Jackson and Faulk (1 Viewer)

[Big Score]

(With regards to Faulk's bad stretch of goal line carries, you can see above that they happened against the two toughest Ds he faced, New England and Buffalo)

Might want to look at his bad goal line carries against one of the Leagues weaker Run D's as well, dontcha think bostonfred?Rams - vs - 49er's 10/3 (pre knee injury btw)

1-10-SF11 (3:56) M.Faulk right end to SF 5 for 6 yards (D.Smith; A.Plummer).

2-4-SF5 (3:11) M.Faulk right guard to SF 2 for 3 yards (T.Parrish; J.Engelberger).

3-1-SF2 (2:30) M.Faulk up the middle to SF 2 for no gain (J.Ulbrich; D.Stewart).

4-1-SF2 (1:55) J.Goodspeed up the middle for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

Yep, Faulk only failed to punch it in at the goal line against N.E. & Buff D, or when he had knee issues. But when healthy and against the weaker run D's, he had no problems right?

Seriously, if you'd watched Faulk last year, you'd know he is on his last legs. Father Time and multiple knee injuries have a way of doing that to even the best.

To be honest, Martz and his play calling, worry me much more than Faulk.

 

[bostonfred]

(With regards to Faulk's bad stretch of goal line carries, you can see above that they happened against the two toughest Ds he faced, New England and Buffalo)

Might want to look at his bad goal line carries against one of the Leagues weaker Run D's as well, dontcha think bostonfred?Rams - vs - 49er's 10/3 (pre knee injury btw)

1-10-SF11 (3:56) M.Faulk right end to SF 5 for 6 yards (D.Smith; A.Plummer).

2-4-SF5 (3:11) M.Faulk right guard to SF 2 for 3 yards (T.Parrish; J.Engelberger).

3-1-SF2 (2:30) M.Faulk up the middle to SF 2 for no gain (J.Ulbrich; D.Stewart).

4-1-SF2 (1:55) J.Goodspeed up the middle for 2 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

Yep, Faulk only failed to punch it in at the goal line against N.E. & Buff D, or when he had knee issues. But when healthy and against the weaker run D's, he had no problems right?

Seriously, if you'd watched Faulk last year, you'd know he is on his last legs. Father Time and multiple knee injuries have a way of doing that to even the best.

To be honest, Martz and his play calling, worry me much more than Faulk.

He got nine yards on the first two carries and you're saying he's on his last legs because he didn't score on one attempt from third and goal on the one?

I'm not saying Faulk is going to get every goal line carry, but I think it's foolish to assume the second leading TD scorer of all time won't get some chances from inside the ten, no matter how done he looked to you.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

For everyone that states how Faulk looked brutal. He only started looking bad after being the starter for the first portion of the season and getting worn down. He had 195 carries and 50 receptions on the year. Imagine if he had a third less of those carries and receptions and how he would be much more fresh. Faulk isn't going to look horrible next season cause he won't be touching the ball as many times as last year, but you aren't goingto see him disappear by any means. I think you will see Jackson and Faulk swap the total carries from last year. Jackson will have around 200 and Faulk will have around 120 carries. This is going to be a slow take over, not a coup d'etat where Faulk is never going to see the field unless Jackson is tired. I'll let you guys take the bait on Jackson and my team will be better for it. Thanks.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

For discussion, here's Faulk's game logs:

22/128 vs. ARI (5.8 YPC - AZ gave up an average of 4.7)

12/20 vs ATL (1.7 YPC - ATL gave up an average of 3.9)

12/44 vs NO (3.7 YPC - NO gave up an average of 4.7)

23/121 vs SF (5.3 YPC - SF gave up an average of 4.0)

15/51 vs SEA (3.4 YPC - SEA gave up an average of 4.5)

15/40 vs TB (2.7 YPC - TB gave up an average of 4.1)

12/61 vs MIA (5.1 YPC - MIA gave up an average of 4.3)

12/66 vs NWE (5.5 YPC - NWE gave up an average of 3.9)

18/139 vs SEA (7.6 YPC- SEA gave up an average of 4.5)

13/6 vs BUF (.5 YPC - BUF gave up an average of 3.6) <--Knee Bruise

7/7 vs GB (1 YPC - GB gave up an average of 4.6)

MISSED GAME

MISSED GAME

10/22 vs ARI (2.2 YPC - AZ gave up an average of 4.7)

17/54 vs PHI (3.2 YPC - Philly allowed 4.3 but had clinched homefield)

7/15 vs NYJ (2.1 YPC - NYJ allowed 3.6)

Since Faulk shared time off and on with Jackson throughout the year, I used yards per rush as a statistic. Green = more than .5 YPR better than the team's YPR allowed, Red = more than .5 YPR worse.

Before the knee bruise, he was putting up decent yards per carry more often than not (5 good games, 4 bad). After the knee bruise, he put up all bad games. His best games were nothing spectacular, three 100 yard games out of his first nine, although in the interests of not getting called cheesy by HS, I left his 50 receptions for 310 yards out of the discussion; he had a 135 total yard game against Miami.

(With regards to Faulk's bad stretch of goal line carries, you can see above that they happened against the two toughest Ds he faced, New England and Buffalo)

Looking at the above chart, I don't see a guy who is completely done. I see a guy who put up decent (but unspectacular) numbers until he got hurt. It makes sense that they don't want to overwork him, because he has had problems with that knee before. But I highly doubt that means he's a <5 carry a game backup.

By the way, here's the numbers for Jackson:

7/50 vs. ARI (7.1 YPC - AZ gave up an average of 4.7)

3/10 vs ATL (3.3 YPC - ATL gave up an average of 3.9)

2/15 vs NO (7.5 YPC - NO gave up an average of 4.7)

10/46 vs SF (4.6 YPC - SF gave up an average of 4.0)

5/64 vs SEA (12.8 YPC - SEA gave up an average of 4.5)

13/48 vs TB (3.7 YPC - TB gave up an average of 4.1)

6/27 vs MIA (4.5 YPC - MIA gave up an average of 4.3)

3/1 vs NWE (.3 YPC - NWE gave up an average of 3.9)

10/47 vs SEA (4.7 YPC- SEA gave up an average of 4.5)

7/29 vs BUF (4.1 YPC - BUF gave up an average of 3.6)

8/40 vs GB (5.0 YPC - GB gave up an average of 4.6)

26/119 vs SF (4.6 YPC, SF gave up an average of 4.0) <--Knee Bruise

MISSED GAME

MISSED GAME

24/148 vs PHI (3.2 YPC - Philly allowed 4.3 but had clinched homefield)

10/29 vs NYJ (2.9 YPC - NYJ allowed 3.6)

7 well above average games, 4 well below average games, and three slightly above average games, on a yards per carry basis. That's a little better than Faulk's 5 above average games and 4 below average games against mostly the same defenses, although the very small sample size has skewed some of them (I highly doubt he'd have put up 12.8 yards per carry against Seattle, or 7.5 against New Orleans, or .3 against New England, in extended duty).

To me, I see Jackson as a guy who played a little better than Faulk last year, and earned the right to be the lead back in a running back by committee. He may even have a good run down the stretch if Faulk gets hurt, but with Faulk seeing fewer carries, it may not be as likely that Faulk gets hurt. I don't, however, see him as a guy who massively outperformed a healthy Faulk. I think that's where the disagreement comes, because HS and PB think he's the vastly better back, while I think Faulk wasn't that bad.

Just pointing out a few typos/errors here.You say Jackson had 4 "well below average" games and definite those games as more than .5ypc below the team's average, yet you counted Jackson's game against TB (and outlined it in red) where he averaged 3.7ypc next to TB's average of 4.1ypc, a .4ypc difference.

In Jackson's game against Philly (think this is just a typo because you still made it green), I'm not math wiz but I don't think 24/142 is 3.2ypc

 

[Bri]

Martz isn't a (FF)RB friendly coach. Note the difference between when Vermeil was there and after.Does 50/50 mean 400 yards for Faulk 400 for Jackson?

 

[Redchamp]

For everyone that states how Faulk looked brutal. He only started looking bad after being the starter for the first portion of the season and getting worn down.

He had 195 carries and 50 receptions on the year. Imagine if he had a third less of those carries and receptions and how he would be much more fresh. Faulk isn't going to look horrible next season cause he won't be touching the ball as many times as last year, but you aren't goingto see him disappear by any means.

I think you will see Jackson and Faulk swap the total carries from last year. Jackson will have around 200 and Faulk will have around 120 carries. This is going to be a slow take over, not a coup d'etat where Faulk is never going to see the field unless Jackson is tired.

I'll let you guys take the bait on Jackson and my team will be better for it. Thanks.

I have no problem taking the bait on SJax in a dynasty league as my #2 RB

 

[Tau837]

Surprised this thread is still going. So of course I'll try to keep it alive.I am too lazy to verify when Faulk bruised his knee, but I'll take bostonfred's word for it that it happened against Buffalo.Check Faulk's splitsre-Buffalo (9 games): 141/670/3 rushing (4.75 ypc)Buffalo & later (5 games): 54/104/0 rushing (1.93 ypc)Before bruising his knee, Faulk was on pace for 251/1191/5 rushing. That's not setting the world on fire, but it's also not what I would call ineffective.Now check the same splits for Jacksonre-Buffalo (9 games): 59/308/2 rushing (5.22 ypc)Buffalo & later (5 games): 75/365/2 rushing (4.87 ypc)IMO it seems pretty clear that Faulk was clearly Martz's guy before his injury, after which Martz was forced to use Jackson more heavily.My thoughts:1. Even if you project out Jackson's numbers from the 5 game stretch in which he was the primary back, you get only 240/1168/6 rushing. This is basically the same production Faulk was giving before his injury. So either this is good production, which means Faulk was providing good production... or this is not good production, which means Jackson wasn't very impressive.Either way, I really don't see what everyone is getting so excited about, given that Jackson projects out to fairly pedestrian rushing totals and isn't going to add much receiving as long as Faulk is healthy.2. I don't agree that it is clear that Faulk is no longer effective. Unless he bruises his knee again, I think he can be an effective rusher as well as receiver. A feature rusher? Not on a regular basis... but I fully expect enough carries that it will impact Jackson's numbers.I am squarely in the camp that says Jackson is overvalued and Faulk is undervalued (EDIT: for this year).

 

[Tau837]

Huh. 50 posts in the day before my post on Faulk's splits, none after. I'm interested in what both sides make of the data. Anyone?

 

[Weiner Dog]

Huh. 50 posts in the day before my post on Faulk's splits, none after. I'm interested in what both sides make of the data. Anyone?

It's b/c 99% of the posters in this thread are Jackson owners, while only 1% are Faulk owners.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Huh.  50 posts in the day before my post on Faulk's splits, none after.  I'm interested in what both sides make of the data.  Anyone?

I think you make a good point. Jackson with the poor offensive line play and with Marshall potenially stealing carries throughout the season (especially with him not being a starter) could make him a very risky pick according to his ADP.However, people/owners love drafting on potential. They want to draft the next Marshall Faulk and in St. Louis, that's 1st round draft choice S. Jackson.

I don't know exactly where's he's going to finish, but if I had to guess, it would be below what the general public would predict.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

For everyone that states how Faulk looked brutal. He only started looking bad after being the starter for the first portion of the season and getting worn down.

He had 195 carries and 50 receptions on the year. Imagine if he had a third less of those carries and receptions and how he would be much more fresh. Faulk isn't going to look horrible next season cause he won't be touching the ball as many times as last year, but you aren't goingto see him disappear by any means.

I think you will see Jackson and Faulk swap the total carries from last year. Jackson will have around 200 and Faulk will have around 120 carries. This is going to be a slow take over, not a coup d'etat where Faulk is never going to see the field unless Jackson is tired.

I'll let you guys take the bait on Jackson and my team will be better for it. Thanks.

I have no problem taking the bait on SJax in a dynasty league as my #2 RB

I wouldn't have any problem either, but I wasn't speaking of a dynasty league. We are talking about THIS year's stats, and this year's carries.

 

[P Boy]

I wouldn't have any problem either, but I wasn't speaking of a dynasty league.  We are talking about THIS year's stats, and this year's carries.

And I'll happily take Jackson as my #2 RB this year, as well as in a dynasty league.We've about beaten this to death, and preseason isn't going to tell us much since the old man will probably spend most of the time resting (or sleeping if they'll let him have a rocker on the sideline).Looks like we'll all find out how Martz plans on using Jackson/Faulk in week 1, unless we see a significant preseason injury.

 

[Unlucky]

I can't believe we've gone 4 pages without these numbers:S. Jackson: 5.0 YPC, 9.9 YPRM. Faulk: 4.0 YPC, 6.2 YPRAlso, Faulk's averages have been steadily declining.That tells the story people - S. Jackson is better than Faulk right now. You can point to the lack of rushing attempts, but then I'll remind you that Faulk isn't a big-carry back, and STL had little depth. With Jackson, it's entirely possible that STL runs more.They key to Jackson is TDs and receiving. STL will score a lot. Will Jackson get a big enough share of the offense? I think so.

 

[Tau837]

I can't believe we've gone 4 pages without these numbers:

S. Jackson: 5.0 YPC, 9.9 YPR

M. Faulk: 4.0 YPC, 6.2 YPR

Also, Faulk's averages have been steadily declining.

That tells the story people - S. Jackson is better than Faulk right now. You can point to the lack of rushing attempts, but then I'll remind you that Faulk isn't a big-carry back, and STL had little depth. With Jackson, it's entirely possible that STL runs more.

They key to Jackson is TDs and receiving. STL will score a lot. Will Jackson get a big enough share of the offense? I think so.

I don't think anyone is disputing that Jackson is more valuable. The dispute is centered around how valuable Jackson will be based on what Faulk's role will be.If one is happy with a ceiling around 1200 rushing yards, 200 receiving yards, and 8 TDs, with potential for less, Jackson is your guy. Many people seem to have higher expectations.