The Aaron Jones Show?!!!

[Heyjoe4]

Aaron Jones is entering his 28th year of existence, and his 6th year in the NFL.

56 Total Touchdowns (41 Rushing & 12 Receiving) WOW!!!

I think this is the year, where Aaron Jones establishes himself as a true dual threat RB a la McCaffrey.

No matter the results of the draft or whatever happens in free agency, Aaron Jones is the best offensive weapon outside AR12.

Aaron Jones is entering the last year before the cap hit on his deal quintuples in amount from 5.9M to 20M.

His amount net cash will triple in amount.

Davante Adams is gone.

This is the 4th year the MLF system, the HC is under more pressure than ever. Its time to graduate.

All signs point to Aaron Jones featuring heavily in the passing game in addition to his special skills as a runner.

Should Aaron Jones be the focal point of the offense this season?

That's an interesting question. In other years, when Rodgers had 8 or 9 guys he could go to, I'd say no.

But Jones should be at the peak of his skills. I think he could lead in terms of touches, yards, and/or points - but MLF is gonna spread the ball around.

Given the challenges at WR, I'm just glad GB has two RBs who are as dangerous catching the ball as they are with handoffs. Jones and Dillon will have big years. But first things first, the OL needs depth, maybe just two guys, who can provide meaningful snaps.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Am i the only one that thinks relying heavily on the running game after giving all that money to the best QB in the league is indicative of poor planning? I’m not arguing that relying on the running game is a bad idea, based on available personnel, but just seems strange to be forced to build an offense around the running game after the contract they just gave Rodgers.

I see your point, but i'm in favor of whatever strategy gets them a SB. If that means 12 TDs for Jones, 12 for Dillon, and 25-30 TD passes from Rodgers, so be it. Who cares as long as they win. It is worth noting that they have some options other than WR. (They still have to build up the WRS and TEs.)

 

[Voyageur]

It's interesting how people see Jones as being a prime RB, and at the same time claim that someone like Watkins is past his prime because of age. Based on time in service (NFL), and age, Jones would be past his prime age of 25-26. Personally, I think a lot of that is hogwash.

Even if a player's skills weaken some due to age, the key to success changes. They get smarter, and take advantage of how much they understand the offense they run, and a better understanding of the blocking assignments by others, and how to beat the defenders. It even gets to the point where some of them know which defenders they can use certain moves on, and others they can't. It's all part of experience, and that offsets quite a bit of the age issues.

If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be more than a handful of RBs out there getting decent second contracts, because most of them end up ending their first near the end of their "prime" according to age statistics.

In Jones, I see a darned good RB who could have several solid years ahead of him, if used properly. The objective is to not turn him into a work horse. Like suggested, who cares if Jones and Dillon each score 12 TDs, as long as we get the scores.

 

[Heyjoe4]

It's interesting how people see Jones as being a prime RB, and at the same time claim that someone like Watkins is past his prime because of age. Based on time in service (NFL), and age, Jones would be past his prime age of 25-26. Personally, I think a lot of that is hogwash.

Even if a player's skills weaken some due to age, the key to success changes. They get smarter, and take advantage of how much they understand the offense they run, and a better understanding of the blocking assignments by others, and how to beat the defenders. It even gets to the point where some of them know which defenders they can use certain moves on, and others they can't. It's all part of experience, and that offsets quite a bit of the age issues.

If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be more than a handful of RBs out there getting decent second contracts, because most of them end up ending their first near the end of their "prime" according to age statistics.

In Jones, I see a darned good RB who could have several solid years ahead of him, if used properly. The objective is to not turn him into a work horse. Like suggested, who cares if Jones and Dillon each score 12 TDs, as long as we get the scores.

Yeah it's a good way to get embarrassed by setting hard and fast rules about a player's performance based on age. Jones is a great back. I din't know he was 28 and it doesn't matter anyway. In GB, there are enough touches or all and no need to over work a back.

Now for cap reasons, and with Dillon on board, they may not keep Jones past this year and look to trade him. That's next year though. We'll deal with it when it gets here!

 

[Voyageur]

Yeah it's a good way to get embarrassed by setting hard and fast rules about a player's performance based on age. Jones is a great back. I din't know he was 28 and it doesn't matter anyway. In GB, there are enough touches or all and no need to over work a back.

Now for cap reasons, and with Dillon on board, they may not keep Jones past this year and look to trade him. That's next year though. We'll deal with it when it gets here!

Trading Jones after this year wouldn't upset me in the slightest. They could get some decent picks for him, and Dillon would move up. They'll have someone groomed by the end of this year to move into the #2 position, I'd guess. It might even be Kylin Hill or Patrick Taylor. At this point, we have no idea. Or, it could be a guy they see, and grab in the draft, who can turn into the next top RB in GB, after Dillon. But, rest assured, the torch will be passed.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Trading Jones after this year wouldn't upset me in the slightest. They could get some decent picks for him, and Dillon would move up. They'll have someone groomed by the end of this year to move into the #2 position, I'd guess. It might even be Kylin Hill or Patrick Taylor. At this point, we have no idea. Or, it could be a guy they see, and grab in the draft, who can turn into the next top RB in GB, after Dillon. But, rest assured, the torch will be passed.

Yeah they've done a nice job in the draft, especially with RBs and the OL, in drafting guys in the middle rounds who eventually start. Their scouts seem to have a real eye for these guys. And when the QB is taking up a lot of the cap, it's good to have starters on rookie contracts.


And I'd still hate to see Jones go. Just seems like a great guy. But that's the nature of pro football and cap management. And as RBs get close to 30, they just start to slow down and/or get hurt.

 

[PikeBadger]

It's interesting how people see Jones as being a prime RB, and at the same time claim that someone like Watkins is past his prime because of age. Based on time in service (NFL), and age, Jones would be past his prime age of 25-26. Personally, I think a lot of that is hogwash.

Even if a player's skills weaken some due to age, the key to success changes. They get smarter, and take advantage of how much they understand the offense they run, and a better understanding of the blocking assignments by others, and how to beat the defenders. It even gets to the point where some of them know which defenders they can use certain moves on, and others they can't. It's all part of experience, and that offsets quite a bit of the age issues.

If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be more than a handful of RBs out there getting decent second contracts, because most of them end up ending their first near the end of their "prime" according to age statistics.

In Jones, I see a darned good RB who could have several solid years ahead of him, if used properly. The objective is to not turn him into a work horse. Like suggested, who cares if Jones and Dillon each score 12 TDs, as long as we get the scores.

Less punts, more TD's than last year. Slight improvement in defense, significant improvement in special teams. That's all it takes. The rest is meaningless eye wash. Individual numbers don't matter.

 

[Schultz]

I am

It's interesting how people see Jones as being a prime RB, and at the same time claim that someone like Watkins is past his prime because of age. Based on time in service (NFL), and age, Jones would be past his prime age of 25-26. Personally, I think a lot of that is hogwash.

Even if a player's skills weaken some due to age, the key to success changes. They get smarter, and take advantage of how much they understand the offense they run, and a better understanding of the blocking assignments by others, and how to beat the defenders. It even gets to the point where some of them know which defenders they can use certain moves on, and others they can't. It's all part of experience, and that offsets quite a bit of the age issues.

If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be more than a handful of RBs out there getting decent second contracts, because most of them end up ending their first near the end of their "prime" according to age statistics.

In Jones, I see a darned good RB who could have several solid years ahead of him, if used properly. The objective is to not turn him into a work horse. Like suggested, who cares if Jones and Dillon each score 12 TDs, as long as we get the scores.

starting to agree with you that Watkins is not past his prime. Of course that is mostly because he really hasn't even had a prime.

 

[McKnowledge]

That's an interesting question. In other years, when Rodgers had 8 or 9 guys he could go to, I'd say no.

But Jones should be at the peak of his skills. I think he could lead in terms of touches, yards, and/or points - but MLF is gonna spread the ball around.

Given the challenges at WR, I'm just glad GB has two RBs who are as dangerous catching the ball as they are with handoffs. Jones and Dillon will have big years. But first things first, the OL needs depth, maybe just two guys, who can provide meaningful snaps.

I agree the O-Line needs reinforcements, hopefully in the latter rounds.

I'd be ok with 2 OGs , 1 OG/1 OT, or 2 OTs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I agree the O-Line needs reinforcements, hopefully in the latter rounds.

I'd be ok with 2 OGs , 1 OG/1 OT, or 2 OTs.

Yeah and the Packers have a good track record of taking OL in middle rounds.

 

[McKnowledge]

Yeah and the Packers have a good track record of taking OL in middle rounds.

The guards are prominent in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

Any thoughts on Cameron Jurgens from Nebraska?

I think Cam Jurgens could be a instant contributor at center with Myers shifting to guard.

 

[Heyjoe4]

The guards are prominent in the 3rd and 4th rounds.

Any thoughts on Cameron Jurgens from Nebraska?

I think Cam Jurgens could be a instant contributor at center with Myers shifting to guard.

I like the idea of moving Myers to guard. I like Linderbaum from Iowa as a replacement.

 

[tynimiller]

Myers is not moving off center nor should he IMO.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's interesting how people see Jones as being a prime RB, and at the same time claim that someone like Watkins is past his prime because of age.

You have brought that up in another thread but I can't remember anyone claiming that Watkins is past his prime based on age. The reason fans are down a bit on him is that he hasn't caught more than 52 passes and for more than 673 yards in a season since 2015.

Now for cap reasons, and with Dillon on board, they may not keep Jones past this year and look to trade him. That's next year though. We'll deal with it when it gets here!

I highly doubt there will be any team interested in trading for Jones next offseason as he's due a total of $16 million in 2023.

 

[Heyjoe4]

You have brought that up in another thread but I can't remember anyone claiming that Watkins is past his prime based on age. The reason fans are down a bit on him is that he hasn't caught more than 52 passes and for more than 673 yards in a season since 2015.



I highly doubt there will be any team interested in trading for Jones next offseason as he's due a total of $16 million in 2023.

Didn't know that. Another example of how pushing cap money out can hurt a team.

 

[Voyageur]

It's interesting how people see Jones as being a prime RB, and at the same time claim that someone like Watkins is past his prime because of age.

You have brought that up in another thread but I can't remember anyone claiming that Watkins is past his prime based on age. The reason fans are down a bit on him is that he hasn't caught more than 52 passes and for more than 673 yards in a season since 2015.

-----------------------------------------​

The connotation of "past his prime," then putting a player's age next to it is strictly a point of pointing out age, not pointing out whether or not he can or cannot be more productive than in the past. Many players have had breakout seasons after going past their prime, age wise.

Although I'd agree that the majority of players "past their prime" are going to slowly lose some of their physical skills, and become more injury prone, I also believe some find that their experience on the field makes them even better, because they make better decisions. Also, lesser used players may have an extended shelf life because they've had less wear and tear on their bodies.

Each player needs to be judged on projected ROI, and if you do it based on birth date, you're going to reject a lot of decent ball players that can help your team win.

​

 

[McKnowledge]

You have brought that up in another thread but I can't remember anyone claiming that Watkins is past his prime based on age. The reason fans are down a bit on him is that he hasn't caught more than 52 passes and for more than 673 yards in a season since 2015.

-----------------------------------------​

The connotation of "past his prime," then putting a player's age next to it is strictly a point of pointing out age, not pointing out whether or not he can or cannot be more productive than in the past. Many players have had breakout seasons after going past their prime, age wise.

Although I'd agree that the majority of players "past their prime" are going to slowly lose some of their physical skills, and become more injury prone, I also believe some find that their experience on the field makes them even better, because they make better decisions. Also, lesser used players may have an extended shelf life because they've had less wear and tear on their bodies.

Each player needs to be judged on projected ROI, and if you do it based on birth date, you're going to reject a lot of decent ball players that can help your team win.

​

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Heyjoe4]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Too bad we can't go back in time and deliver this message to Gluten before he wasted two draft picks on Jordan Love. I know, I know - people are out there who are crazy about the Love pick. That's ok we all get an opinion here. We'll have to wait another 2 or 3 years when Love is completely out of the NFL for the final word. In the meantime we'll have to make do with a four time MVP QB. (Or I suppose Love could pull a Kurt Warner and win a SB. Won't be holding my breath for that.)

 

[Schultz]

Hey Joe, how do you feel about the Love pick? I think there was actually one thread that you didn't comment on it. Make sure you circle back and correct that.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Hey Joe, how do you feel about the Love pick? I think there was actually one thread that you didn't comment on it. Make sure you circle back and correct that.

Oops.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Didn't know that. Another example of how pushing cap money out can hurt a team.

While that's true the Packers most likely wouldn't have re-signed Jones at all if they weren't able to backload the deal.

The connotation of "past his prime," then putting a player's age next to it is strictly a point of pointing out age, not pointing out whether or not he can or cannot be more productive than in the past. Many players have had breakout seasons after going past their prime, age wise.

Although I'd agree that the majority of players "past their prime" are going to slowly lose some of their physical skills, and become more injury prone, I also believe some find that their experience on the field makes them even better, because they make better decisions. Also, lesser used players may have an extended shelf life because they've had less wear and tear on their bodies.

Each player needs to be judged on projected ROI, and if you do it based on birth date, you're going to reject a lot of decent ball players that can help your team win.​

Once again, I haven't seen anyone mentioning Watkins is past his prime because of his age but based on a lack of production.

 

[Voyageur]

While that's true the Packers most likely wouldn't have re-signed Jones at all if they weren't able to backload the deal.



Once again, I haven't seen anyone mentioning Watkins is past his prime because of his age but based on a lack of production.

Prime has never been about production levels. Prime has always been based on relative age. A WR who does well at the age of 30, which means he is doing well "past his prime," since the connotation and usage of the word in regards to football production is based on age. They already established a range of age that's considered prime by positions.

If you use the term to say that Adams is in his prime, and Watkins is past his prime, you're not using the term correctly. That's what prompted this issue. It was stated, in a thread, and had become the common theme.

A person cannot say that one player is past his prime, to say you shouldn't give him a 2nd contract, then say that someone who's older is in their prime, so you can give them a huge contract. That's not a rational statement. You can say that the first guy has passed his prime, and probably won't have more to offer, while the other guy is playing well past his prime, and may well do so for a few years, and would be worth the risk. This is exactly what the Watkins/Adams issue is. There's actually more risk to a huge Adams contract than there is to the smaller Watkins contract, and you're getting the potential of two healthy young players in exchange for Adams.

Just setting the record straight. I don't intend to argue with you over it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

"Prime" and even "age" are such subjective terms that I'm not that big of a fan when it comes to talking about or categorizing an individual player or comparing players for that matter. How many times did we hear "Adrian Peterson is way past his prime" or "He's too old to still play well." Sure, there might be a relative average age at every position that players start heading downhill, but in no way should that be used to definitively label an individual player, at least not without some discussion of what his career trajectory has been up to that point. Also, guys are coming into the NFL younger and in some cases older, so that might be something you factor in as well.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Prime has never been about production levels. Prime has always been based on relative age. A WR who does well at the age of 30, which means he is doing well "past his prime," since the connotation and usage of the word in regards to football production is based on age. They already established a range of age that's considered prime by positions.

If you use the term to say that Adams is in his prime, and Watkins is past his prime, you're not using the term correctly. That's what prompted this issue. It was stated, in a thread, and had become the common theme.

A person cannot say that one player is past his prime, to say you shouldn't give him a 2nd contract, then say that someone who's older is in their prime, so you can give them a huge contract. That's not a rational statement. You can say that the first guy has passed his prime, and probably won't have more to offer, while the other guy is playing well past his prime, and may well do so for a few years, and would be worth the risk. This is exactly what the Watkins/Adams issue is. There's actually more risk to a huge Adams contract than there is to the smaller Watkins contract, and you're getting the potential of two healthy young players in exchange for Adams.

Just setting the record straight. I don't intend to argue with you over it.

Let me try once again to explain my point of view. I don't care about a player's age but about his production on the field. Unfortunately Watkins hasn't put up impressive numbers since the 2015 season though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Let me try once again to explain my point of view. I don't care about a player's age but about his production on the field. Unfortunately Watkins hasn't put up impressive numbers since the 2015 season though.

Define impressive? I posted Desean Jackson numbers earlier. If you are just looking at the catches, yds and TD's, that isn't really looking at the big picture. Most would think DJ is a washed up old vet, but his stats were actually better than MVS's last season.