Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
.
I would also point out that the Packers had a pass play go down to the 1 yard line (I believe it was James Jones). Unlike some past weeks, Jackson was the goal line back, not Kuhn.Regards,THE FANTASY KING
Id still like to see him get a few more carries.Another game where he was effective (4.5 per carry against a tough run D) and he only got 13 carries.
Agreed, he's looked better the last two weeks, but still isn't getting a ton of opportunities. Will he be as good per touch given more opps? What's impressive to me is that he's doing most of his work on 1st and 2nd down. As opposed to third down.At the same time, I still don't see him making something out of nothing, and while defenses defend the pass against GB, he gets good holes to run through, but doesn't often break into the secondary.Cautiously optimistic is the right term. His situation is excellent, but he still isn't showing a ton of talent IMO.
You think that is when he was running?He has looked much better lately (except in those obvious run situations to try and grind out the clock...he does suck at that).The reality is still that McCarthy does not appear to want to really give him more than 15 carries in a game.
I did the same thing...but I picked up BJGE maybe a bit even before you had dropped Jackson and have been fine with that move.
I dropped him for Blount which now would look like a possible genius move ...If I hadn't dropped Blount.
Well...I had an offer for Jackson and Knox for Fred Taylor and Calvin when I first picked him up. I turned it down as Calvin was struggling and I still had hope for Knox...plus I have Moss and Boldin so didn't feel like I needed Calvin. DOH!!!!
And if by "still" you mean pretty much the last 4 years, I'd agree - which probably has something to do with the fact that he doesn't get more touches.Since TFK made public this epiphany, Jackson hasn't rushed for more than 58 yards in any of the 3 games. If you need 6-7 points out of your RB, with an occasional TD thrown in to bump into double digits, enjoy Jackson (I beleive sho nuff posted the same point a few weeks ago - dead on).ETA: One other flaw in the epiphany - you can still probably get him for cheap...probably cheaper, as now he has 3 mediocre performances following the big week, and is now 3 weeks closer to the end of the season.EATA: This is now the 2nd post today I have agreed with something Sho Nuff said...WTF?
In his last four games Jackson has seen his rushing attempts increase each game, he has topped 70 total yards in every game and he's caught at least three passes in three games.Again, I'm no fan of the guy but he has become a solid RB3. I think the depth at RB is sorely lacking this season so if you have a reliable option in any fashion that has value. And right now, Brandon Jackson has value.
When he made his "epiphany," a lot of people thought that John Kuhn was the lead back, or James Starks would be, or the Packers would be trading for a RB.And if by "still" you mean pretty much the last 4 years, I'd agree - which probably has something to do with the fact that he doesn't get more touches.Since TFK made public this epiphany, Jackson hasn't rushed for more than 58 yards in any of the 3 games. If you need 6-7 points out of your RB, with an occasional TD thrown in to bump into double digits, enjoy Jackson (I beleive sho nuff posted the same point a few weeks ago - dead on).
i guess its just a matter of degree, as usual.
Happy to help, loyal subject.Regards,THE FANTASY KING
Umm, how is that?4 total TDs on the season. Averaging around 70 yards per game. This is not a breakout player, he's RB 3 most weeks, RB2 some. He's not a steal or anything of the sort. He had a good game but that's just one game, it doesn't validate the self-proclaimed "king"'s initial post at all.
He's the 19th best RB in my ppr leagues. He's hitting double-digit points a lot lately too. That's not bad.
No, not really.You can still get him pretty cheap.
In a 12 team league, that's lower tier RB 2, and only due to one 2TD game. Like I said, he's an RB3 with some RB2 weeks.TFK's initial post was basically that he's cheap, and might become the Packers main ball carrier. Now he might say by "main ball carrier" he simply meant the lead back in an RBBC. But given what the Packers "main ball carrier" has historically been, that would be disingenuous of him to claim that's all he meant.
I would say not really as well...he's still just as likely to get you 30 yards as he is to get you 80 yds and a td
And those are.....bad?You just pretty much described Joseph Addai, and that dude damn near has a cult following around here.Jackson has value. He's just not near a RB1. In a PPR league, he's usually a mid-tier RB2 almost every week with the potential to be upper-end RB2 if he manages to find the EZ. Unless you were a guy that had to blow your entire FA nut on the guy, you've probably been pretty pleased with him if you had to play him. He's only really had one truly dog of a week. If there's an owner in your leagues that has gotten killed at RB I'd bet he'd happily take Jackson off your hands, though he may claim otherwise to try and devalue him.
If by cult following you mean most people think he sucks, you'd be right. I've been the biggest Addai supporter, but I'm one of less than a handful of Addai supporters on this forum.But if you wanna compare Jackson to Addai, let me know next time Jackson scores double digit TDs, or rushes and receives over 100 yards in each category in a game.Then feel free to act like the crap Jackson is this year is even close to Addai.
everything I wanted to say and then some...
Agreed. This was a very good call. Some people just don't want to let facts get in the way of a good reason to argue about something.
it's hilarious to see people still saying he's not even worth a roster spot and is a RB3 at best. Maybe most on here play in 4 team leagues, but in any league with 12+ teams he has been very startable the past month.
Yes, of course two good games in his last 4 definitely outweighs everything else. Lol. What were his other games like, or do they not count? Just because they were before TFK's "call" doesn't mean they didn't happen.Last time I looked, in a 12 team league, 26 & 28 are RB 3 level. Unless you think he's more likely to be 7 & 11 on a weekly basis, then you're pissing into the wind.
TFK made a call that Jackson was going to be much more valuable than he was at the time of the call. He has been. It's perfectly reasonable to look at his performance since the call was made to assess the value of the call. I'm not sure if you're always like this or just being intentionally dense here because you're so obviously wrong, but either way, you should probably stop.
I don't think many are doubting where Jackson is...but his statement that it was the last time to get him cheap was flat out wrong.
So let's get this straight. There are only a few points of interest in this entire post:1 - Jackson's value would increase from basically zero. Spot on, but not really much of a call, as he had nowhere to go up.
Actually, when TFK posted his OP, Jackson had just broken off a 71 yard run the week prior, and looked like he had "figured it out". His value was probably about the same as it is now.
I know what a "hater" is now!But you did get 5+ pages of attention, which is I'm sure your intention.
Actually, in non-PPR (which most of us play) his value has actually gone down since the original post. The OP was after his 115 rushing yard game (the only game over 63 yards rushing the entire season). His value was likely higher then then it is now. Actually, I'm shocked at SSOG and his misrepresentation of weekly rankings. Especially in regards to Jackson's week 9, "11th RB" ranking, because what is being conveniently left out of such an argument is that 6 teams were on a bye - as were their RBs (Steven Jackson, Frank Gore, Knoshown Moreno, MJD, Chris Johnson and Ryan Torain). So yes, in some sense, he was a viable bye week filler - which is really all an RB3 is. So in a 5 week span since the OP (and yes, the fact that his bye week was still upcoming while other RBs had already had theirs DOES count agianst his value), he was startable twice...maybe....and only if you happened to pick week 7 and week 9. Since on week 7, he was up against the Vikings, who are a top 10 rush defense, you likely didn't even play him unless you had no other choice. Sorry, maybe 1 week out of 5 with good numbers, with the rest being a disappointment or unplayable (due to bye or tough matchup) you count as a "win" - I don't. And the case in point that the OP was inccorect is that you can likely get him cheaper now than you would have after the 115 yard rushing game. Why? Because any intelligent owner knows (which SSOG has pointed out countless times) that TD's are unpredictable. His production apart from the sporadic TD is weak at best. People are pointing to the "trend" in increased carries (which, in case no one noticed, stopped going up) - how about this trend? 4.5, 3.7, 3.2 - that's his YPC average over his last 3 games. Another thing aside from continued mediocrity that drives his value down is his schedule. Over the next 3 weeks, he plays 3 top 10 run defenses. Depending on when your playoffs fall, these are BJack's games weeks 14-17:14) @ Detroit (wOOt! a good matchup...except that he went 9-33 rushing in their first matchup)15) @ NE (18)16) NYG (3)17) CHI (2)His value hasn't gone up...it's gone down. And as he continues to be unreliable and a bye-week fill in or emergency RB only (which is the very definition of RB3) and the season grinds toward the playoffs and away from bye weeks, his value actually sinks even lower. He has had value and was startable 1 week out of the 5 since the OP. If you had been able to find someone to "buy" after his week 9 "explosion" (against a Dallas team that many thought had given up on the season) - you may have lucked out. Otherwise, you're holding what you always had since week 1 - a bye week filler who is good for about 50-60 yards on the ground and 2-3 receptions a game with an occasional TD thrown in randomly.I would suggest, that if you still have BJax on your roster and your trade deadline hasn't already passed, this might be the last time to sell him for anything worth having - someone might buy for that week 14 at Detroit.switz said:
I believe most of us play in some form of PPR. The non-ppr leagues are ancient relics.
Technically correct, not a dumb call. But as Switz pointed out, if you examine what he actually said, this wasn't much of a call at all, essentially saying Jackson might be undervalued (but TFK even qualified that by saying. "I am not advocating buying Jackson for the long-term or trading something of value for him").The problem I have with this and other TFK posts is that the guy is acting like he is something akin to The Oracle at Delphi, but if you look at what he actually says it is never that far away from the conventional wisdom, at least not enough to be the profound observation that it purports to be. I will respect this self proclaimed monarch when I start seeing some gutsy uneqivocal calls that actually turn out to be true - until then these posts to me all smack of some sort of shameless self-promotion.
Depends on your league. I know his price has essentially tripled in most of my leagues (from a step above nothing to three steps above nothing). You couldn't get him today for anywhere nearly as cheaply as you could have after week 5. Which isn't to say that you couldn't still get him for cheap, it's to say that you couldn't get him for AS cheap.
Have there been 24 RBs that have been more consistent or productive since this thread was started? Because if not, BJax has performed at an RB2 level. Period, full stop, good call, end of thread.
1. Holy revisionist history, Batman! If it wasn't much of a call, then why was everyone debating against it? Poster made statement, everyone disagreed, poster was right. Good call.2. Packers before thread: 22.6 rushes per game. Packers after thread: 26.2 rushes per game. That's an increase in carries. Not a huge one, but still an increase, which makes this call correct (albeit only barely).
Yes, a lot of RBs were on bye on week 9. Does that somehow magically change the fact that only 10 RBs in the entire NFL managed to outscore Jackson that week? If you started Jackson in week 9, you had an advantage over pretty much every team in the league, because your RB2 or flex guy put up top-12 numbers.Even if you want to hold his bye against him... despite the fact that he's only played in 4 of the past 5 weeks, he's been RB21 over that 5-week span, so he's still been performing at an RB2 level. And while you're absolutely right that TDs don't hold as much predictive value as yards, (A) this isn't about prediction, it's about description- we're looking at who ACTUALLY PERFORMED over the span, so it doesn't matter how predictive TDs are, and (B) Jackson only has 2 TDs over the last 5 weeks, anyway. There are 32 RBs with as many or more. That means that Brandon Jackson is outperforming a lot of those guys on the strength of his yards- he's averaging 81 yards per game over the last 5 weeks. In my yardage-heavy league (1 per 5 yards, 6 per TD, no PPR), he's 17th in PPG over the last 5 weeks.
Hey, you want to hate on TFK for being obnoxious, arrogant, or obtuse, then be my guest, because I'm right there with you. If you want to hate on him for being wrong... well, that's another matter entirely.
