Brandon Jackson

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have nothing against Jackson. He played very decent at times. But no way in hell he's anywhere near as good as Grant.

Based on this past season, I see Grant and Jackson are roughly of the same pedigree. Decent backs, nothing special as starters.

[The Leaper]

For me, one of the great mysteries of the 2008 season was "where are Grant's long runs?"

I don't get it. Was he injured? Was he simply lucky in 2007?

The offense was better in 07. Recall Favre could change to a running play at any time.

The '07 offense scored 16 more points (1 ppg more) and averaged 19.6 more ypg.

It wasn't that much better.

I disagree. The 2007 offense often loaded up on points early and put the game away...and the team ate clock in the 4th quarter instead of trying to score. That team could've scored another 30-50 points if they had tried to.

This year's offense was always playing from behind and tossing the ball around a lot. They weren't nearly as efficient, even if total points look similar.

[Gunakor]

For me, one of the great mysteries of the 2008 season was "where are Grant's long runs?"

I don't get it. Was he injured? Was he simply lucky in 2007?

The offense was better in 07. Recall Favre could change to a running play at any time.

The '07 offense scored 16 more points (1 ppg more) and averaged 19.6 more ypg.

It wasn't that much better.

I disagree. The 2007 offense often loaded up on points early and put the game away...and the team ate clock in the 4th quarter instead of trying to score. That team could've scored another 30-50 points if they had tried to.

This year's offense was always playing from behind and tossing the ball around a lot. They weren't nearly as efficient, even if total points look similar.

Just because you are playing from behind doesn't mean it's the offenses fault. Up 24-17 with 2 minutes to go in the game means you can run the clock out. Down 27-24 with 2 minutes to go means you have to play aggressive. The number that changed from '07 to '08 is our opponents score, not ours. That means we've been playing from behind more often, but it has little if anything to do with offensive efficiency. It has everything and more to do with defensive production.

[SnakeLH2006]

Good point, I missed that, I forgot that NFL.com doesn't have any rollup offensive scoring stats.

The '08 Packers were better than the '07 Packers in th 4th qtr and in the red zone, the '07 Packers were better in the 3rd qtr and the 1st qtr, which was an Achilles heel for the '08 Packers.

An interesting comparison would be to look at the points/offensive possession, ignoring end of the half run-out-the-clock ones.

Maybe I'm a stat loving fiend, but seeing Patler go toe-to-toe with the "new" Patler (Waldo) is damn entertaining if you ask Snake. You guys are both awesome with stats and hope to see more of this.

But seriously, Grant, IMO, had a career year in 2007, as injuries aside he looked none the part as I stated for the past year regardless of contract, injuries, etc. from 2007. I'm not a huge fan of Grant and had another topic months ago where most agreed Grant's carries should come down as he's not as effective with 30 carries a game.

Would Grant be best served rushing 20 times for 82 yards while BJack got 10 carries (caught 2-3 passes as the 3rd down back) for 45 rushing yards and 15-25 yards receiving? Yes. He lacked a burst because he's not WI Badgers Ron Dayne where you give him the ball 40 times for 225 yards...He's Ryan Grant, and I really don't like him as our #1 ball carrier at RB. Never liked the contract, but it is what it is.

Do I want Wells at #9? No, I'd rather have Raji or one of the top 3 OT's for sure, but I don't doubt that is what TT does, given his unpredictability.

Grant is not a #1 back on a great team. The Dorsey comparisons are valid to a point, but I remember (watched EVERY Packer game since 1989) Dorsey, and don't think Grant could hold his jock strap. Give BJack some carries and even Wynn and the injured rook FA from 2008 too.

I don't think we need a high draft pick at RB at all, just a limit to Grant's carries if they are committed to him, but those bursts were mostly because no one respected the RB/Grant at that point of 2007 cuz the Packers were the worst rushing team at 65 yards a game at one point/one of the best at time under Brett's toasting of secondaries with the WR's at that time in the passing game....There's where Grant got his break cuz NO ONE wes paying attention to him. NFL defenses catch up in a hurry. Grant is an average starting RB (maybe below avg.) that does NOT get better with more carries. BJack looked great late 2007 and even better in 2008. Give him the damn ball.

[Gunakor]

Grant was a top 10 back in 2008, even after defenses had caught up. 1200 yards is not a farce. Only 8 other backs in the league had more.

What exactly do we expect out of our starting RB?

Grant's YPC for 2008 was about 3.9. Not great, but not awful either. 4 yards gives you 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2. Optimal down and distance. Fine by me. Maybe not as exciting as the guy who rattles of 60 yard runs consistently, but plenty good enough to get the job done. And that avg. should go up a bit this year, as long as Grant can stay healthy through TC and preseason, because he'll be in better shape and have put more prep work in with his offense. He's fine as our workhorse.

Those bitching about Grant getting too many carries, remember that he wasn't getting 30 per game every game this season. For the first month he was held to about 15 carries per game while his hamstring healed. Our running game didn't look any better when he was splitting time with Jackson than it did when he became the workhorse. Ever think that Jackson might be benefitting from the extra time off? Same shit last year, when he was the starter he looked like garbage, then late in the season after being held to spot duty he started to come on stronger. Ask him to play more snaps, and his production goes down. He's not the one to carry the load.

I'd like to see a 25/10/5 split between Grant, Jackson, and Lumpkin. I don't like Wynn at all and expect him to be demoted back to the PS if Lumpkin is healthy. I still think Grant can carry the load, with Jackson and Lumpkin spelling him occasionally and Jackson in on 3rd downs.

[ND72]

I've never made it hidden my love of Brandon Jackson. My love of Notre Dame aside here, but I was calling all season to have a "change" of pace or just another back to bring in...aka, Jackson. I just didn't understand the thought process by MM. Especially mid season, Jackson was really hitting stride, and while Grant was also starting to get some good carries, it just seemed as though Jackson was seeing things, or hitting things a lot clearer than Grant was. I know Grant had a huge game against chicago at home, but even everyone in the stands were saying that Jackson was really seeing the holes that day...10 carries 50 yards.

I like Grant. Do I think he's a #1 back? No. Do I think he can handle being the #1 back in GB? I do....if we play Jackson a bit more. I think the mixture of the 2 could be dangerous.

I think one big thing MM needs to know is how Grant runs...He's going to have a short career based on how hard he runs the ball. Gotta let the legs rest and heal.

[3irty1]

I disagree that Brandon Jackson is a 3rd down/change of pace back. Jackson does some things well, he breaks tackles, secures the ball but I've been unimpressed with him as a receiver. What the Packers could use is a true scat back like a Leon Washington, or Darren Sproles.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Maybe I'm a stat loving fiend, but seeing Patler go toe-to-toe with the "new" Patler (Waldo) is damn entertaining if you ask Snake. You guys are both awesome with stats and hope to see more of this.

I think of them as Shamrock I and Shamrock II.

[Pugger]

I find it interesting that you folks point out Grant's injuries but you ignore BJax's. I don't know if Jax can be an every down back. He started to play more towards the end of last season but he ended up hurt again. Let's see how Grant plays this coming year before we decide he's no good either.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find it interesting that you folks point out Grant's injuries but you ignore BJax's. I don't know if Jax can be an every down back. He started to play more towards the end of last season but he ended up hurt again. Let's see how Grant plays this coming year before we decide he's no good either.

Nobody cared about Jackson's injuries at the time because Jackson had a dissapointing rookie year. I never expected Jackson to show as well as he did in 2008.

And on the other hand, Grant was the conquering hero in 2007 that saved the Packers season. The bar was higher for him, and we assumed that his injuries were a big loss.

After 2008, I consider those guys about equal contributors for the future, and the PAckers will keep a sharp eye out for an upgrade at running back.

[sharpe1027]

Just because you are playing from behind doesn't mean it's the offenses fault. Up 24-17 with 2 minutes to go in the game means you can run the clock out. Down 27-24 with 2 minutes to go means you have to play aggressive. The number that changed from '07 to '08 is our opponents score, not ours. That means we've been playing from behind more often, but it has little if anything to do with offensive efficiency. It has everything and more to do with defensive production.

Yeah. I don't disagree that '07 offense was a little bit more effective than the '08 offense, but the biggest different between '07 and '08 was the defense.

[Waldo]

For me, one of the great mysteries of the 2008 season was "where are Grant's long runs?"

I don't get it. Was he injured? Was he simply lucky in 2007?

The offense was better in 07. Recall Favre could change to a running play at any time.

The '07 offense scored 16 more points (1 ppg more) and averaged 19.6 more ypg.

It wasn't that much better.

I disagree. The 2007 offense often loaded up on points early and put the game away...and the team ate clock in the 4th quarter instead of trying to score. That team could've scored another 30-50 points if they had tried to.

This year's offense was always playing from behind and tossing the ball around a lot. They weren't nearly as efficient, even if total points look similar.

The 2008 Packers were winning or tied 13 of 16 weeks with 5:00 left to go in the game, the 2007 Packers were winning or tied 12 of 16 weeks with 5:00 left to go in the game.

If games were 55 minutes long, the 2008 Packers would have had a better record than the 2007 Packers.

[Patler]

It is pretty well known that Grant was not himself early in the season due to the hamstring. Some articles indicated that he really wasn't himself physically until after the bye, when he finally was practicing on a regular basis. In the 9 games after the bye he had 175 carries for 739 yards, a 4.22 yds/carry average. Grant is not the best back in the league, far from it, but the Packers could do a lot worse than having Grant.

I like Jackson as a role player, but lets be a little realistic about what he really did last year. The guy only had 45 carries. I'm not sure it proved a whole lot. Jackson's longest run was for 32 yards. Without the one single run his average drops to 4.9 per carry from the lofty 5.5. He saw very limited action, yet was inactive on game day for the Seattle game and for the last two games of the season due to injuries. He missed three games while Grant, who came into the season injured, missed none.

I'm not ready to put a lot of reliance on Jackson just yet.

[Farley Face]

It is pretty well known that Grant was not himself early in the season due to the hamstring. Some articles indicated that he really wasn't himself physically until after the bye, when he finally was practicing on a regular basis. In the 9 games after the bye he had 175 carries for 739 yards, a 4.22 yds/carry average. Grant is not the best back in the league, far from it, but the Packers could do a lot worse than having Grant.

I like Jackson as a role player, but lets be a little realistic about what he really did last year. The guy only had 45 carries. I'm not sure it proved a whole lot. Jackson's longest run was for 32 yards. Without the one single run his average drops to 4.9 per carry from the lofty 5.5. He saw very limited action, yet was inactive on game day for the Seattle game and for the last two games of the season due to injuries. He missed three games while Grant, who came into the season injured, missed none.

I'm not ready to put a lot of reliance on Jackson just yet.

How do you feel about Wynn? I personally had him pegged as being out of the league by now. Not due to a lack of talent but due to a lack of want-to and/or toughness. The fact he is still hanging around either signals a lack of depth at the position or more optimistically that the light may have come on for him.

If we enter training camp with Grant and Jackson as 1-2, and Wynn and Lump fighting for 3 are we covered? Some say Lump projects better to FB, and I can see the benefit of expanding our offense to include the creative deployment of the talents of a scatback type which we currently do not have on the roster.

Should I be more closely studying FA RBs and the upcoming crop of RB talent in the draft? I will admit to this point I have been content to stay with the status quo at RB and focused more on our transitioning defensive needs.

[Bossman641]

It is pretty well known that Grant was not himself early in the season due to the hamstring. Some articles indicated that he really wasn't himself physically until after the bye, when he finally was practicing on a regular basis. In the 9 games after the bye he had 175 carries for 739 yards, a 4.22 yds/carry average. Grant is not the best back in the league, far from it, but the Packers could do a lot worse than having Grant.

I like Jackson as a role player, but lets be a little realistic about what he really did last year. The guy only had 45 carries. I'm not sure it proved a whole lot. Jackson's longest run was for 32 yards. Without the one single run his average drops to 4.9 per carry from the lofty 5.5. He saw very limited action, yet was inactive on game day for the Seattle game and for the last two games of the season due to injuries. He missed three games while Grant, who came into the season injured, missed none.

I'm not ready to put a lot of reliance on Jackson just yet.

How do you feel about Wynn? I personally had him pegged as being out of the league by now. Not due to a lack of talent but due to a lack of want-to and/or toughness. The fact he is still hanging around either signals a lack of depth at the position or more optimistically that the light may have come on for him.

If we enter training camp with Grant and Jackson as 1-2, and Wynn and Lump fighting for 3 are we covered? Some say Lump projects better to FB, and I can see the benefit of expanding our offense to include the creative deployment of the talents of a scatback type which we currently do not have on the roster.

Should I be more closely studying FA RBs and the upcoming crop of RB talent in the draft? I will admit to this point I have been content to stay with the status quo at RB and focused more on our transitioning defensive needs.

I too thought Wynn would be out of the league by now. I think he's gotten by on a little bit of luck as well as some hard work. There were numerous quotes from Edgar Bennet last year talking about Wynn showing up and doing the little things, and how he had taken a more professional approach. The guy does have some talent, it's just a matter of if he has the desire to work hard and if he shows the ability to be able to play through the nicks and injuries that have always slowed him down.