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!
Actually, this is a true statement. LT has never ranked higher than 3rd but the past few seasons has gone first or second.However, getting that level of production that early in the draft is most likely a good thing, as getting a player that doesn't come close to earning back his elite draft status could kill your team.
Ponyboy makes an excellent point. At times it seems the "value" propasition is over estimated. I frequently read that guys base their picks on "value". While this is a good idea, at times it seems players are avoided because their value is not in line with a given draft position.This should be a different thread and discussion but it's worth metioning for Jackson. Yuds mentioned the limited the carries Jackson may be subject to based 2 factors:
He just may be. Stubborn enough anyway. That alone should make you at least think twice about making Jackson a high pick.
I think a couple of you are missing the point here. The Rams have not really rushed much the past 3 years but more importantly, the RBs have no been anywhere near as effective. The total workload of the running backs has been fairly constant but usage dipped about 10% the past three seasons. Here are the numbers.1999
I'll agree with you that Jackson was better than Faulk inside the 5 last year. St. Louis had just 24 rushing attempts inside the 5 last year, Jackson had 8 of them, and he scored on three of them. But the sample size is very misleading. Steven Jackson scored four TDs, against two bottom ten defenses and two teams that had already clinched their exact playoff berth and had nothing to play for. He broke the 70 yard mark exactly twice last season, against San Francisco, one of the worst defenses in the league, and against a Philly team that had nothing to play for. His completion ratio statistics are in question because of the small sample size.
I would also add that the dropoff in the numbers from the running back position came as Faulk started to get hurt and his skills dropped off. But remember that the point they dropped off from was Faulk holding BOTH the total TDs record AND the total yards record. That's just ridiculous. It's unreasonable to expect than any running back - especially one with 134 career carries - is going to bring the Rams running back position back up to its 1999-2001 levels.
Actually this is something I'm worried about. Jackson had a hard time staying healthy last year. As a Rams homer, I'm avoiding these guys like the plague....
This will be a change of pace but I agree with you fanatic. Jackson had his knee scoped twice in the past and now playing most of his games on turf I'm just wondering how durable he'll be. I do like his all around game and being a ram homer myself hope nothing but the best for him but I would be alittle worried if I was basing my whole season on him.
I think that's the thing people aren't acknowledging. Even aside from all of the statistical evidence, anybody who watched Faulk last knows that he isn't the same guy.I had Jackson and Faulk in one dynasty league last year so I watched a fair amount St Louis games. So many times I saw a smaller RB in the game but couldn't see the number and said to myself, "Who do they have in there, because tht sure as Hell isn't Marshall Faulk". And it always turned out it WAS Faulk, or what is left of him. He has basically no explosion or quickness left to his game. He's still a smart veteran player and probably a great mentor (which is why he is still on the team at a reduced salary), but he really isn't an effective starting RB anymore. It doesn't matter if he is "fresh" or not, he isn't the same, and that's why I'm not too worried about it being a RBBC deal, or a situation where the shell of Faulk is going to replace an extremely effective, 233 pound Steven Jackson on the goal-line. Faulk still has his smarts and hands, which will make him an effective 3rd down back, but I also think the receiving game is one one of Jackson's strengths as well (though it hasn't shown yet), so he won't be pulled on ALL 3rd downs.I'm singing the same tune because of how pathetic faulk looked last year. :(Wonder if you'd be singing the same tune if you weren't a Jackson owner
I worry about that as well. He's very young to have had a couple of cleanups done already, and considering his size, I'm concerned about a short career.But, you can say that about a lot of backs, and at some point if the rest of the picutre is in place (which I think it is for Jackson), you have to just hope for the best on the health front. RB is a tough place to stay healthy for anyone.
What is leading you to believe they will go with a more balanced attack this year? Just a hunch? Cause there are no stats or facts to show me why Martz wouldn't continue with what he has done for ages now. Why all of a sudden in 2005, will they change? It seems you are basing Jackson having 275 carries and then being a Top 10 Rb heavily on a hunch that you think the Rams will run the ball more.No less than 275 carries for Jackson? Can you please show me your projections for Rams carries and the breakdown to each RB? I am very curious. You keep throwing out 275 carries, yet have not really backed it up. Do you realize how little the Rams run and how with 275 carries for Jackson, that would leave Faulk with ~65 carries. You honestly think Faulk will have a decline of 130 carries over one year? Even though he is going to be on the field lots on 3rd downs and 2 RB sets. You think with Faulk and Martz's relationship, that Faulk's contributions will diminish that much? I highly doubt it, and like Yuds said, if Faulk ws going to be a bonafide backup with ~65 carries that he would have retired.
But is Faulk a true backup in the sense that he'll only play when Jackson is tired or the game is out of hand? That is a true backup and thinking that Faulk will be simply a backup is being pretty naiive.Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt that what happens to RB's once they are the BACKUP? Doesn't that mean your carries will diminish drastically. Faulk was still the starter last season, with him now being the backup I would "assume" his carries would drop.
Yep, that is the definition of a backup, and that is what Faulk will be, naive or not.But is Faulk a true backup in the sense that he'll only play when Jackson is tired or the game is out of hand? That is a true backup and thinking that Faulk will be simply a backup is being pretty naiive.Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt that what happens to RB's once they are the BACKUP? Doesn't that mean your carries will diminish drastically. Faulk was still the starter last season, with him now being the backup I would "assume" his carries would drop.
Wow. I didn't realize that's what you were saying. Do you have a link that says Faulk will only come in to spell Jackson? Because I haven't seen that at all.Yep, that is the definition of a backup, and that is what Faulk will be, naive or not.But is Faulk a true backup in the sense that he'll only play when Jackson is tired or the game is out of hand? That is a true backup and thinking that Faulk will be simply a backup is being pretty naiive.Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt that what happens to RB's once they are the BACKUP? Doesn't that mean your carries will diminish drastically. Faulk was still the starter last season, with him now being the backup I would "assume" his carries would drop.
From what I saw from faulk last year it's pretty realistic. Martz DID name Sjax as the starter did he not?But is Faulk a true backup in the sense that he'll only play when Jackson is tired or the game is out of hand? That is a true backup and thinking that Faulk will be simply a backup is being pretty naiive.Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt that what happens to RB's once they are the BACKUP? Doesn't that mean your carries will diminish drastically. Faulk was still the starter last season, with him now being the backup I would "assume" his carries would drop.
Well, on the first page of this thread, Martz was saying that Faulk would play a much greter role . . .
We'll have to see how it plays out, but I don't see Marshall sitting on the bench a ton if he can play and contribute. He won't be a majority ball carrier, but I don't see him getting 2 carries a game either.
Don't need a "link". All you needed to do was watch Jackson and Faulk play last year, or compare the stats for both of them. Either activity would convince a reasonable person that Faulk will be a true backup in 2005. Doing both should convince ANYONE.I know, I know - Faulk is "healthy" and "fresh" this year and this is the "best he's felt" in forever. I heard that in 2003 and I head it again in 2004. Now I've heard it in 2005, but I doubt it's any more true than it was for the previous two years.Wow. I didn't realize that's what you were saying. Do you have a link that says Faulk will only come in to spell Jackson? Because I haven't seen that at all.Yep, that is the definition of a backup, and that is what Faulk will be, naive or not.But is Faulk a true backup in the sense that he'll only play when Jackson is tired or the game is out of hand? That is a true backup and thinking that Faulk will be simply a backup is being pretty naiive.Correct me if I'm wrong but isnt that what happens to RB's once they are the BACKUP? Doesn't that mean your carries will diminish drastically. Faulk was still the starter last season, with him now being the backup I would "assume" his carries would drop.
Bold & italicized the key words. Guys who think it will be 50/50 or that Faulk will take a significant portion of work think Faulk can still play effectively at a starting RB level. Those who are pimping Jackson (like me) don't think Faulk can play at that level anymore.It's a damn shame, too. Faulk has been one of the best there ever was, but watching faulk play now is just as painful as watching Rice let a simple 10 yd out go right through his hands without ever touching it.
With all due respect, the only person's opinion that matters is Martz', and that rules out your "reasonable person" argument. If Martz used more reason over the years, St. Louis would have more than one title. All along he should have been running the ball more. "Reason" and "Martz" can rarely share the same sentence.I don't mean to sound unduely critical of martz--he's a head coach and, well, I'm not. But his play calling over the years has been . . . suspect . . . on numerous occasions.On a dating perspective, I liken this to the old girlfriend that guys keep around. If they truly were ex-girlfriends, then they wouldn't be around. Same thing for Faulk. If he's there, they are going to play him--maybe they won't ride him like they used to, but he'll get his share of use.Here are some other notable guys and how many touches they had in their last season . . .Emmitt 282Payton 179Dorsett 197Allen 135Riggins 182OJ 127Campbell 164Allen 185The heavy workload backs generally have not just hung around to watch. Ottis Anderson and Herschel Walker stuck around a couple extra seasons to play on special teams. There were a few RB that tried to catch on with another team and quickly called it a day after a couple of games. Others played until they got hurt and couldn't go anymore.Maybe Faulk will try to play for a couple of games and then pack it in. But guys like John Wayne don't go from being the star of the show to cameo roles very often.
And here are the RBs who have had the most career touches in NFL history:Smith,Emmitt 4924
I don't disagree that Faulk should hang up his cleats, but our opinions don't mean anything. The fact of the matter is that Faulk is still donning shoulder pads and will be jogging on to the field each week in some capacity. Should that change, I might have a different outlook on Jackson.
How many of those guys had a 1st round RB on their team that was labeled a starter by the head coach? I'm guessing zero.Comparing starter's numbers to a guy whose coach has acknowledged he is not the main guy anymore is not particularly relavent.
Even Emmit Smith had a TD drought for 1 year, and he bounced back rather nicely. Faulk can bounce back for TD purposes if he is used primarily in red zone packages.
Emmitt "bounced back" when he was 29 and still a starter (and a star). The only place Faulk is going to bounce is out of the league.Seriously, do some of you guys honestly believe that the Marshall Faulk of 2005 would be more effective in goal-line situations than Steven Jackson? Does Martz believe that? Heck, does Faulk even believe that?
I expect SJax to get 75 percent of the workload. The Rams gameplan IS changing IMO, to a more running and punishing attack. If this defense is improved enough to hang on to a lead,the Rams WILL run alot more this year. All offseason moves are pointing to it. Last year the defense could not stop anyone. Plus if you remember correctly, the offensive line was completely beat up and 2 players that were starting at the end of the year were pulled from retirement. Offseason moves include drafting 3 offensive linemen, and big fullback ( to leadblock ). Signed another lineman in free agency, signed R. Williams to play TE for runblocking purposes. So there definitely is a plan to run much more, if the plan will fall into place is what we have to gamble our picks on. Plus Martz realizes that Bulger will not survive another season of getting beat up like he has. The man is highly intelligent - but is still growing as a H.C. My prediction on Sjax is based on what I saw last year, and that was Marshall is simply a shell of his former all - pro self.
Where do you get this from. Mad Mike is all about showing the NFL that you can win without pounding the ball. That's practically his mission in life. Don't say his mission in life is winning football games because I've seen him lose games because he has abandoned the run and gone all pass happy. Most notably in the SB against the Pats where Marshall carried the ball all of 13 times. I see no evidence whatsoever that shows the Rams moving to a ball control/pound the ball offense. By the way, my zipcode is 63109. Right in the heart of the city of St. Louis. Please provide a link showing some support of this claim of yours instead of throwing it out there as fact....
63385, How bout a link claiming Mad Mike's mission in life , I edited my post to make you happy, wont you be a good paisan too ?? Just giving MHO like alot of others, sorry if you're offended. My point was that the Rams didn't have a defense good enough to keep any lead safe, plus our backs seemed to take turns the entire season being hurt. To me that left the passing game is pretty much the only option for this offense to score points. I think the offseason moves are to provide more balance to the attack, and when a lead is there, to work on some clock. Punishing by holding on to the ball at the end of the game. Really don't see how where you live has anything to do with anything, as you have not seen anymore St. Louis Rams games than myself. BTW- all the above was just MHO. No link to be provided , sorry.
If I remember correctly, people felt the same way about Shanahan last year when they annointed Quentin Griffin the next Barry Sanders after one game against Kansas City. And when I said "But it was against Kansas City", and "He didn't have that good a game", and "He may not make it through the season as starter", everyone laughed at me and asked what game I had watched.
The only time I have laughed at you is right now, when you claim that you were on an island being a Griffen detractor. It seems to me that "others" spent some significant effort trying to get people off the Q-Dog kool-aid.
resent:back on topic, when it comes to Jackson, Faulk doesn't scare me, Martz does.
If I remember correctly, you got real quiet after week 1.The only time I have laughed at you is right now, when you claim that you were on an island being a Griffen detractor. It seems to me that "others" spent some significant effort trying to get people off the Q-Dog kool-aid.
Post week 1, 2004:If I remember correctly, you got real quiet after week 1.The only time I have laughed at you is right now, when you claim that you were on an island being a Griffen detractor. It seems to me that "others" spent some significant effort trying to get people off the Q-Dog kool-aid.
Post week 2, 2004:lmao!Nah, I'm not going to knock Griffin's play in week 1. Good RBs punish bad Ds. I was just providing a word for the wise based upon some experience. KC's run D, especially with a 3rd string MLB, is suspect. I wouldn't assign too much to a great performance against them.Pony, I thought you gave up onthe anti Griffin bashing. I guess that didn't last long. I know you are a Bell lover with a serious man crush on him and if, I said if, he were the starter then I would agree. But he's not. Only injury or a couple of performance disaters will Bell become the man. I think you have better odds in the lottery or Vegas.
Props? You bet. But let's keep it in perspective & see how Griffin does against a little tougher JAX run D this week.
