Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Last Chance to Get Brandon Jackson Cheap/Free (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter THE FANTASY KING
- Start date
Bruce Leroy
Footballguy
McCarthy barely uses the guy. If MM gave him 20 carries a game he might be valuable in FF.
- The Golden Glow
- The Golden Glow
blind leading the blind.
switz
Footballguy
Dang, yeah I read the wrong column when looking at Jones rookie stats. Mistakes happen. So Jones is your example. I'll give you that. One example... one.
Benson came in behind Jones who the team signed as an FA the year previous and Jones WAS the starter, so no, my use of him is NOT garbage.Barber was not expected to be the starter, and whether Wheatley had 1 or 300 carries, the Giants had him slotted as the starter, not Barber. I'm not so sure what's so difficult about that to grasp. Unless you're trying to argue with me... which is par for the course for you.
So now, you want to argue semantics. If TFK is saying buy Jackson low, but only thinks "he could finish as RB20" then why pick him up? I'm starting to think you are TFK in disguise, or I should say the other way around. I love your personal attacks BTW, it's funny how you get so frustrated by someone on a FF message board. I also love how you accuse me of doing the exact same things you do.
Yeah, I already stated all of those. Why are you arguing with me if you agree with my opinion of Jackson. Seriously? You follow me from thread to thread commenting on my posts. Do you need friends? Do you need help?
Willy
Footballguy
Trading deadline coming up soon, and rumors of potential trades are still out there
Milwaukee ESPN radio
Milwaukee ESPN radio
sho nuff
Footballguy
I was against Barber for a bit...but he does look to be running pretty hard.
And he is a guy you can give the ball to 15-20 times while working Jackson in on 3rd down.
I do wonder why Dallas would even be willing to take for him since it does appear they have at least been opening to discussing it with GB.
And he is a guy you can give the ball to 15-20 times while working Jackson in on 3rd down.
I do wonder why Dallas would even be willing to take for him since it does appear they have at least been opening to discussing it with GB.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
He is. And, it's pretty unanimous. Next thing you know, he'll be saying that Troy Aikman never really had a very good arm and that Felix Jones is the best RB since Jim Brown or that Thomas Jones had 373 carries his rookie year.Oh wait...Oh well. Mistakes happen.You're such a joke.
If you come back after a couple of weeks, please be much cooler.JYou're such a joke.
One was all you asked for.
Chicago drafted Benson in the top 5 to be the starter. The fact that Jones wound up winning the job despite being a guy who played for 3 different teams in the 3 previous seasons just demonstrates why Benson qualifies as a highly-drafted RB who got beaten out by an "inferior" talent early in his career and went on to have success later. Saying that Thomas Jones was the established starter that season is revisionist history. Also, Benson was drafted substantially higher than Jackson (the 4th pick of the first round compared to the SECOND TO LAST pick of the 2nd round).
Ummm... if Brandon Jackson carries an RB50 price tag but will net RB20 production, that's a *HUGE* buy low. You're essentially saying "why bother even buying him if you only think he'll produce as a starter-caliber fantasy RB the rest of the way?". If I'm guilty of the same things you are (cognitive biases and logical fallacies), then I deserve to be called out on it just as much as you do. If you see any examples of either of those things in my posts, please post a response highlighting the offending passage. I'm not saying that I'm immune to the occasional bias or fallacy, I'm just saying that posting "you're guilty of the same things!" without posting a single concrete example of me being guilty of the same things is not only garbage, it's yet another example of an argumentative fallacy on your part.
Also, what personal attacks? You *DID* create a red herring argument. You *DID* ask for RBs that met a ludicrously specific and arbitrary set of criteria. You *DID* dismiss three such examples based on rhetoric and incorrect assertions. You *DID* come into this argument with your mind made up, and you *HAVE* dismissed all evidence that disagrees with your preconceived notions. You *ARE* guilty of several cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Every time you've been called on it, you *HAVE* dug your heels in deeper. None of these claims are "personal attacks"- they're all directed at your arguments and your style of argumentation. If you want to know what personal attacks look like, read the following:
That's a personal attack. It has nothing to do with the merit of my arguments, it's a series of statements designed solely to discredit me by painting me as a lonely guy making outlandish claims in a desperate cry for attention.I don't "follow you" anywhere. I read most of the threads on here, and if I spend a disproportionate amount of my time discrediting your posts, it's simply because a disproportionate number of your posts warrant discrediting.
switz
Footballguy
It wasn't a personal attack. It was a very true statement, with some simple follow up questions to help me understand why you act the way you do. I'm much more interested in trying to understand people than judge them.The fact you spend a disproportionate amount of time replying to my posts, out of the thousands of posts posted each day, would indicate there is something more than just my posts "warranting" discrediting. Most people on here just ignore people who they think are worthy of ignoring, instead of replying to their posts, post after post. So there's something more there than you just happening upon my posts.SSOG said:
Was Thomas Jones acquired the year before Benson was drafted? Was Jones the starter in Chicago the year before Benson was drafted? There are plenty of examples of first round RBs who sat behind established starters (Shaun Alexander #19 behind Watters, Larry Johnson #27 behind Holmes, Felix Jones behind Barber) for various reasons. But more to the point, by the time Benson was even ready to play his rookie season after his long holdout, Jones was established as the starter for that season.And quite frankly, there's still a question as to how talented Benson really is... yes he's had a few 100 yard games, but his career YPC is 3.9. He's only had one season as a starter where he's averaged over 4 YPC. He's only had one 1,000 yard season, though he is on pace for around 1,200 yards this year if he continues to get a good amount of carries.
You challenged my comments about Tiki Barber earlier as well, yet here are a couple quotes from Wikipedia:
I think this is where your flaw is... you think people "deserve" to be called out for having different opinions based on reasons you disagree with the validity or basis for... who makes you the judge of what is adequate reason for someone to form an opinion? For instance you wrote: "You *DID* ask for RBs that met a ludicrously specific and arbitrary set of criteria."
What makes them "ludicrously specific and arbitrary"? They match up pretty well to Brandon Jackson's circumstances and history. So they aren't arbitrary, and specific criteria frequently result in more accurate results than generalizations.
I could go on, but it's probably not worth it...
Last edited by a moderator:
THE FANTASY KING
Footballguy
This entire discussion of "can you name a player that was X, then Y, then became Z" is a pretty good example of a huge waste of time that many fantasy owners engage in when they do not have enough knowledge to discuss the actual issues.
Thomas Jones has nothing to do with what Brandon Jackson will do. He has nothing to do with Jackson's physical talent, mental capacity, instincts, work ethic, or personality. He has not had the same experiences Jackson had with the same players around him - he has not played on the same team or in the same situation as Jackson. He has not had the same coaching as Jackson.
SSOG is correct that Mr Switz is asking for completely asinine and arbitrary comparison that add nothing to the discussion about Brandon Jackson's role with the Green Bay Packers and his ability to perform well in that role. My only wish is that SSOG, who seems to be very knowledgeable, could just recognize a discussion that is not worth having when he sees one and ignore these kinds of pointless obstacles put forth by Mr Switz. That way this thread would stay focused on quality discussion about Brandon Jackson, which impacts fantasy teams owned and operated by FBG community members, which at the end of the day is what we are in this community for.
Mr Switz – when you ask someone if they need friends or need help, that is a personal attack. I am sorry but I am forced to report you. I do not know if the moderators will give you a temporary ban, but if they do, I hope you spend some time of that ban reading up about Brandon Jackson or football in general and maybe taking a mental timeout as you appear to get irrational when other posters make it obvious that you are wrong on a certain issue. It is okay to be wrong on things – I am myself sometimes wrong about things. But that is not a reason to get personal with other posters, especially when they are trying to educate you.
It is unfortunate I have to give an update to this thread without it being much related to Brandon Jackson – at the very least I would like to point out that the trade deadline has now past, and any chance of the Packers trading for another player to take touches away from Jackson is now gone.
Hopefully we can get back to discussing football in a productive and quality way now.
Regards,
THE FANTASY KING
Thomas Jones has nothing to do with what Brandon Jackson will do. He has nothing to do with Jackson's physical talent, mental capacity, instincts, work ethic, or personality. He has not had the same experiences Jackson had with the same players around him - he has not played on the same team or in the same situation as Jackson. He has not had the same coaching as Jackson.
SSOG is correct that Mr Switz is asking for completely asinine and arbitrary comparison that add nothing to the discussion about Brandon Jackson's role with the Green Bay Packers and his ability to perform well in that role. My only wish is that SSOG, who seems to be very knowledgeable, could just recognize a discussion that is not worth having when he sees one and ignore these kinds of pointless obstacles put forth by Mr Switz. That way this thread would stay focused on quality discussion about Brandon Jackson, which impacts fantasy teams owned and operated by FBG community members, which at the end of the day is what we are in this community for.
Mr Switz – when you ask someone if they need friends or need help, that is a personal attack. I am sorry but I am forced to report you. I do not know if the moderators will give you a temporary ban, but if they do, I hope you spend some time of that ban reading up about Brandon Jackson or football in general and maybe taking a mental timeout as you appear to get irrational when other posters make it obvious that you are wrong on a certain issue. It is okay to be wrong on things – I am myself sometimes wrong about things. But that is not a reason to get personal with other posters, especially when they are trying to educate you.
It is unfortunate I have to give an update to this thread without it being much related to Brandon Jackson – at the very least I would like to point out that the trade deadline has now past, and any chance of the Packers trading for another player to take touches away from Jackson is now gone.
Hopefully we can get back to discussing football in a productive and quality way now.
Regards,
THE FANTASY KING
jerry jones
Footballguy
SO THERE.....TOLD YOU!
switz
Footballguy
Actually, I've already discussed the actual issues. 1. As a rookie, Jackson did not show enough talent to beat out 3 other players on the team, despite being the highest drafted of the bunch.
2. Despite being used as a third down RB for most of his career, he does not have a substantial amount of carries, nor has he been impressive with the carries he's received.
3. The team hasn't given him a full workload this year, and have him platooning with a fullback.
I don't believe anything I've posted is irrational. But I do wonder how my asking a couple questions is considered by you as a personal attack (esp. worthy of being reported) when you go on to imply a) i do not have enough knowledge (i.e. am stupid), b) am irrational, and c) need to be educated (i.e. again saying I'm stupid)
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Hoss_Cartwright
Footballguy
Please quit ending all your posts with Regards....... It's very irritating
Of course you already know this, thus the reason why you do it.
switz
Footballguy
I just want to point out SSOG, why it would SEEM to me that you have an issue with me personally.SSOG said:
You seem to look for things to disagree with me about, even if earlier you agree. I don't think he'll prove to be undervalued, and previously you said the same. But when I highlight the fact that I don't think he's going to produce at a value worthy of picking him up, you then have to post something to disagree with me.Even when I argued earlier (by implication) that he's not that talented, you had to argue with my statement, saying it's invalid. Then you went on to post some "clearly flawed logical structures" to try to argue that my logic was unsound.
So yeah, maybe this whole forum would just be a better place if you put me on ignore, and I put you on ignore. I don't really have an issue with your posts, except when you seem to go out of your way to attack my posts, even when you agree with the conclusions I draw.
It was a personal attack. Even if it was a true statement (and for the record, it's not a true statement- I don't "follow you around", and suggesting otherwise is a pretty Switz-centric model of the universe), the fact is that it is entirely irrelevant to the arguments that I was making. Instead of discussing the arguments, you were discussing the source of the arguments.
I don't spend a disproportionate amount of my time replying to your posts. You might think so, but that's selective memory. You forget all of my posts that have nothing to do with you, and remember all of my posts that do have something to do with you, so your selective memory filter makes you believe that I'm just "following you around" and "spending a disproportionate amount of my time arguing with you". You have 10,494 posts on FBGs. I have 11,452. Two people who devote so much time to posting around here are obviously going to cross paths, but the reality is that we've crossed paths far less than you think. According to FBGs search, I've mentioned your name or quoted one of your posts in 48 threads (not counting those that have been purged), while you've mentioned my name or quoted one of my posts in 40 threads (not counting those that have been purged). That's a tiny, tiny fraction of the total number of threads we've each participated in.Also, why on earth should I ignore you? When did I imply that you were "worthy of ignoring"? Just because I think some of the arguments you're making in this thread are irreparably flawed doesn't mean I think you bring nothing to the table. That's crazy talk, and you should know better. We've probably wound up agreeing on players as frequently as we've disagreed. We've exchanged complimentary PMs as frequently as we've exchanged critical PMs.
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
This thread is a great example of the disintegration of the Shark Pool over the years. Shame.
I'm a very process-driven poster. In this case, I agree with your suggested outcome (that Brandon Jackson won't be a good buy-low), but strongly disagree with your stated processes (that the reason he won't be a good buy-low is because Thomas Jones was an "established starter" in 2005, etc). I think that Arian Foster is a top-10 dynasty RB. If you started a thread titled "I think Foster is a top 10 dynasty RB" and the reasons you gave were because you called Ms. Cleo and she told you so, and then you had a dream where magical space aliens showed you the future and Arian Foster was a hall of famer, and because RBs with 5 letters in their first name have historically had longer-than-average careers, I would post in that thread and I would rip your post to shreds. Even though I agreed with the conclusion you drew, the logic and arguments supporting that conclusion were absurd and needed to be refuted. Just because I agree with your assertion doesn't mean I have to agree with your reasons for making that assertion.
Same thing here. I agree that Brandon Jackson is not a good buy-low right now, but I strongly disagree with the reasons you're listing supporting that belief. You might personally view that as semantics, but I've posted plenty of times and even written articles on my website about the importance of separating "good outcome" from "good process" and judging predictions by the processes behind them rather than by the outcomes they produce.
James Starks is staying on the PUP list for now! Which means he still can't practice with the club. They have 3 weeks to decide whether to let him begin practicing. Considering he doesn't appear to be injured at this point it would seem he would only be activated if Jackson went down.
No trades. No Starks. Love him or hate him Jackson is the guy in GB.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105315683.html
No trades. No Starks. Love him or hate him Jackson is the guy in GB.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105315683.html
Last edited by a moderator:
But wait, starks is the answer and the reason tt didn't trade for a rb.
switz
Footballguy
The origination of my argument was that Brandon Jackson is not very talented. To support that statement I listed the players that beat him out as a rookie.Since you say you are process-driven poster, and one of your arguments is that he's not very talent, I am wondering what evidence you use to support your argument.
Right, and I think that using a list of players who beat Jackson out years ago and who have since been cut by the franchise as a means of denigrating his talent is "bad process". Miles Austin got beaten out by Sam Huard. Michael Jordan got beaten out by a bunch of no-names in high school. Some players take longer to develop than others. Sure, RBs generally have a shorter learning curve, but "generally" by definition means "not always".As for why I think he's not that talented... that's my opinion based on watching him play. I'd feel that way even if he beat out Deshawn Wynn 2 years ago.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
Jackson's best games are ahead of him, weeks 12-14, when the Packers play Atl,Sf, Detroit..there will be a decent amount of carries for Jackson in these games , esp vs. Detroit...
other than that, there's really no point in using the guy since GB doesn't call enough running plays to begin with..
at this point you're holding Jackson for one reason: week 14 vs. Detroit..
In most fantasy leagues, week 14 is the beginning of the playoffs...
other than that, there's really no point in using the guy since GB doesn't call enough running plays to begin with..
at this point you're holding Jackson for one reason: week 14 vs. Detroit..
In most fantasy leagues, week 14 is the beginning of the playoffs...
You're pretty ballsy to start a guy averaging 3 yds a carry and 30 yds a game the first week of the playoffs...
switz
Footballguy
And that is somehow a better process than my reasoning? I don't think you have much grounds to argue against my line of reasoning when yours is completely subjective, and mine - while you argue could be made moot because a player is slow to develop - at least has verifiable substance.I'm done with this thread. I think my opinion about Jackson is clear.
packersfan
Footballguy
I think Jackson stinks in terms of talent but there's no denying he's become MUCH more fantasy useful the past two games. If you were able to get him after his putrid performance against the Lions (which is when many owners, myself included, had enough and cut bait) you have been rewarded. Whether he can maintain this pace is the question but right now he's become a viable RB3 with some mild RB2 upside in PPR formats.
dagwood
Footballguy
Unless they are going to give James Starks a chance by then.
packersfan
Footballguy
Considering how awful he was in the first game against the Lions I'd strongly recommend you have another option ready besides Jackson.
Yes, that is much better process than your reasoning. Watching players play and drawing what conclusions you can about how talented they are is good process. NFL franchises pay millions of dollars to their scouting departments to do just that. Why? Because it works. Teams that scout well draft well. Teams that draft well win. Bill Polian has presided over 6 SB teams simply because he is very good at watching players play and drawing conclusions about how talented they are. Scouting works- it's why 1st round picks as a whole do better than 2nd round picks, who as a whole do better than 3rd round picks, and so on down the line. Is my line of reasoning subjective? Yes, absolutely, you bet your butt it is. Why on earth does subjective suddenly equal "bad process" and objective suddenly equal "good process"? Where is that written? I can't think of a single "good process" in fantasy football that doesn't have the slightest bit of subjectivity to it.
Just because a line of reasoning has verifiable substance does not make it good process. I could say that I don't want to draft Brandon Jackson because he was 4 feet tall in the 3rd grade, and that claim might be verifiable, but it would be a terrible reason not to draft him. I could say that I don't want to draft him because he voted independent- once again, that would be verifiable, but still bad process. I could say that I don't want to draft him because he got beaten out two years ago by a player that he has since turned around and decisively beaten out in return... and, obviously, it'd be verifiable. That still doesn't make it good process.
Kuz
Footballguy
whoever the starting RB for GB should have more value later in the year. I snagged Starks for the potenial lottery ticket later in the year but if it's still Jackson he should have a few great games as well.
switz
Footballguy
I said I was done, but I have to reply to this.You could say you don't think a player is talented, but that is meaningless without some substantiation. You cite Bill Polian, and his substantiation is his track record. But you don't have his track record, so your opinion is meaningless and has no substance.
Yes, there is some subjective component to almost every conclusion. But something that is purely subjective, like your opinion IS bad process.
You may disagree with my substantiation, but your examples to "prove" my substantiation is invalid are completely unrelated to the examples I used. Different positions, different sports, and the assumption that the reason Jackson "beat out" Wynn this season MUST be because Jackson became more talented, when it's more likely that Wynn's degraded over time. Jackson has yet to show he's any more talented than he was when he was beat out by three other RBs his rookie season, so that example is applicable.
However, there is plenty of evidence that Jackson has grown taller since third grade, so his height in third grade is meaningless. But there's no evidence he is more talented today than he was as a rookie, so examples related to his talent as a rookie are applicable. Just like he doesn't play WR or basketball, so examples of such are meaningless. He does play RB so other RBs in similar circumstances would be useful examples.
This is not meant to be an insult or a personal attack. But for someone so focused on process, etc. you seem to have difficulty grasping related components beyond superficial generalizations. Or at the very least distinguishing degrees of relation.
First, it's not meaningless without substantiation. It might be meaningless to you, but it's not meaningless to me. I wouldn't expect you to just take me at my word, but I'm actually quite content to take myself at my word. If some random guy on the internet said "Player X is a great talent", absolutely I'd want to know who he was and why I should listen to him. A track record would go a long way towards convincing me. I don't need to convince myself of who I am and why I should listen to myself, though. You asked why I don't think Jackson has a lot of value going forward, and my answer is that I don't think he's that talented. That's why *I* don't think he has a lot of value. I don't expect TFK to suddenly think Jackson doesn't have much value going forward just because I don't think he's that talented, though- trusting anonymous strangers is Bad Process.Second off, that's the defense you're making right now? You're playing the "there's no evidence Brandon Jackson is more talented as a 4th year pro than he was as a 1st year pro" line? Really? Would it qualify as evidence if I pointed out that 99% of NFL players are better as 4th year pros than they are as 1st year pros? How about if I pointed out that when he was a 1st year pro he was a 3rd/4th/5th/whatever string tailback that the franchise tried desperately to not use, while as a 4th year pro he was a 2nd string tailback who the coaching staff was speaking positively of in preseason? Your whole "we should assume that players don't improve between year 1 and year 4" position is nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. How could anyone be subjected to 3 years worth of NFL coaching and *NOT* improve? And then you further compound the issue by saying that it's likely Deshawn Wynn *GOT WORSE*, and that's why Jackson beat him out? How on earth is that more likely? Do you think Wynn's physical skills are eroding at the ripe old age of 26, or have those 64 career carries just taken too large of a toll on his body? Or, again, did 3 years worth of NFL-caliber coaching just cause such a massive regression in his skills?switz said:I said I was done, but I have to reply to this.
You could say you don't think a player is talented, but that is meaningless without some substantiation. You cite Bill Polian, and his substantiation is his track record. But you don't have his track record, so your opinion is meaningless and has no substance.
Yes, there is some subjective component to almost every conclusion. But something that is purely subjective, like your opinion IS bad process.
You may disagree with my substantiation, but your examples to "prove" my substantiation is invalid are completely unrelated to the examples I used. Different positions, different sports, and the assumption that the reason Jackson "beat out" Wynn this season MUST be because Jackson became more talented, when it's more likely that Wynn's degraded over time. Jackson has yet to show he's any more talented than he was when he was beat out by three other RBs his rookie season, so that example is applicable.
However, there is plenty of evidence that Jackson has grown taller since third grade, so his height in third grade is meaningless. But there's no evidence he is more talented today than he was as a rookie, so examples related to his talent as a rookie are applicable. Just like he doesn't play WR or basketball, so examples of such are meaningless. He does play RB so other RBs in similar circumstances would be useful examples.
This is not meant to be an insult or a personal attack. But for someone so focused on process, etc. you seem to have difficulty grasping related components beyond superficial generalizations. Or at the very least distinguishing degrees of relation.
Third off, my opinion is not "purely subjective". It's based on concrete evidence- performance on the field. Many of the components of my "subjective" opinion are totally objective. For instance, he's slower than Chris Johnson, not as strong as MJD, and has worse balance than ADP. Those are all objective benchmarks that factor into my subjective opinion of Jackson's talent. The big key is that I don't try to get too objective on something that at the end of the day does have to be a subjective decision. For instance, consider the following: scientists once did a study where they took the world's leading jam experts and gave them 30 or so jams to rate. The jam experts ranked those jams from best to worst based on their unrivaled knowledge and experience in the field- largely on a huge array of objective and measurable factors such as thickness, consistency, stickiness, etc. Scientists then took 5 of those jams (the best, the worst, the one at the 25th percentile, the one at the 50th percentile, and the one at the 75th percentile) and gave them to a group of laypeople and asked those common everyday people to rate those 5 jams from best to worst. The laypeople did a pretty good job of it- pretty much everyone had the best jam in their top 2 and the worst jam in their bottom 2, and overall there was a strong correlation between jam quality and where people had them rated.
Then, to throw a curve ball, the scientists got a new sample of people, they gave them the same 5 jams, and they asked them to rank the jams from best to worst while keeping in mind factors such as thickness, consistency, stickiness, etc. It was the exact same exercise, the only thing that changed is that the first time around the scientists just said "rate them" (i.e. wholly subjective), while the second time around the scientists said "rate them... and keep in mind these factors" (i.e. adding an objective element). Remember, these are the factors that the jam experts originally rated the jams on in the first place. What do you think happened to the results? Suddenly, the laypeople were all over the map. The best jam started regularly showing up in the bottom 2, the worst jam regularly started showing up in the top 2, and there wound up being no correlation between the results from the group and the actual "correct" order as established by the jam experts.
What's the point of this story? The point is that the human mind is a funny, funny thing, and if you try to make things too objective and quantifiable, sometimes it just leads to you getting it wrong. You miss the forest for the trees, so to speak- you might get so caught up in the fact that this jam had good texture that you failed to notice that it was terrible. In many cases, the best possible process is to avoid any attempts to add unnecessary objective criteria to a subjective evaluation. Pure, unadulterated subjectivity can absolutely be Good Process.
LarryAllen'sJockstrap
Footballguy
Every time I read a post by THE FANTASY KING, I can't help but picture Barney Gumble as The Plow King.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
Fantasy King,
Thanks for the great suggestion; I always look forward to reading your analysis. Please keep it coming
Thanks for the great suggestion; I always look forward to reading your analysis. Please keep it coming
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
I like the way he's running tonight. Looks faster and running with much more conviction than just a couple weeks ago. Maybe he's got a better sense of the offense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Jackson has picked up some yards tonight but in watching him I'm not very impressed.. Looks like a career backup to me. Nothing special about this guy...
Steelers4Life
Footballguy
I actually thought the exact opposite. Much more decisive with his cuts than I remember, followed blockers nicely.Doesn't seem like he has explosive speed, but he doesn't look sluggish out there either, and he has good hands.Not a superstar, but if he always runs this way, I think they'd be better off not abandoning the running game all the time.
⚡DEADHEAD⚡
Footballguy
Yep.
CaptainHook
Footballguy
pretty sure ive heard this about some other gb rb
Gopher State
Footballguy
very :X not worth having on a FF team for sure. He give a little some weeks, but most weeks he cost you
verynot worth having on a FF team for sure. He give a little some weeks, but most weeks he cost you
He's in the top 25 fantasy rbs for the year. While he isn't a great starter he is worth being on a roster in all formats unless you're in a 6 team league or something.
Parmcat
Canada: Beer, Bacon and Beavers
WTF are you talking about?verynot worth having on a FF team for sure. He give a little some weeks, but most weeks he cost you
What he's trying to say is you put almost any RB and give them starting minutes they will have a good week here and there. But the real question is will he be consistant? BJax hasnt shown any level of consistancy and as far as the eyeball test goes, he looks mediocre, but decent behind good blocks.
