So...Are we not updating this any longer? Has it served it's purpose, and now that Jackson appears exposed for what he is, are we done with this?
Boris just said we're only allowed to post RB related material in the James Starks thread now.
You're right ronjr. We should update this thread. I locked the Starks one.
quote:Originally posted by RonJr:
So...Are we not updating this any longer? Has it served it's purpose, and now that Jackson appears exposed for what he is, are we done with this?
Jeez. Stop harrassing me. Cripes, I take my kids on an overnight trip, don't update the thread that continues to show that your savior Marion Barber sucks balls, and you gotta harass me about it. It's like a pattern with you. Highly personal, inflammatory and otherwise prejudicial.
And, this thread was simply highlighting that your hero Marion Barber sucks balls. Just like Marshawn Lynch sucks balls. And that neither are better than Jackson. Still holds true.
I'll also preemptively point that that out that Tashard Choice, a 4th round draft choice that was the 3rd string RB and saw all of 14 carries before yesterday, rushed for 100 yards on 19 carries behind the same offense that your studmuffin Marion Barber did. Barber's tops for the year? 17 carries, 55 yards.
Guess that tells you all you need to know about the Dallas staff's opinion of Marion, huh?
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
You're rightronjrrong. We should update this thread. I locked the Starks one.
FTFY.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
I'll also preemptively point that that out that Tashard Choice, a 4th round draft choice that was the 3rd string RB and saw all of 14 carries before yesterday, rushed for 100 yards on 19 carries behind the same offense that your studmuffin Marion Barber did. Barber's tops for the year? 17 carries, 55 yards.
Guess that tells you all you need to know about the Dallas staff's opinion of Marion, huh?
CA, you have taken this arguement to a personal level - attacking those with a differing point of view, rather then debating the merits...It has clouded your judgement. Because the above statement makes my point for me, but you failed to see it in your chest thumping.
How about a sixth round rookie with no carries for nearly two full seasons who got 73 yards on 18 carries in his first game, while the starter this entire season, and the third-down guy for the past three, had 4 carries for 13 yards. Sound familiar?
Go back and look. I have been saying for six weeks that MM had no real confidence in Jacksons ability as the starting HB . . .
And Dum-Dum...with you MENSA level IQ, I would have thought you, of anyone here, would have picked up on the irony of CA's post... That one musta just "slipped buy" huh?
PS- Barber has the same injury that Cullen Jenkins has...Is Jenkins a pussy to?
PS2- I noticed you bolded the fumbles by Lynch, yet didn't list the tree touchdowns he scored on Sunday. Are you a news editor at MSNBC?
quote:PS- Barber has the same injury that Cullen Jenkins has...Is Jenkins a pussy to?
Rong. Jenkins also played with a cast on his arm at a Pro Bowl level, forget that one since you want to Strawman yourself into another argument.
Barber had done nothing before he was hurt. Yet, now you want to play the injury excuse? So TT woud've pissed away a pick for an injured Barber???
And you want to call me Dum Dum? Try "re-reading" or hire a tutor, every thread about James Starks in the forum history.
She don't think your tractor's sexy.
quote:Originally posted by RonJr:
CA, you have taken this arguement to a personal level - attacking those with a differing point of view, rather then debating the merits...It has clouded your judgement. Because the above statement makes my point for me, but you failed to see it in your chest thumping.
Umm, no. I should have known this level of nuance would be too much for you, but I did it anyway.
Just like your argument about Starks vs Jackson, which I read and I knew you'd bring up again (and you did), I was preemptively highlighting that your boy Marion Barber saw the exact same thing happen. A guy that hadn't played much outperformed him and had more carries than all but one of Barber's games. I wasn't making your point, I was using the point you believe about Starks/Jackson and highlighting that the same thing happened to your savior Barber. And, I should have known, you can't even realize that. Not a surprise.
quote:How about a sixth round rookie with no carries for nearly two full seasons who got 73 yards on 18 carries in his first game, while the starter this entire season, and the third-down guy for the past three, had 4 carries for 13 yards. Sound familiar?
Umm, yes. That's why I used the example in Dallas. I know debating is hard and all, but...
quote:Go back and look. I have been saying for six weeks that MM had no real confidence in Jacksons ability as the starting HB . . .
If that's your opinion, then surely you'd agree and argue that Dallas' head coaches had no real confidence in Barber's ability as the starting HB. Right? I mean, at the first opportunity, Dallas gave more the ball to little used 4th round draft choice (as if that matters) Tashard Choice. More carries than Barber got in all but one game. Well, that and Choice gained almost a third of the yards in one game that Barber had in the 11 previous. That's the same thing as Starks/Jackson, right?
I mean, unless you're a hypocrite.
quote:PS2- I noticed you bolded the fumbles by Lynch, yet didn't list the tree touchdowns he scored on Sunday. Are you a news editor at MSNBC?
No. Fox News.
Were those Xmas tree touchdowns?
Rong likes to point out he didn't want Lynch, but uses his one "lone" stellar game against the Panthers as the starting point as success.
Rong, is there any more straw you can collect with that tractor?
Rong likes to point out he didn't want Lynch, but uses his one "lone" stellar game against the Panthers as the starting point as success.
Rong, is there any more straw you can collect with that tractor?
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
. . . your savior Barber.
Not sure I ever used "savior," but I still think he would have been better than Jackson...that is a debate that could rage forever, no one will ever know for sure.
quote:
If that's your opinion, then surely you'd agree and argue that Dallas' head coaches had no real confidence in Barber's ability as the starting HB. Right? I mean, at the first opportunity, Dallas gave more the ball to little used 4th round draft choice (as if that matters) Tashard Choice. More carries than Barber got in all but one game. Well, that and Choice gained almost a third of the yards in one game that Barber had in the 11 previous. That's the same thing as Starks/Jackson, right?
Well...duh....And that's why I would have given him the chance in Green Bay for six weeks, or maybe longer if he had played well. He could have been got (the 'Boys were deep at RB), he had a proven track record (and in fact, he had almost ALWAYS shared time with a Jones [first Julius, then Felix], thus limiting to a certain degree the normal "wear & tear), and he was, unlike Lynch, a solid clubhouse guy. He would have been the stop-gap measure to replace Ryan Grant instead of a very inneffective Jackson, during a year when most were thinking Superbowl.
Not "Savior." "Stop-gap."
quote:PS2- I noticed you bolded the fumbles by Lynch, yet didn't list the tree touchdowns he scored on Sunday. Are you a news editor at MSNBC?
No.
quote:Fox News.
Well, that explains everything, now doesn't it? Your base your arguements on stats alone then, when they don't suit your purpose, you leave them out...that's hypocritical
Starks going 18 for 73 has no bearing on the discussion initiated in this thread... other than he could now be used in comparison to the M&M boys. While Jackson held the reign of lead back for GB, he was the better of the three in the original post. Now if Starks takes more of the runs and out-plays the M&Ms that does not diminish what Jackson did the previous 11 games in comparison to them.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
Were those Xmas tree touchdowns?
Rong likes to point out he didn't want Lynch, but uses his one "lone" stellar game against the Panthers as the starting point as success.
Rong, is there any more straw you can collect with that tractor?
Missed this one too, didn't ya Dum-Dum...
I don't like Lynch, told you that (twice on Sunday when you couldn't understand that point), yet CA like to use statistics to "Prove" his points..oh, i mean, when they DO prove his point...when they don't, well, then, he just won't post them or add them to his running tally...you would have to ask him why - for his explaintion...
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
Starks going 18 for 73 has no bearing on the discussion initiated in this thread... other than he could now be used in comparison to the M&M boys. While Jackson held the reign of lead back for GB, he was the better of the three in the original post. Now if Starks takes more of the runs and out-plays the M&Ms that does not diminish what Jackson did the previous 11 games in comparison to them.
Perhaps not, but try to remember the montra of the originator of this thread;
"Behind the same offensive line!"
quote:Originally posted by RonJr:
Well...duh....And that's why I would have given him the chance in Green Bay for six weeks, or maybe longer if he had played well. He could have been got (the 'Boys were deep at RB), he had a proven track record (and in fact, he had almost ALWAYS shared time with a Jones [first Julius, then Felix], thus limiting to a certain degree the normal "wear & tear), and he was, unlike Lynch, a solid clubhouse guy. He would have been the stop-gap measure to replace Ryan Grant instead of a very inneffective Jackson, during a year when most were thinking Superbowl.
Not "Savior." "Stop-gap."
You assert that Jackson is not adequate because coaches had no confidence in him as a starting HB, and you believe that's proven because Starks got more carries, yet the exact same thing happens to Barber in Dallas, and you still think he's so much better. Even if 2010 production doesn't show that in any way, shape, or form.
So, you are a hypocrite. Thanks for the confirmation.
quote:Well, that explains everything, now doesn't it? Your base your arguements on stats alone then, when they don't suit your purpose, you leave them out...that's hypocritical
Neither of the other 2 RBs had any fumbles in that period, hence I haven't listed. How is that hypocritical? Oh that's right, it's not. It's factual.
I also haven't listed ANY TDs by any of the RBs in that period. How is that hypocritical? If I would have listed Jackson's and not Lynch's - THAT would be hypocritical. But, I haven't listed any. Hence - not hypocritical. Just inconvenient for those that have no other leg to stand on I guess.
quote:Originally posted by RonJr:quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
Starks going 18 for 73 has no bearing on the discussion initiated in this thread... other than he could now be used in comparison to the M&M boys. While Jackson held the reign of lead back for GB, he was the better of the three in the original post. Now if Starks takes more of the runs and out-plays the M&Ms that does not diminish what Jackson did the previous 11 games in comparison to them.
Perhaps not, but try to remember the montra of the originator of this thread;
"Behind the same offensive line!"
The mantra (yeah, I know) of this thread was to compare Jackson to Lynch and Barber and to show their production since the trade deadline.
A secondary point in other threads was that Lynch has been outperformed by Fred Jackson consistently in Buffalo and in several weeks in Seattle by Forsett; and Barber has been outplayed consistently by Felix Jones and now Tashard Choice in Dallas.
Not sure I ever stated anywhere that Jackson was better than Starks.
But, again, when you have nothing, you grasp for anything, I guess.
Stats schmats...the only player BJack may be better than of all the guys discussed in this debate is Nance. JSO has another article today that if you read between the lines states that the Pack has had a putrid running game for one reason only. They didn't have players with the tools carrying the rock. Bleeding blood from a stone comes to mind. Starks looks the part after one game but a guy playing in first game in two years and producing like that and showing burst and "talent" speaks volumes of how bad the BJack/RB/FB were.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423284.html
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/111423284.html
quote:Missed this one too, didn't ya Dum-Dum...
I don't like Lynch, told you that (twice on Sunday when you couldn't understand that point), yet CA like to use statistics to "Prove" his points..oh, i mean, when they DO prove his point...when they don't, well, then, he just won't post them or add them to his running tally...you would have to ask him why - for his explaintion...
You don't like him but keep using him as a reference?
Again, what did Barber do while healthy? Straw's getting cold Rong.
quote:Well...duh....And that's why I would have given him the chance in Green Bay for six weeks, or maybe longer if he had played well. He could have been got (the 'Boys were deep at RB), he had a proven track record (and in fact, he had almost ALWAYS shared time with a Jones [first Julius, then Felix], thus limiting to a certain degree the normal "wear & tear), and he was, unlike Lynch, a solid clubhouse guy. He would have been the stop-gap measure to replace Ryan Grant instead of a very inneffective Jackson, during a year when most were thinking Superbowl.
Not "Savior." "Stop-gap."
Very interesting statement in my opinion.
1. You are arguing that you want to replace an "ineffective Jackson" with another RB which CAPackFan has demonstrated is just as ineffective if not more ineffective than Jackson. That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
2. Has it occurred to you that maybe Jackson was the "Stop-gap" guy for the Packers until either a)Nance learns the plays and can get on the field, or b)Starks gets healthy enough to play?
Considering that the Packers are now 8-4, and have the 23rd rank rushing attack, and on the cusp of the playoffs, I would consider Jackson to be a pretty good "Stop-gap" guy in my opinion. Then when you add in all of the smaller things that he does (blitz pick-up, doesn't fumble, good pass catcher) and he turns into a valuable piece of the puzzle for the Packers.
I have been following this Running back debate since it first started on times four, and in my opinion CAPackFan, Coach, TD, and others have not been debating that Jackson is the savior. They have just been stating, with facts not subjective arguments, that Jackson is just as good as a "Stop-gap" guy as either Lynch or Barber. Now if Starks can play like we all hope he can play, Jackson can go back to being the 3rd down back where he excels, and the Packers can hopefully advance deep into the playoffs.
In TT I trust!
Duff, respect your comments but us on the other side are looking beyond the numbers. A player's situation matters as well. His offensive scheme...the talent level of the team he plays for...etc. Heck, maybe he is a malcontent and a change of scenery would turn on a light bulb.
If you want to go just by the numbers, then you take Foster over Peterson or Johnson. You take Wes Welker over Andre Johnson. You take Orton over Matty Ice (if you are ratings guy...kinda like CA is a YPC guy).
Brandon Jackson is nothing more than maybe an average backup or a decent third running back. It's really easy to see, IMO. All people on the other side was another option brought in, despite the numbers BJack/RB/FB put up.
If you want to go just by the numbers, then you take Foster over Peterson or Johnson. You take Wes Welker over Andre Johnson. You take Orton over Matty Ice (if you are ratings guy...kinda like CA is a YPC guy).
Brandon Jackson is nothing more than maybe an average backup or a decent third running back. It's really easy to see, IMO. All people on the other side was another option brought in, despite the numbers BJack/RB/FB put up.
quote:All people on the other side was another option brought in, despite the numbers BJack/RB/FB put up.
But TWO other options (Nance and Starks) were put on this team after Grant went down, but they haven't gotten a chance to show what they have yet. Whereas the other RBs that have been mentioned are playing and not performing. Even Lynch got a change of scenery and he still hasn't performed.
Other options were brought in, but to me you are complaining because the big name guys weren't brought in, and you haven't really had a chance to see/judge what either Nance or Starks can do.
I agree, Jackson doesn't cut it as an everybody back. To me, he was/is a stop gap until now. Hopefully either Starks or Nance can now step up.
quote:Originally posted by Duffman:
Silent killer.
Starks was PUP for basically have the year and wasn't even an option and Nance (at least to me) was viewed as just some practice squad pickup...something that happens all the time. Not good enough for me.
So basically, they sat with inadequate talent at the position until December and that, IMO, cost them a game or two.
And again, I don't care about the "big names" numbers. I just plain don't care. No matter what BJack/RB/FB numbers look compared to them I just plain don't care. Also, Jones and Ward were available for nothing and in my mind they are much better options.
That is fine if you don't agree but in my view, looking at just the numbers doesn't tell the story. That has been the debate pretty much all along. You are on the other of me and others. That is fine. And once again, Starks looks the part and he's all they got so let's hope he can provide the threat that BJack/RB/FB could not.
Pretty cool that people make assumptions on what I would choose wrt every other NFL player based on this thread.
But then again, thinking is hard.
But then again, thinking is hard.
I guess I don't get your argument then. Before you stated that you wanted other options brought in, because Jackson isn't cutting it as a #1 back. I agree with that. However, the Packers did bring in other options for the RB position. You just don't agree with them. You wanted other players. I guess I can respect that, but I believe it is a little short sighted to state that when you haven't even gotten a chance to watch and judge what either Nance or Starks can do.
quote:You are on the other of me and others. That is fine.
quote:Originally posted by Duffman:
I guess I don't get your argument then. Before you stated that you wanted other options brought in, because Jackson isn't cutting it as a #1 back. I agree with that. However, the Packers did bring in other options for the RB position. You just don't agree with them. You wanted other players. I guess I can respect that, but I believe it is a little short sighted to state that when you haven't even gotten a chance to watch and judge what either Nance or Starks can do.
Big sigh...
1. I don't view Nance as addressing the situation. He is a practice squad pickup in the mold of Francois, some receiver...anybody. One could view that as addressing the situation but I don't.
2. Starks was PUP. He wasn't even going to be available until midseason. Grant was hurt week one. He also hadn't been on the field in two years. I wasn't going to in my hopes to him and I also thought they needed something before then and referring back to number 1, Nance wasn't enough, IMO...
quote:Originally posted by Duffman:
Very interesting statement in my opinion.
1. You are arguing that you want to replace an "ineffective Jackson" with another RB which CAPackFan has demonstrated is just as ineffective if not more ineffective than Jackson. That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Not convinced Barber or Lynch is "just as inneffective" as Jackson here. Maybe, but no one knows for sure. Claiming the "stats" tell the story is just plain short-sighted. The ESPN pregame played a "what if" scenario if the Niners had chosen Rodgers and the Packers got Alex Smith. Can you honestly say that Rodgers would be putting up the same numbers in SF while Smith would have been a complete bust in Green Bay? Considering the different coaching staffs, scheme and other offensive personnel, how can that really be predicted? To say it is clear that Rodgers would do the same thing in SF as he has done her and vice-versa based SOLELY on statistics, that's more MADDEN 2010 or Fantasy Football "demonstration" - - not real world.
quote:
2. Has it occurred to you that maybe Jackson was the "Stop-gap" guy for the Packers until either a)Nance learns the plays and can get on the field, or b)Starks gets healthy enough to play?
Ummm...yeah...I think that is the basis of this entire "debate of 2010." I didn't thin Jackson WAS a good "stop-gap" and the fact that the Packers had no running game was probably the primary reason they lost in Atlanta...and in this league, that ONE LOSS can cost you big time...Right now, the Packers are NOT in the playoffs, and as things play out, that loss in Atlanta when we kept going 4 and 5 wides in 3rd and/or 4th and short because we couldn't run,may indeed come back to haunt us.
quote:
I have been following this Running back debate since it first started on times four, and in my opinion CAPackFan, Coach, TD, and others have not been debating that Jackson is the savior. They have just been stating, with facts not subjective arguments, that Jackson is just as good as a "Stop-gap" guy as either Lynch or Barber.
Not necessary.
quote:Not convinced Barber or Lynch is "just as inneffective" as Jackson here.
So you are not convinced, but the damn stats prove he has been? Yet, you strawman that Rodgers would not have been the same in SF. Again, you are arguing a whole different argument because Rodgers would've never had the chance to get groomed.
Tashard Choice then blows away your defense because he's had a success taking away those touches that Mr Ineffective would've had.
Again, try using an argument that doesn't have holes in it like the Vikings offense.
quote:2. Starks was PUP. He wasn't even going to be available until midseason.
You know the how? Actually if you knew the rules, guys are eligible to come back after the 6th week. Maybe, the Packers thought he would play sooner. Maybe they wanted to take their time. Again, you have no idea what you are rambling about, no?
And again YOU WANTED WESTBROOK ON THE TEAM OVER STARKS! So how did the immortal Westbrook fare against a bad Packers run D?
quote:Originally posted by TD:quote:Not convinced Barber or Lynch is "just as inneffective" as Jackson here.
Tashard Choice then blows away your defense because he's had a success taking away those touches that Mr Ineffective would've had.
Again, try using an argument that doesn't have holes in it like the Vikings offense.
Dum-dum...You want "holes" pointed out? So be it....
The Cowboys are now playing almost as well as anyone, with Kitna at the helm. How can that be, when they were playing as BAD as anyone six weeks ago? Have you checked the rushing statistics over the last four weeks? Have the Cowboys changed anything? Who, exactly, WAS playing well for the Cowboys during the first eight weeks? Now, almost everybody is...
quote:Originally posted by TD:
You know the how? Actually if you knew the rules, guys are eligible to come back after the 6th week. Maybe, the Packers thought he would play sooner. Maybe they wanted to take their time. Again, you have no idea what you are rambling about, no?
Well then they needed to bring someone in before week six then...whatever week the "PUP" ended.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
And again YOU WANTED WESTBROOK ON THE TEAM OVER STARKS! So how did the immortal Westbrook fare against a bad Packers run D?
I wanted BW on the team, yes. I also know they wouldn't cut Starks and I never thought they would. I never stated getting rid of Starks. I would still like BW on the team. And yes, he didn't do very well against the Pack last weekend. Doesn't change my view.
quote:Well then they needed to bring someone in before week six then...whatever week the "PUP" ended.
WHO? You wanted Lynch. So trade a 3rd rounder for 5 weeks of Lynch?
I hope you don't have to manage anything more than a drinking fountain.
quote:Have the Cowboys changed anything? Who, exactly, WAS playing well for the Cowboys during the first eight weeks? Now, almost everybody is...
RONG, with another strawman? You do realize they did fire their coach(probably not) but yet Barber has not improved. Yet, you said everyone has? Obviously, he was crap before AND after.
And so since the coaching change when the Cowboys have been 3-1(2-1) with Barber, he's averaging a WATCH OUT - 3.29 yards per carry! YES RONG, you hit er on the head.
Get R Dun.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
WHO? You wanted Lynch. So trade a 3rd rounder for 5 weeks of Lynch?
No, for the rest of the season and beyond.
Do you really want to rehash this. Look up my posts (I know you know how to do that). Everything is there in black and white.
Chickenboy, would you rather have Lynch, or Starks and a 3rd round pick. After this season has played itself out, I think the Packers are sitting much better with a rookie RB who shows he may have more talent than Lynch and they still have a 3rd round pick to help fill out holes in the offseason from their long list of free agents.
Lynch. I still feel he would have succeeded in Green Bay and could have replaced Grant next season who's contract is up. RB crew would be Lynch, Starks and BJack.
Someone will eventually come back and say I wanted Westbrook, and I did. Maybe BW along with BJack/RB/FB and eventually Starks would have been satisfactory...I don't know. If it would have, this whole argument would never have happened and we would all be better off because of it.
Someone will eventually come back and say I wanted Westbrook, and I did. Maybe BW along with BJack/RB/FB and eventually Starks would have been satisfactory...I don't know. If it would have, this whole argument would never have happened and we would all be better off because of it.
This entire "argument" is pointless. It's quite obvious Starks + a 3rd is a much better stance than just Lynch. You're not even considering who gets cut to acquire Lynch.
This entire conversation is pointless and I'll be deleting future posts. They take up valuable space and are pointless.
This entire conversation is pointless and I'll be deleting future posts. They take up valuable space and are pointless.