)
Good RB's, Good TE's, Good WR's, Good OLmen.
Da BEARS have a GOOD "O" to go with their GOOD "D" ! :alc:
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, .......... SB ! :glug: :flag:
Bretsky
08-09-2007, 06:45 PM
Way too high for Benson :wink:

Actually the FFL buffs would consider those rankings to be pretty pathetic
GBRulz
08-09-2007, 06:49 PM
WoW :shock: Benson is ranked 17th ! 8-)
Good RB's, Good TE's, Good WR's, Good OLmen.
Da BEARS have a GOOD "O" to go with their GOOD "D" ! :alc:
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, .......... SB ! :glug: :flag:

If you guys had a good QB, I might be worried :twisted:
Scott Campbell
08-09-2007, 06:57 PM
WoW :shock: Benson is ranked 17th ! 8-)
Good RB's, Good TE's, Good WR's, Good OLmen.
Da BEARS have a GOOD "O" to go with their GOOD "D" ! :alc:
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, .......... SB ! :glug: :flag:

If you guys had a good QB, I might be worried :twisted:


I won't be worried until they tie us in Lombardi trophies - 3 presently. Until they do, they're just the obnoxious little brother of the division.