What's new
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!

Reasons Steven Jackson is not (1 Viewer)

I must have missed that memo. Marshall Faulk is one of the most prolific goal line backs in recent memory, and his ability in/familiarty with the Rams passing game makes him all the more likely to be involved inside the 5.

If you've seen something different re: Jackson's role at the goalline, please post it b/c I'd be interested in reading that.

Right now, I am not high on Jackson because (a) I DON"T think he's assured of the goalline work and (b) Mike Martz hasn't been keen on running the ball a lot in recent years.

COlin
1. I never said anything sarcastic to you. Pick a better place to use your smilies.
Really, you didn't? :rolleyes: I'm sorry you are taking my attempt at humor personally Colin, it was intended to be funny.

None the less, I don't think he is assured of anything, my original statement was that he will get goalline carries that Tatum Bell might not, since they have a similar ADP.

I drew the 3 pick this year and I should have a shot at either one of those two along with Lamont Jordan at the tail end of the 2nd round. I am trying to study the 3 obvious choices for my RB2 and gauge other board members opinions. This topic impacts my fantasy year directly and one of the reasons I am leaning towards Jackson over the other two is the issue of TD scoring. With Bell, I am envisioning a lot more competition for the top spot let alone goalline and with Jordan I am concerned about the TD hawking presence of Crockett.

I personally have an opinion that Jackson will be used around the goalline by Martz for the most part.

That's all it is, my opinion. Take it for what it's worth (prolly not much :lol: ).

 
2. If you have seen anything - interview, article, practice, etc. - indicating that Jackson is the goalline back, please post it as I'm interested.
You keep saying this, but its probably better for Jackson owners that nothing has been said. Shouldnt it be assumed that the starting rb will be in the game in these kinds of situations, unless the coach specifically comes out and says they would like to use somebody else there.
Ordinarily, yes. But Faulk in his heyday was an extremely effective receiver/runner inside the 20. As such, what if the "reduced role" that everyone (me included) is so sure of is not fewer touches throughout the game, but rather Faulk in the goalline packages doing what he's best at and Jackson carrying the load betwix the 20s.I am just suggesting that as a real possibility that no one seems to be interested in acknowledging.

Colin
If Faulk were a short yardage, "plunging" type back, like say Bettis, I could see him continue to be the primary short yardage back, but because he relys on his quickness and cutting ability, which correlates closer to his overall diminished effectiveness, I think it is unlikely he will supplant Jackson at the goaline (this assumes Jackson is a true starting rb, as has been advertised).I do think we will see a lot of Faulk in different packages with him and Jackson on the field lined up in different fomations, in an effort to add confusion...Imagine a defense seeing Faulk & Jackson come out of the huddle, then Faulk lines up outside (or goes in motion), while the LB's are scrambling to cover everone, Jackson plunges up the middle for a TD. Then the next GL series, same offensive set-up and Faulk burns the coverage for a quick TD. Martz may be a cocky bass-tard, but hopefully he will use that offensive "genius" to utilize his weapons...

 
Never screw with the stat-meister.
How come the stat-meister doesn't understand the difference between carries & touches? ;)
Stat-meister just doesn't know how to read.The other thing which I find interesting is that many people are suggesting the Rams defense will be one of the worst in the league (although not mentioned in this thread).

This year, that leaves at least three teams vying for consideration as potential as the worse defense: Tennessee, Oakland, and St. Louis.

What I find intriguing about this is that Tennessee has said they will try to get both Henry and Brown 200 carries (it won't happen but it sounds nice) while many people are suggesting that they will have to air it out.

Everyone (except me) is saying Oakland will be the second coming of Air Coryell and will be flinging the ball all over the park. And we already know that the Rams pass more than any team.

Given the circumstances involoving these teams, does having a bad defense serve to HELP the running game any?

 
Stat-meister just doesn't know how to read.The other thing which I find interesting is that many people are suggesting the Rams defense will be one of the worst in the league (although not mentioned in this thread).This year, that leaves at least three teams vying for consideration as potential as the worse defense: Tennessee, Oakland, and St. Louis.What I find intriguing about this is that Tennessee has said they will try to get both Henry and Brown 200 carries (it won't happen but it sounds nice) while many people are suggesting that they will have to air it out.Everyone (except me) is saying Oakland will be the second coming of Air Coryell and will be flinging the ball all over the park. And we already know that the Rams pass more than any team.Given the circumstances involoving these teams, does having a bad defense serve to HELP the running game any?
That's an interesting thought that is very valid, but I think it comes down to coaching style. Teams with bad Ds should according to football theory run the ball a ton, since it serves a couple of purposes - it shortens the game, where throwing the ball (and hence incompletions) stops the clock a lot - and it keeps your defense off the field more. Even picking up 2 first downs in a series and then punting allows your D a rest while giving the opposing O a longer field to play on.However, when coaching arrogance (or ignorance) settles in, some coaches ignore this & simply try to outscore the other team. This actually affects their D in a very negative manner. It gives them much less time to rest, and if the O is a quick strike O it puts the weakest part of the team on the field for the longest time. It works occassionally - especially if an offense scores as prolifically as STL has been known to - but much more often than not it results in teams getting pounded into the turf, especially in the 4th quarter when a D that is already bad also gets exhausted.I think the presence of a bad D will really help the TEN running game, but with Davis in OAK & Martz in STL, I don't think it will make a lick of difference. Ego supercedes anything in both places.
 
I think Jackson's height and size will lead him to being either injured or dinged up more than the avg rb
I have GOT to hear a defense of this position.I am not doubting it, but I really need to understand WHY, a 6'3" 235 pound, prototyically shaped running back is more injury prone.

One thing Jakson does NOT have - which is the prime "injury prone" tag for RBs - is an upright style. He gets low and he covers up the football while running through the hole, so I am curious why you believe his size = more injuries.
He's 6 foot and 3 inches tall, logically he is gonna take more hits than say someone with Holmes size. He also runs with a punishing style which also does not help his durabilty. He's only played 1 yr in the league, a part timer most of the season and he missed 2 full games and had to have surgery on his knee after the season. I just see a good possibilty of Jackson getting dinged up during the yr and with a quality back like Faulk on the team that they might be cautious with Jackson's touches when he has his bumps and bruises that big rbs go thru during the course of a season. And I have to add that 6'3" 235lb is not the prototypical shaped rb.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have posted many times why I think Jaxson is destined to disappoint this year. Most of it has very little to do with Jaxson himself, but more to do with the team philosophy.
I'm going to disagree with a lot of your post. Firstly, is your assertion that Jackson will disappoint because of the team philosophy. Talented players in the NFL contribute and form the team philosophy. If you think Jackson is a very talented RB, then STL will find ways to use him.
Over the past three years, the Rams ranked #1 with a 63.3%/36.7% pass play-to- run play ratio. In reverse, that means they have called the lowest % of running plays out of any team in the league. In fact, they have run the ball the least (total number of rushes) of all NFL teams in that time.

Looking at their RB as a group, their RB have ranked 31st in carries, 30th in touches, 28th in rushing yards, and 25th in fantasy points scored over the last 3 seasons. To make matters worse, their fantasy scoring from RB has actually decreased in each season.
Gee, I wonder if their bad rushing numbers are due to Faulk's decline in health and skills? They've had such great talent in the passing game, and no workhorse to carry the ball. So, they passed a whole lot. There was nobody behind Faulk the last few years, and Faulk's skills have declined sharply. It's no shock that STL threw so often. However, handing the starting job to Jackson CHANGES things. It's foolish to assume that STL will continue with the same pass/rush splits with a talented workhorse RB like Jackson.
Jaxson could be the next great running back, but until the Rams decide to run the ball more we may never find out. Factor in that Faulk is going to get the ball some (and likely a fair amount of receptions), and I see the St. Louis system generating a RB that produces an "average" or even "below average" fantasy RB2.

Also, people making projections of what the team will do for total RB numbers usually forget to add in any work for "other" RBs. Over the past few years, those leftover backs (not the #1 or #2) have accounted for 10-20% of the team's RB workload, so to leave them out of the picture entirely skews the big picture.

People can try to add spices and seasoning all they want, but the botom line is the Rams have not utilized their ground game very much in favor for a high octane passing attack. Until that changes, Jaxson's numbers will suffer because of it.
The "other" RBs in STL have seen work because Faulk has missed time and the #2 RB hasn't been able to produce, thus they've shuffled RBs. With Jackson and Faulk as the #2, why would STL use a #3? Just because the Rams haven't utilized the RBs the past few seasons doesn't mean they won't this year.

By the way, everyone talks about how great the DEN RB situation is. Are you guys forgetting that the STL/KC system has produced several of the top fantasy seasons ever? All of those Faulk and Priest seasons? Jackson is in this system. He's the #1 RB in STL. Jackson has the upside to be a top 5 fantasy RB, yet can be had late 2nd or early 3rd.

Jackson is currently #10 on my RB board. I'll definitely be landing him in several fantasy leagues this year. I would love to have a tandem of Priest and Jackson.

 
2. If you have seen anything - interview, article, practice, etc. - indicating that Jackson is the goalline back, please post it as I'm interested. 
You keep saying this, but its probably better for Jackson owners that nothing has been said. Shouldnt it be assumed that the starting rb will be in the game in these kinds of situations, unless the coach specifically comes out and says they would like to use somebody else there.
Ordinarily, yes. But Faulk in his heyday was an extremely effective receiver/runner inside the 20. As such, what if the "reduced role" that everyone (me included) is so sure of is not fewer touches throughout the game, but rather Faulk in the goalline packages doing what he's best at and Jackson carrying the load betwix the 20s.I am just suggesting that as a real possibility that no one seems to be interested in acknowledging.

Colin
I've stayed out of this debate because I have some uncertainty about how the splits will unfold. I tend to agree with Colin that this is a real possibility. I'm not so sure the splits are going to go the way the mainstream thinks. Faulk will likely be more involved than what we're assumming because Jackson was named the starter. Most notably in key situations. So I can see some goallines carries vultured by Faulk and this what has me leary of taking Jackson too early.From a dynasty perspective, I can't wait to see what this does after this year. He's going to be real good once Faulk's carries/touches are limited to 100 or less.

 
interesting read. I too am concerned about the number of touches Jackson will get, both because of MArtz's pass first game plan, and the presence of Faulk. On the brighter side, Jackson is my RB3 :thumbup:

 
interesting read. I too am concerned about the number of touches Jackson will get, both because of MArtz's pass first game plan, and the presence of Faulk. On the brighter side, Jackson is my RB3 :thumbup:
Thats where he should be for most 10-12 size leagues. He has nice upside but his risk is too high given his situation. Unfortunately somebody will over-value him so he doesn't drop where he would be a good pick.. I think he might be kept in my 14 team league and if he wasn't is a sure 1st rounder.
 
Just because the Rams haven't utilized the RBs the past few seasons doesn't mean they won't this year.
All I said was UNLESS THE TEAM CHANGES IT'S PHILOSOPHY Jackson will disappoint. If the Rams elect to utilize their RB(s) more, than this would indicate a change in team philosophy.I'm also not so sure I buy in to people's assertions of Faulk's "declining skills." Yes, his numbers dropped from when he was Superman. Yes, he had knee issues. Yes, he may have lost a step, but his numbers were still better than other many other RB.To compare Faulk to HIMSELF:In his first 4 years in the NFL (when one would suppose he had all his skills intact):17.4 carries, 65.6 rushing yards, 3.4 receptions, 31 receiving yards, 0.67 TD per game. 20.8 touches, 96.6 total yards, 13.6 fantasy points per game with a 3.75 ypc.In his past 3 seasons:15.8 carries, 65.3 rushing yards, 4.5 receptions, 29.2 receiving yards, 0.64 TD per game. 20.3 touches, 94.5 total yards, 13.3 fantasy points per game with a 4.13 ypc.Basically, Faulk's numbers his past 3 seasons were essentially THE SAME when compared to his first 4 years in the league. Would anyone suggest that he was a bum his first 4 years?As for the Rams USAGE of Faulk, I forget the exact number, but as I recall they were whatever and zero at one point (and may even still be) when Marshall Faulk ran for 100 yards. However, even in his prime, there were games when St. Louis for some reason or another abandoned the run almost altogether. Since coming to the Rams, there were 31 games when Faulk had 12 or fewer carries. For a HOF RB that has been better than 99% that ever played the position, one would think you would want to give him the ball.And as far as "incapable" backups go, Arlen Harris stepped in one week for 96 yards and 3 TDs. Gordon twice had back-to-back weeks with 90-100 yards and a TD. Canidate had over 500 yards and 4 TD filling in for 3 weeks. Even future HOFer Justin Watson filled in for a week and had over 100 yards. One game Robert Holcombe filled in and put up 100 yards. If I were an NFL coach, I'd take any of those performances with my stud RB out.And as I mentioned before, if the Rams defense is as bad as some are projecting, I suspect the Rams will pass MORE this year. Add it all up and sharing time with Faulk, I have a hard time seeing Jackson finishing the year in the Top5 or Top 10 as many are predicting.
 
I can see the 75/25 split. The belief with Faulk here in StL is that he wouldn't mind finishing up by playing a few years as more of a slot receiver type. With the weapons this offense has, and the inability of defenses to cover everyone as it is, Faulk's value to the team is in his receiving ability. He's just too damn smart and capable in the open field to sit.The problem comes in whether Jackson produces in short yardage. If he falters, I can see Faulk becoming what Marcus Allen was for a few years in KC. The guy is small, but always ran even smaller - particularly at the goal line. He's tough to get a solid hit on and get's "skinny" better than just about anyone to ever lace em up. There's also the chance that he'll poach a few TDs on goalline playaction swing passes. I simply haven't seen enough of Jackson to determine whether he will find the hole, make a decision and explode. Its possible he does what many bigger backs that have goalline problems do - drop your shoulder into your blockers and bulldoze.We can analyze this til doomsday, buts its a coin flip at this point.

 
So with all this negativity about Jackson. Who do you all like better at the bottom of the 2nd round?C-Mart + Bell + Jordan + Jackson are all around the same ADP. In the million or so mocks I've run, those are my choices at the 22nd pick. Who do you value over Jackson at that spot.I like all of them but they all have their risk factors. Please enlighten me to your line of thinking.

 
I'm also not so sure I buy in to people's assertions of Faulk's "declining skills." Yes, his numbers dropped from when he was Superman. Yes, he had knee issues. Yes, he may have lost a step, but his numbers were still better than other many other RB.
Tell me if these numbers are declining or increasing:5.5, 5.4, 5.3, 4.5, 3.9, 4.012.0, 10.2, 9.2, 6.7, 6.4, 6.2That is Faulk's YPC and YPR. I'd say that's declining. Just because his numbers were better than other RBs, or his totals were as good as his first few years in the league doesn't mean that his numbers haven't dropped the past few years. Talent + System + Opportunity = Fantasy Football success. Jackson has the talent, is in the system, and just needs the opportunity. I think he'll get it, and thus I rank him highly. Often, having the talent and being in the system will open up the opportunity.
 
Another thing I like about him is that you KNOW he will be the goalline back. You can't say that about Tatum Bell (they have about the same ADP). If he gets the rushing scores and touches the ball 16 or 17 times a game, I think he will make a very nice number 2 RB.
What is it about Shanahan's history of starting RBs makes you think Bell WONT be the goalline RB?Didn't Martz use Faulk at the goalline last year over Jackson?

A bigger question... we know Shanahan knows how to use a RB like Bell. Does Martz know how to use a Steven Jackson?

 
It is interesting that Marshall has been commented upon many times as the goal line back for the Rams last year. Being a first year subscriber, I made use of the split stats function under the players page (great tool by the way) and found the following:Marshall Faulk:2nd and short (0-2) 13 carries 13 yards 1.0 YPC 1 reception 7 yards 7 YPR3/4 and short (0-2) 22 carries 43 yards 1.9 YPC 0 receptions 0 yardsOPP 5 to G 13 carries 6 yards 0.5 YPC 3 TD 1 reception 0 yards 0 TDSteve Jackson:2nd and short (0-2) 18 carries 125 yards 6.9 YPC 1 reception 0 yards3/4 and short (0-2) 10 carries 27 yards 2.7 YPC 0 recptions 0 yardsOpp 5 to G 7 carries 13 yards 1.9 YPC 3 TD 0 receptions 0 yardsWhile Marshall may have received more goal line work last year in terms of number of touches, he was less effective (13 carries for 3 TD vs 7 carries for 3 TD for Jackson). Also, his short yardage ability paled in comparison to Steve Jackson.Relative to Jackson's knee history, I recall when he came in last year, he received additional rehab at the Rams camp as he had not rehabbed his knee properly after his injury and had a strength imbalance. With the removal of the Astro Turf and installation of the Field Turf, I believe he should be able to play without any limitation based upon his knee history. I can only assume that being under the supervision of the Rams trainers during the off season that they built up his knee stability/leg strength as a priority.I am moving to Columbia, MO next month, so I should be able to gain better insight into the situation.

 
For all those that are so down on Faulk this year, what do you think happens if Jackson happens to get injured? How big is Faulk's role then? Is he the "featured" back during that time or do they look to play another guy on the roster as well as Faulk?

 
So with all this negativity about Jackson. Who do you all like better at the bottom of the 2nd round?

C-Mart + Bell + Jordan + Jackson are all around the same ADP. In the million or so mocks I've run, those are my choices at the 22nd pick. Who do you value over Jackson at that spot.

I like all of them but they all have their risk factors. Please enlighten me to your line of thinking.
Toss Jordan out of the mix. Of the 3, he's the guy most likely to slide to you at 27 (3.03). I think that of the other 3, all would be a good selection depending on how you like to build your team. Martin is easily the most solid of the group, but I would probably lean towards Bell. Jackson would be 3rd on my list, but this thread is making me warm up a little to him.

Colin

 
So with all this negativity about Jackson. Who do you all like better at the bottom of the 2nd round?

C-Mart + Bell + Jordan + Jackson are all around the same ADP. In the million or so mocks I've run, those are my choices at the 22nd pick. Who do you value over Jackson at that spot.

I like all of them but they all have their risk factors. Please enlighten me to your line of thinking.
Toss Jordan out of the mix. Of the 3, he's the guy most likely to slide to you at 27 (3.03). I think that of the other 3, all would be a good selection depending on how you like to build your team. Martin is easily the most solid of the group, but I would probably lean towards Bell. Jackson would be 3rd on my list, but this thread is making me warm up a little to him.

Colin
Yeah, I am obviously a Raider fan, so the Jordan pick smacks of Homerism a little too much.By saying Martin is the most solid, do you mean least amount of risk? Or are you projecting him to have the best stats? The only thing keeping me from saying he is the best pick by far is the bye weeks as well. If I get Alexander then they would have the same bye. If I get Holmes then Martin is not conflicting (but Jordan is). I think Bell has tremendous upside too and it could easily play out that I won't have any other viable choice (if Jackson goes ahead of me and I get Alexander) than Bell. I would be very happy to have Alexander and Bell as my first 2 picks.

:thumbup:

 
The problem comes in whether Jackson produces in short yardage. If he falters, I can see Faulk becoming what Marcus Allen was for a few years in KC. The guy is small, but always ran even smaller - particularly at the goal line. He's tough to get a solid hit on and get's "skinny" better than just about anyone to ever lace em up. There's also the chance that he'll poach a few TDs on goalline playaction swing passes.
I hate to be redundant, but Faulk was a miserable failure last season at the goal line. We need to factor in that his diminishing skills & lack of explosiveness - most probably due to a combination of Father Time catching up with him & the phenominal amount of mileage alreay on his chassis - that saw him score exactly 4 TDs last year. That's getting a little too "skinny" for any HC.Jackson couldn't possibly be any worse than that.
 
The problem comes in whether Jackson produces in short yardage.  If he falters, I can see Faulk becoming what Marcus Allen was for a few years in KC.  The guy is small, but always ran even smaller - particularly at the goal line.  He's tough to get a solid hit on and get's "skinny" better than just about anyone to ever lace em up.  There's also the chance that he'll poach a few TDs on goalline playaction swing passes. 
I hate to be redundant, but Faulk was a miserable failure last season at the goal line. We need to factor in that his diminishing skills & lack of explosiveness - most probably due to a combination of Father Time catching up with him & the phenominal amount of mileage alreay on his chassis - that saw him score exactly 4 TDs last year. That's getting a little too "skinny" for any HC.Jackson couldn't possibly be any worse than that.
In Faulk's defense, there were few lines more dessimated last season. Pace as usual showed up late and out of shape (should be nice to see him ready before mid-October). Guards playing tackles after Turley went out, guards lured out of retirement, etc etc. I think the line has more to do with him not making a yard or two than diminished skills. Over the years chumps like Moe Williams, Brad Baxter and Tommy Vardell get in with NO skills. On the other hand, Fred Taylor has plenty of skill, but can't find the end zone with a GPS.Faulk definitely doesn't have quite the burst and the knee doesn't allow him to make the crazy cut anymore, but Marshall at 75% is as good as 1/2 the backs in the league. Plus this is the first season in 4-5 years that he actually comes in healthy.

 
I'm also not so sure I buy in to people's assertions of Faulk's "declining skills."  Yes, his numbers dropped from when he was Superman.  Yes, he had knee issues. Yes, he may have lost a step, but his numbers were still better than other many other RB.
Tell me if these numbers are declining or increasing:5.5, 5.4, 5.3, 4.5, 3.9, 4.0

12.0, 10.2, 9.2, 6.7, 6.4, 6.2

That is Faulk's YPC and YPR. I'd say that's declining. Just because his numbers were better than other RBs, or his totals were as good as his first few years in the league doesn't mean that his numbers haven't dropped the past few years.

Talent + System + Opportunity = Fantasy Football success. Jackson has the talent, is in the system, and just needs the opportunity. I think he'll get it, and thus I rank him highly. Often, having the talent and being in the system will open up the opportunity.
My point was that Faulk's numbers from his first four years made him a Top 5 - Top 10 RB. His numbers the past few seasons were essentially the same. He didn't rank in that range because he didn't play enough to do so.Yes, his numbers in the middle years were better. No one will dispute that. However, the question becomes is Jackson on par with Marshall Faulk in his prime. I would say no on general principles. Similarly, are the current Rams team on par with the Rams of Faulk's prime. Again, I would say no.

So IMO, there is a disconnect in comparing one of the best RBs to ever play the game playing on one of the most potent offenses to ever play the game against a potentially talented RB on a very good offensive team.

As for Faulk, his numbers declined as did the rest of the Rams' offensive numbers. So has the entire skill set of offense erroded like Marshall's has? Maybe he is the cause for the entire offensive to fall back to the rest of the league, but I don't think he is. The 2005 Rams are not the 2000 Rams.

To better explain this, let's say the Rams offense of the early Warner era rated a score of 100 on the productivity scale and Faulk production in that offense was also a 100. If we look at the 2005 Rams, I would suggest that they are still good but nowhere near as good as that the Rams teams from several years ago. Maybe they are 75% as good or as productive. (By comparison, the 2004 team scored 74% the fantasy points that the 2000 version did). Similarly, I don't see Jackson being close to Faulk in his prime, so maybe he's 75% as good. Combining those two factors again leads me to believe that comparing 2005 Jackson to 2000 Faulk is not a good comparison. Their are two "best evers" on one side of the ledger. I don't see how the combination of players and Jackson comes close to falling in the "best ever" category.

 
Sometimes, I think you (Yudkin) try to put numbers to stuff that you just can't put numbers to. To project Jackson's numbers by saying that the Rams are 75% as good as they were in 2000, and Jackson is 75% as good as Faulk, then Jackson is actually 9/16ths as good as Faulk was - that just doesn't seem to make sense. I think in this situation, you are tying the projections too heavily to the last three years, in which Faulk has been in severe decline, and the Rams haven't had a good #2. (Also, they haven't had quality #3 and #4 WRs) I'm not saying the Rams will be where they were in 1999 to 2001, but I think the RB production will be higher than the last few years.My totals for Jackson are: 304/1459/9 and 33/281/2 (4.8 YPC and 8.5 YPR) This is based on 16 games played. I think this is quite reasonable, although I can understand if you think the carries are a touch too high. These numbers are nowhere near Faulk's heyday, but they easily put Jackson into the top 15. There is still plenty of room for upside, as well.

 
Sometimes, I think you (Yudkin) try to put numbers to stuff that you just can't put numbers to. To project Jackson's numbers by saying that the Rams are 75% as good as they were in 2000, and Jackson is 75% as good as Faulk, then Jackson is actually 9/16ths as good as Faulk was - that just doesn't seem to make sense.

I think in this situation, you are tying the projections too heavily to the last three years, in which Faulk has been in severe decline, and the Rams haven't had a good #2. (Also, they haven't had quality #3 and #4 WRs) I'm not saying the Rams will be where they were in 1999 to 2001, but I think the RB production will be higher than the last few years.

My totals for Jackson are: 304/1459/9 and 33/281/2 (4.8 YPC and 8.5 YPR) This is based on 16 games played. I think this is quite reasonable, although I can understand if you think the carries are a touch too high. These numbers are nowhere near Faulk's heyday, but they easily put Jackson into the top 15. There is still plenty of room for upside, as well.
Rather than dance around this all day long, to summarize:Yudkin thinks the Rams are more pass oriented than ever before (especially with Martz still calling the shots) and their talent level is lower than it was several years ago. With Faulk in the picture to vulture a smallish workload to begin with, Yudkin sees Jackson as an average NFL RB for fantasy purposes (middle to bottom RB2).

Unlucky thinks the Rams will improve, the Rams will run more, and Faulk will play a very minor role in the offense. Jackson will lead the team to a better running attack and more running plays, making Jackson a Top 10 RB candidate.

Others may have even more varying opinions.

 
Faulk is calling his own shots here boys. Its not like Martz is sitting Marshall. Marshall is sitting Marshall.Be clear, it is less about how much skill he has left and more about how much (or little to none in this case) cartiledge he has left in his knees and how much he would like to walk as he gets older. Faulk wants S Jackson to the be the primary ball carrier and thus he will. Faulk will help the team and pad his stats a little and lengthen his career by a couple of years.This is, to me, blatantly obvious and all discussions about talent levels are just fluff. :popcorn:

 
Faulk is calling his own shots here boys. Its not like Martz is sitting Marshall. Marshall is sitting Marshall.

Be clear, it is less about how much skill he has left and more about how much (or little to none in this case) cartiledge he has left in his knees and how much he would like to walk as he gets older.

Faulk wants S Jackson to the be the primary ball carrier and thus he will. Faulk will help the team and pad his stats a little and lengthen his career by a couple of years.

This is, to me, blatantly obvious and all discussions about talent levels are just fluff.

:popcorn:
You're absolutely right. He says he's fine with being the backup, but does that sound like Faulk to you? Sure the guy doesn't have any knee cartilage left and is not as great a player as he was, but I don't buy it for a second that he's going to sit back and let Jackson take over 90% of the plays (or even close to that). It's been discussed a lot that the Rams have switched to FieldTurf and this is supposedly supposed to make Jackson stay healthier. It likely will, however, I also see it as potentially allowing Faulk to be rejuvenated since he won't be playing on that concrete surface anymore. Let's face it - the Rams will be a mostly passing team and who do you want in there on 3rd downs - Jackson or Faulk? As long as Faulk is healthy he'll get a majority of the 3rd downs and will take away about 100 carries. At best Jackson is looking at about 200 carries, which if you think he won't average 5 YPC again is not good.

 
Faulk is calling his own shots here boys. Its not like Martz is sitting Marshall. Marshall is sitting Marshall.

Be clear, it is less about how much skill he has left and more about how much (or little to none in this case) cartiledge he has left in his knees and how much he would like to walk as he gets older.

Faulk wants S Jackson to the be the primary ball carrier and thus he will. Faulk will help the team and pad his stats a little and lengthen his career by a couple of years.

This is, to me, blatantly obvious and all discussions about talent levels are just fluff.

:popcorn:
Umm, OK, then back to my question. What happens in the event that Jackson gets injured? Does Faulk back away yet again and let the 3rd option on the team take over? Seems to me that if Faulk was only concerned with his health (or as concerned as you imply), he would have contemplated this situation and realized that the only real option is to retire.
 
Faulk is calling his own shots here boys. Its not like Martz is sitting Marshall. Marshall is sitting Marshall.

Be clear, it is less about how much skill he has left and more about how much (or little to none in this case) cartiledge he has left in his knees and how much he would like to walk as he gets older. 

Faulk wants S Jackson to the be the primary ball carrier and thus he will. Faulk will help the team and pad his stats a little and lengthen his career by a couple of years.

This is, to me, blatantly obvious and all discussions about talent levels are just fluff.

:popcorn:
Umm, OK, then back to my question. What happens in the event that Jackson gets injured? Does Faulk back away yet again and let the 3rd option on the team take over? Seems to me that if Faulk was only concerned with his health (or as concerned as you imply), he would have contemplated this situation and realized that the only real option is to retire.
Surprisingly, I agree with jurb (that HAS to be a first). If Faulk didn't want to play he would have retired. Faulk reworked his contract but still gets a $2 million salary and got $2 million more in cash to lower his salary. Four million is a lot to pay a pure backup.And I don't think it's about the money. Faulk likely could have retired and gone into broadcasting and made a decent chunk of change.

I don't see "reduced role" equating to "clipboard holder on the sideline."

 
Surprisingly, I agree with jurb (that HAS to be a first). If Faulk didn't want to play he would have retired. Faulk reworked his contract but still gets a $2 million salary and got $2 million more in cash to lower his salary. Four million is a lot to pay a pure backup.

And I don't think it's about the money. Faulk likely could have retired and gone into broadcasting and made a decent chunk of change.

I don't see "reduced role" equating to "clipboard holder on the sideline."
:welcome: to the bright side David. :D
 
Surprisingly, I agree with jurb (that HAS to be a first).  If Faulk didn't want to play he would have retired.  Faulk reworked his contract but still gets a $2 million salary and got $2 million more in cash to lower his salary.  Four million is a lot to pay a pure backup.

And I don't think it's about the money.  Faulk likely could have retired and gone into broadcasting and made a decent chunk of change.

I don't see "reduced role" equating to "clipboard holder on the sideline."
:welcome: to the bright side David. :D
And if I told you I was warming up to Collins' prospects this year, you'd REALLY get a swelled head.
 
Surprisingly, I agree with jurb (that HAS to be a first). If Faulk didn't want to play he would have retired. Faulk reworked his contract but still gets a $2 million salary and got $2 million more in cash to lower his salary. Four million is a lot to pay a pure backup.

And I don't think it's about the money. Faulk likely could have retired and gone into broadcasting and made a decent chunk of change.

I don't see "reduced role" equating to "clipboard holder on the sideline."
:welcome: to the bright side David. :D
And if I told you I was warming up to Collins' prospects this year, you'd REALLY get a swelled head.
:o Actually, I may have to start questioning my feelings on him then. Something must be out of wack in the universe. :lol:
 
Sometimes, I think you (Yudkin) try to put numbers to stuff that you just can't put numbers to. To project Jackson's numbers by saying that the Rams are 75% as good as they were in 2000, and Jackson is 75% as good as Faulk, then Jackson is actually 9/16ths as good as Faulk was - that just doesn't seem to make sense.

I think in this situation, you are tying the projections too heavily to the last three years, in which Faulk has been in severe decline, and the Rams haven't had a good #2. (Also, they haven't had quality #3 and #4 WRs) I'm not saying the Rams will be where they were in 1999 to 2001, but I think the RB production will be higher than the last few years.

My totals for Jackson are: 304/1459/9 and 33/281/2 (4.8 YPC and 8.5 YPR) This is based on 16 games played. I think this is quite reasonable, although I can understand if you think the carries are a touch too high. These numbers are nowhere near Faulk's heyday, but they easily put Jackson into the top 15. There is still plenty of room for upside, as well.
Unlucky, you seem to be saying two things that i disagree with:1. Faulk's skills have declined such that he is no longer effective.

See my post on the first page. Before bruising his knee last season, his production was exactly on par with the production Jackson provided as the feature back in his absence. So it would seem that either Faulk's skills haven't declined as much as you think, or Jackson's production has not been impressive. Which is it? Or do you not agree with my premise for some reason?

2. Jackson is one of the most talented backs in the league AND will get the opportunity (304 carries) to show it.

As for his talent, I have a hard time seeing what everyone is so impressed about. He hasn't shown much yet. But perhaps he is as talented as you believe.

I have a hard time seeing him getting as much opportunity as you are projecting this year, between Faulk's presence and Martz's playcalling. Faulk never had more than 260 carries and you are projecting Jackson for 304... and Faulk never had a talented threat to his carries like Jackson has in Faulk himself.

 
Unlucky, you seem to be saying two things that i disagree with:

1. Faulk's skills have declined such that he is no longer effective.

See my post on the first page. Before bruising his knee last season, his production was exactly on par with the production Jackson provided as the feature back in his absence. So it would seem that either Faulk's skills haven't declined as much as you think, or Jackson's production has not been impressive. Which is it? Or do you not agree with my premise for some reason?

2. Jackson is one of the most talented backs in the league AND will get the opportunity (304 carries) to show it.

As for his talent, I have a hard time seeing what everyone is so impressed about. He hasn't shown much yet. But perhaps he is as talented as you believe.

I have a hard time seeing him getting as much opportunity as you are projecting this year, between Faulk's presence and Martz's playcalling. Faulk never had more than 260 carries and you are projecting Jackson for 304... and Faulk never had a talented threat to his carries like Jackson has in Faulk himself.
1. Faulk may still be somewhat effective, but I think Jackson is much more effective, so why would you play the less effective RB? Jackson's YPC and YPR was much higher than Faulk's. 2. Faulk played 16 games in only one of those seasons. In 2000 and 2001, he played 14 games an had 253 and 260 carries. With 16 games, he could have easily been around 300 carries. Also, Faulk caught an awful lot of passes. I don't project Jackson to catch that many, although I think he's good.

What I like about Jackson is his 5.0 YPC last year, and 9.9 YPR. Those are good numbers, and he wasn't just a 3rd down back that got a lot of draw plays.

I may be a little high on Jackson's carries. Perhaps something like 280 to 290 is more realistic. However, I really think STL will run more this year because of Jackson. I'm also writing off Faulk quite a bit more than others. I look at the talent, and I see that Jackson is a much better RB than Faulk right now. So, why would STL use Faulk as much as some are suggesting? I still have Faulk down for 85 carries and 35 receptions - I just don't see much more of role than that if Jackson is healthy.

This is one of those cases where I throw out some of the historic numbers and try to look at talent. I believe that often, the talented player makes the system, or at least refines it, and thus you have to change your outlook. Considering where Jackson is being drafted (late 2nd, usually early 3rd), I think he's a great value play with plenty of upside.

 
Unlucky, you seem to be saying two things that i disagree with:

1. Faulk's skills have declined such that he is no longer effective.

See my post on the first page. Before bruising his knee last season, his production was exactly on par with the production Jackson provided as the feature back in his absence. So it would seem that either Faulk's skills haven't declined as much as you think, or Jackson's production has not been impressive. Which is it? Or do you not agree with my premise for some reason?

2. Jackson is one of the most talented backs in the league AND will get the opportunity (304 carries) to show it.

As for his talent, I have a hard time seeing what everyone is so impressed about. He hasn't shown much yet. But perhaps he is as talented as you believe.

I have a hard time seeing him getting as much opportunity as you are projecting this year, between Faulk's presence and Martz's playcalling. Faulk never had more than 260 carries and you are projecting Jackson for 304... and Faulk never had a talented threat to his carries like Jackson has in Faulk himself.
1. Faulk may still be somewhat effective, but I think Jackson is much more effective, so why would you play the less effective RB? Jackson's YPC and YPR was much higher than Faulk's. 2. Faulk played 16 games in only one of those seasons. In 2000 and 2001, he played 14 games an had 253 and 260 carries. With 16 games, he could have easily been around 300 carries. Also, Faulk caught an awful lot of passes. I don't project Jackson to catch that many, although I think he's good.

What I like about Jackson is his 5.0 YPC last year, and 9.9 YPR. Those are good numbers, and he wasn't just a 3rd down back that got a lot of draw plays.

I may be a little high on Jackson's carries. Perhaps something like 280 to 290 is more realistic. However, I really think STL will run more this year because of Jackson. I'm also writing off Faulk quite a bit more than others. I look at the talent, and I see that Jackson is a much better RB than Faulk right now. So, why would STL use Faulk as much as some are suggesting? I still have Faulk down for 85 carries and 35 receptions - I just don't see much more of role than that if Jackson is healthy.

This is one of those cases where I throw out some of the historic numbers and try to look at talent. I believe that often, the talented player makes the system, or at least refines it, and thus you have to change your outlook. Considering where Jackson is being drafted (late 2nd, usually early 3rd), I think he's a great value play with plenty of upside.
Jackson does have talent, but not enough or the type of talent that a team changes its offensive philosphy around especially with a strong headed coach such as Martz calling the shots. IMO you have Faulk riding into the sunset a little too early.
 
Looking at last yrs NFL stats,1) Only one team had less rushing attempts2) Only three teams has less rushing TDs3) Only six teams had less rushing yards4) This has been the Rams offensive philosophy under Martz, except for TDs, numbers were worse in 035) Marshall Faulk is still there and will get some touchesedit for spelling

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unlucky -You are projecting Jackson with 304 carries and Faulk with 85. That adds up to 389 carries between them. While it certainly could happen, it would be going against the grain in terms of Martz' other Rams teams. With Martz as head coach, the Rams have ranked in the Bottom 10 in the league EVERY SEASON in team rushing attempts: 30, 28, 32, 22, and 26.In 6 seasons with Martz as a HC or OC, the Rams RB have totalled 352, 366, 298, 354, 332, and 388 carries (that last one being 1999). That adds up to 2,090 total carries, of which "other" RB had 214 of them (not the RB1 or RB2)--roughly 10% of the carries. If we allocated that extra 10% to "other RB, " essentially you would be giving the Rams 428 RB carries on the season--which has not come close to happening with Martz at the helm.Similarly, in 7 other seasons with Martz as a WR and QB coach with the Rams and Redskins, those teams did not come close to that many RB carries either.As for Jackson getting 304 carries, that works out to 19 carries per game on average. In 93 games with the Rams, Faulk had 20 carries in just 28 of them (30%).You also have Jackson projected with 300+ carries and a 4.8 ypc. That combination has happened only 20 times in NFL history (Sanders x 3, Campbell x 2, OJ x 2, Alexander, AGreen, Lewis, LT, Priest, RWilliams, TDavis, Hearst, Craig, Dickerson, Dorsett, OAnderson, Payton).Blend everything together, and I don't come to the same conclusion that you do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Faulk is calling his own shots here boys. Its not like Martz is sitting Marshall. Marshall is sitting Marshall.

Be clear, it is less about how much skill he has left and more about how much (or little to none in this case) cartiledge he has left in his knees and how much he would like to walk as he gets older.

Faulk wants S Jackson to the be the primary ball carrier and thus he will. Faulk will help the team and pad his stats a little and lengthen his career by a couple of years.

This is, to me, blatantly obvious and all discussions about talent levels are just fluff.

:popcorn:
Faulk isn't calling the shots.........Martz said in a press conference earlier in the year that Jackson will be the starter. If Faulk didn't want to compete/play he would have retired. Guys who compete at that level don't just step aside, they're where they are because of the competitive spirit combined with their God given ability in athletics.The question is: Is Steven Jackson a viable No.2 RB this year. I say yes. You guys are comparing Jackson and his upcoming year to when Marshall Faulk was the NO.1 back in the league.

Hell yes they've declined from that point in the running game. That doesn't mean Jackson won't put up 1000 yards and 7 td's.

Your Footballfriend

 
Unlucky -

You are projecting Jackson with 304 carries and Faulk with 85. That adds up to 389 carries between them. While it certainly could happen, it would be going against the grain in terms of Martz' other Rams teams. With Martz as head coach, the Rams have ranked in the Bottom 10 in the league EVERY SEASON in team rushing attempts: 30, 28, 32, 22, and 26.

In 6 seasons with Martz as a HC or OC, the Rams RB have totalled 352, 366, 298, 354, 332, and 388 carries (that last one being 1999). That adds up to 2,090 total carries, of which "other" RB had 214 of them (not the RB1 or RB2)--roughly 10% of the carries.

If we allocated that extra 10% to "other RB, " essentially you would be giving the Rams 428 RB carries on the season--which has not come close to happening with Martz at the helm.

Similarly, in 7 other seasons with Martz as a WR and QB coach with the Rams and Redskins, those teams did not come close to that many RB carries either.

As for Jackson getting 304 carries, that works out to 19 carries per game on average. In 93 games with the Rams, Faulk had 20 carries in just 28 of them (30%).

You also have Jackson projected with 300+ carries and a 4.8 ypc. That combination has happened only 20 times in NFL history (Sanders x 3, Campbell x 2, OJ x 2, Alexander, AGreen, Lewis, LT, Priest, RWilliams, TDavis, Hearst, Craig, Dickerson, Dorsett, OAnderson, Payton).

Blend everything together, and I don't come to the same conclusion that you do.
The title of the thread is about him being a viable NO.2 RB this year. In a 12 team league..........that means 13-24. Everyone of the FBG Experts in their REAL TIME RANKINGS have him falling at least within that range. Would you write a little about how do you differ in everyone else on the staff in this specific area?Your Footballfriend

 
Unlucky -

You are projecting Jackson with 304 carries and Faulk with 85.  That adds up to 389 carries between them.  While it certainly could happen, it would be going against the grain in terms of Martz' other Rams teams.  With Martz as head coach, the Rams have ranked in the Bottom 10 in the league EVERY SEASON in team rushing attempts: 30, 28, 32, 22, and 26.

In 6 seasons with Martz as a HC or OC, the Rams RB have totalled 352, 366, 298, 354, 332, and 388 carries (that last one being 1999).  That adds up to 2,090 total carries, of which "other" RB had 214 of them (not the RB1 or RB2)--roughly 10% of the carries. 

If we allocated that extra 10% to "other RB, " essentially you would be giving the Rams 428 RB carries on the season--which has not come close to happening with Martz at the helm.

Similarly, in 7 other seasons with Martz as a WR and QB coach with the Rams and Redskins, those teams did not come close to that many RB carries either.

As for Jackson getting 304 carries, that works out to 19 carries per game on average.  In 93 games with the Rams, Faulk had 20 carries in just 28 of them (30%).

You also have Jackson projected with 300+ carries and a 4.8 ypc.  That combination has happened only 20 times in NFL history (Sanders x 3, Campbell x 2, OJ x 2, Alexander, AGreen, Lewis, LT, Priest, RWilliams, TDavis, Hearst, Craig, Dickerson, Dorsett, OAnderson, Payton).

Blend everything together, and I don't come to the same conclusion that you do.
The title of the thread is about him being a viable NO.2 RB this year. In a 12 team league..........that means 13-24. Everyone of the FBG Experts in their REAL TIME RANKINGS have him falling at least within that range. Would you write a little about how do you differ in everyone else on the staff in this specific area?Your Footballfriend
There have been people in this thread suggesting Jackson in 2005 will be a Top 10 RB approaching Top 5 status. Should Jackson end the year ranked in the Top 24? Probably . . . but I think that his upside is really not much greater than RB18-20. If Jackson misses any time at all or if Faulk takes a bigger piece of the pie than many are thinking, Jackson WON'T rank in the Top 24.For argument's sake, let's say the breakdown of carries turns out to be: Jackson 200 carries, Faulk 100 carries, other guys 50. Let's also say he had 25 receptions on the season at 8.0 per reception

The Rams RB as a group only had 9 TD combined. It's just as easy to say that they don't improve as they do improve, so let's give him 6 TD.

200 carries x 4.5 = 900 rushing yards

25 x 8 = 200 yards

6 total TD

146 fantasy points on the season

Last year, 146 fantasy points would have ranked 27th. That, my friend, is how Jackson would not be a RB2. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but I see as much chance (or better) of what I outlined happening than Jackson ranking in the Top 10.

 
Unlucky -

You are projecting Jackson with 304 carries and Faulk with 85.  That adds up to 389 carries between them.  While it certainly could happen, it would be going against the grain in terms of Martz' other Rams teams.  With Martz as head coach, the Rams have ranked in the Bottom 10 in the league EVERY SEASON in team rushing attempts: 30, 28, 32, 22, and 26.

In 6 seasons with Martz as a HC or OC, the Rams RB have totalled 352, 366, 298, 354, 332, and 388 carries (that last one being 1999).  That adds up to 2,090 total carries, of which "other" RB had 214 of them (not the RB1 or RB2)--roughly 10% of the carries. 

If we allocated that extra 10% to "other RB, " essentially you would be giving the Rams 428 RB carries on the season--which has not come close to happening with Martz at the helm.

Similarly, in 7 other seasons with Martz as a WR and QB coach with the Rams and Redskins, those teams did not come close to that many RB carries either.

As for Jackson getting 304 carries, that works out to 19 carries per game on average.  In 93 games with the Rams, Faulk had 20 carries in just 28 of them (30%).

You also have Jackson projected with 300+ carries and a 4.8 ypc.  That combination has happened only 20 times in NFL history (Sanders x 3, Campbell x 2, OJ x 2, Alexander, AGreen, Lewis, LT, Priest, RWilliams, TDavis, Hearst, Craig, Dickerson, Dorsett, OAnderson, Payton).

Blend everything together, and I don't come to the same conclusion that you do.
The title of the thread is about him being a viable NO.2 RB this year. In a 12 team league..........that means 13-24. Everyone of the FBG Experts in their REAL TIME RANKINGS have him falling at least within that range. Would you write a little about how do you differ in everyone else on the staff in this specific area?Your Footballfriend
There have been people in this thread suggesting Jackson in 2005 will be a Top 10 RB approaching Top 5 status. Should Jackson end the year ranked in the Top 24? Probably . . . but I think that his upside is really not much greater than RB18-20. If Jackson misses any time at all or if Faulk takes a bigger piece of the pie than many are thinking, Jackson WON'T rank in the Top 24.For argument's sake, let's say the breakdown of carries turns out to be: Jackson 200 carries, Faulk 100 carries, other guys 50. Let's also say he had 25 receptions on the season at 8.0 per reception

The Rams RB as a group only had 9 TD combined. It's just as easy to say that they don't improve as they do improve, so let's give him 6 TD.

200 carries x 4.5 = 900 rushing yards

25 x 8 = 200 yards

6 total TD

146 fantasy points on the season

Last year, 146 fantasy points would have ranked 27th. That, my friend, is how Jackson would not be a RB2. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but I see as much chance (or better) of what I outlined happening than Jackson ranking in the Top 10.
Well, the reason I asked you is because I knew you'd have an answer. You know, I just don't think he's only going to have 200 carries. I agree with you he's not going to be 330 or anything like that, but he should have around 250 and I see him falling around 14-19 at RB this season. A viable NO.2 RB which is the title of the thread.

 
This has been an excellent thread with many intelligent views, thoughts & opinions being expressed.

Some of the points that kind of leapt out at me;

Their schedule is very favorable......
Always important to look at what D's and their relative strength, a RB is going to be facing.Quite a few posters have expressed missgivings / concerns about Jackson potentially being pulled at the Goal Line in favor of Faulk.

Faulk vs Jackson last season inside the 10 & inside the 5:

Inside the 10:

Faulk  17 carries, 0.24 ypc, FD every 5.7 carries, TD every 5.7 carries

Jackson 14 carries, 2.0 ypc, FD every 2.8 carries, TD every 4.7 carries

Inside the 5:

Faulk 13 carries, 0.46 ypc, TD every 4.3 carries

Jackson 7 carries, 1.86 ypc, TD every 2.3 carries

Jackson was clearly more prolific last year, and Faulk was actually miserable.  That 0.24 ypc is not a misprint, nor is the 0.46 ypc.
Further evidence
Marshall Faulk:

2nd and short (0-2) 13 carries 13 yards 1.0 YPC 1 reception 7 yards 7 YPR

3/4 and short (0-2) 22 carries 43 yards 1.9 YPC 0 receptions 0 yards

OPP 5 to G             13 carries  6 yards 0.5 YPC 3 TD 1 reception 0 yards 0 TD

Steve Jackson:

2nd and short (0-2) 18 carries 125 yards 6.9 YPC 1 reception 0 yards

3/4 and short (0-2) 10 carries  27 yards 2.7 YPC 0 recptions 0 yards

Opp 5 to G             7 carries    13 yards 1.9 YPC 3 TD 0 receptions 0 yards

While Marshall may have received more goal line work last year in terms of number of touches, he was less effective (13 carries for 3 TD vs 7 carries for 3 TD for Jackson). Also, his short yardage ability paled in comparison to Steve Jackson.
Last year I had both Faulk & Jackson on my fantasy team, so I watched every Rams game I could. I can cooreberate from first hand observations, that by far and away, Faulk was the less effective Goal Line back. It was painful to watch really. The once almost unstoppable force of Faulk at the Goal Line, was merely a pale shadow of himself. I seriously doubt that when the Rams are inside the 10 and Martz decides he wants to punch it in on the ground, Jackson gets pulled in favor Faulk.
To compare Faulk to HIMSELF:

In his first 4 years in the NFL (when one would suppose he had all his skills intact):

17.4 carries, 65.6 rushing yards, 3.4 receptions, 31 receiving yards, 0.67 TD per game.  20.8 touches, 96.6 total yards, 13.6 fantasy points per game with a 3.75 ypc.

In his past 3 seasons:

15.8 carries, 65.3 rushing yards, 4.5 receptions, 29.2 receiving yards, 0.64 TD per game.  20.3 touches, 94.5 total yards, 13.3 fantasy points per game with a 4.13 ypc.

Basically, Faulk's numbers his past 3 seasons were essentially THE SAME when compared to his first 4 years in the league.  Would anyone suggest that he was a bum his first 4 years?
I realize I'm using a quote from Yudkin, who is actually debating more to Jackson's downside, than his upside, but I think this piece of information is highly telling. Having paid close attention to Faulk's game the last couple of seasons, there's no doubt that his skills have significantly diminished compared to his early days. Yet as Yudkin has pointed out with the above, an older and honestly less effective Faulk, is still producing at the level of his first years in the League. How is this possible? How can a RB who is now several years removed from his early days, where Father Time and injuries have robbed the RB of his initial burst and cut back ability, still be producing at the same level he was? There's really only one answer. The offensive system that the RB is now in, is an excellent offensive system for RB's.
And as far as "incapable" backups go, Arlen Harris stepped in one week for 96 yards and 3 TDs.  Gordon twice had back-to-back weeks with 90-100 yards and a TD.  Canidate had over 500 yards and 4 TD filling in for 3 weeks.  Even future HOFer Justin Watson filled in for a week and had over 100 yards.  One game Robert Holcombe filled in and put up 100 yards.
The above only further serves to solidify the fact that the Rams offense is very RB friendly. If those wanna be RB's were able to put up those types of numbers, I'm absolutely salivating at Steven Jacksons prospects in this offense with his increased role.All of the above point to Jackson being an excellent #2 RB and quite possibly a #1 RB for a fantasy team.

Now for the negatives.

If the Rams under Martz post winning records, the RBs rush for a lot of TDs.  If they have a .500 record or worse, they have single digit rushing TDs.
Over the past three years, the Rams ranked #1 with a 63.3%/36.7% pass play-to- run play ratio.  In reverse, that means they have called the lowest % of running plays out of any team in the league.  In fact, they have run the ball the least (total number of rushes) of all NFL teams in that time.

People can try to add spices and seasoning all they want, but the botom line is the Rams have not utilized their ground game very much in favor for a high octane passing attack.  Until that changes, Jaxson's numbers will suffer because of it.
I am concerned about the number of touches Jackson will get, both because of Martz's pass first game plan, and the presence of Faulk.
Does Martz know how to use a Steven Jackson?
As long as Faulk is playing expect Jackson to get less touches
Essentially the negatives are; (1)Will the Rams have a .500+ record?

(2)Faulk still being there.

(3)Mad Mike Martz's play calling.

We can easily summarize the above into three words, in relation to Jackson.

NUMBER OF CARRIES

That's it in a nut shell.

If you believe Faulk is going to seriously erode Jackson's carries (30%+) combined with a losing season and Mad Mike Martz failing to properly utilize his running game, Jackson is not for you.

However, if you believe Faulk will not eat into Jackson's carries as much (20%-), the Rams will have a winning season and Mad Mike Martz properly utilizes his running game, Jackson is your man.

Personally, I am seriously leaning towards the latter. I honestly believe Martz utilized the ground game less than he normally would've, because of Faulk's declining skill set. I think this year Martz will incorporate the running game into his game plan more so than he has in recent years because of Steven Jackson. I do not see Faulk cutting into Jackson's carries as much as some fear. It's the passing game where Faulk will eat into Jackon's touches. I'm definitely not worried about Faulk as a Goal Line vulture to Jackson. As I said earlier in this post, I watched as many Rams games as I could last year and Faulk is a shadow of himself. He's lost his initial burst and can no longer cut the way he once used to, which is what made him money at the Goal Line in years gone by. Steven Jackson is clearly the better Goal Line option now and whatever you want to say about Martz, he is no fool. He will use the best tool to get the job done, as far as the running game is concerned when at the Goal Line.

Edit: For typos

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you believe Faulk is going to seriously erode Jackson's carries (30%+) combined with a losing season and Mad Mike Martz failing to properly utilize his running game, Jackson is not for you.

However, if you believe Faulk will not eat into Jackson's carries as much (20%-), the Rams will have a winning season and Mad Mike Martz properly utilizes his running game, Jackson is your man.

Persomally, I am seriously leaning towards the latter. I honestly believe Martz utilized the ground game less than he normally would've, because of Faulk's declining skill set. I think this year Martz will incorporate the running game into his game plan more so than he has in recent years because of Steven Jackson. I do not see Faulk cutting into Jackson's carries as much as some fear. It's the passing game where Faulk will eat into Jackon's touches. I'm definitely not worried about Faulk as a Goal Line vulture to Jackson. As I said earlier in this post, I watched as many Rams games as I could last year and Faulk is a shadow of himself. He's lost his initial burst and can no longer cut the way he once used to, which is what made him money at the Goal Line in years gone by. Steven Jackson was clearly the better Goal Line option now.
All in all a very good post, however, I did want to point out a couple things that may have been overlooked.BOLDED SECTION #1: Martz has NEVER used the RB position to the level that some are suggesting. Martz can't "return" to using the running game more--he hasn't been there to go back to.

BOLDED SECTION #2: With a defense projected to be worse than almost every other team in the league and the Rams already leading the league in pass %, I don't see how this will lead to more rushing attempts.

As for the numbers I cited for replacement RB doing well, they did well WHEN THEY GOT THE BALL. That's the REAL question here: WILL MIKE MARTZ ELECT TO RUN THE FOOTBALL.

Yes, the Rams (ie Faulk) had some monster years based on three factors: 1) Faulk aveaging 5.4 ypc, 2) Faulk scoring 20 TD, 3) Faulk averaging 85 receptions and 900 receiving yards. I don't see Jackson putting up any of those. (This is not to say that I think Jackson will bomb, but I don't see him (or anyone else) putting up Faulk-like numbers.

Overall, WE ALL know that the Rams SHOULD run more. My azalea bush fully realizes this and informed me as such. Unfortunately, Mike Martz does not understand and comprehend this, and he's the only one that has a vote!

Again, I am not knocking Jackson, I am knocking the coaching staff and the play calling.

 
#1: Martz has NEVER used the RB position to the level that some are suggesting.  Martz can't "return" to using the running game more--he hasn't been there to go back to.
Yudkin, I think you've put your own interpretation on what I wrote and come to the wrong conclusion, in regards to what I was trying to say.

Probably it's because I was not very clear in making my point.

Sorry 'bout that. :blush:

I did not say "I honestly believe Martz utilized the ground game less than he used to, because of Faulk's declining skill set.".....

However, I did say this;

I honestly believe Martz utilized the ground game less than he normally would've, because of Faulk's declining skill set.
Nowhere am I saying Martz will now return to using the RB position like he used to, because as you've correctly pointed out...that would be impossible.What I am saying is that I think with a far more effective RB now in place, Martz will, in all probability, use the RB position more so than he has previously.

I do not profess to be privy to Martz's inner thoughts, however it would not surprise me in the least, if I were to learn that Martz did not utilize the RB position as much as he would've liked to, due to Faulk's declining abilities.

*Note*

I have absolutely no supporting evidence for this. No Links, No Quotes.

This is plain and simply conjecture / supposition, based on my personal observations of the Rams & Faulk, since Martz took over as Head Coach.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unlucky -

You are projecting Jackson with 304 carries and Faulk with 85. That adds up to 389 carries between them. While it certainly could happen, it would be going against the grain in terms of Martz' other Rams teams. With Martz as head coach, the Rams have ranked in the Bottom 10 in the league EVERY SEASON in team rushing attempts: 30, 28, 32, 22, and 26.

In 6 seasons with Martz as a HC or OC, the Rams RB have totalled 352, 366, 298, 354, 332, and 388 carries (that last one being 1999). That adds up to 2,090 total carries, of which "other" RB had 214 of them (not the RB1 or RB2)--roughly 10% of the carries.

If we allocated that extra 10% to "other RB, " essentially you would be giving the Rams 428 RB carries on the season--which has not come close to happening with Martz at the helm.

Similarly, in 7 other seasons with Martz as a WR and QB coach with the Rams and Redskins, those teams did not come close to that many RB carries either.

As for Jackson getting 304 carries, that works out to 19 carries per game on average. In 93 games with the Rams, Faulk had 20 carries in just 28 of them (30%).

You also have Jackson projected with 300+ carries and a 4.8 ypc. That combination has happened only 20 times in NFL history (Sanders x 3, Campbell x 2, OJ x 2, Alexander, AGreen, Lewis, LT, Priest, RWilliams, TDavis, Hearst, Craig, Dickerson, Dorsett, OAnderson, Payton).

Blend everything together, and I don't come to the same conclusion that you do.
The title of the thread is about him being a viable NO.2 RB this year. In a 12 team league..........that means 13-24. Everyone of the FBG Experts in their REAL TIME RANKINGS have him falling at least within that range. Would you write a little about how do you differ in everyone else on the staff in this specific area?Your Footballfriend
There have been people in this thread suggesting Jackson in 2005 will be a Top 10 RB approaching Top 5 status. Should Jackson end the year ranked in the Top 24? Probably . . . but I think that his upside is really not much greater than RB18-20. If Jackson misses any time at all or if Faulk takes a bigger piece of the pie than many are thinking, Jackson WON'T rank in the Top 24.For argument's sake, let's say the breakdown of carries turns out to be: Jackson 200 carries, Faulk 100 carries, other guys 50. Let's also say he had 25 receptions on the season at 8.0 per reception

The Rams RB as a group only had 9 TD combined. It's just as easy to say that they don't improve as they do improve, so let's give him 6 TD.

200 carries x 4.5 = 900 rushing yards

25 x 8 = 200 yards

6 total TD

146 fantasy points on the season

Last year, 146 fantasy points would have ranked 27th. That, my friend, is how Jackson would not be a RB2. I'm not saying this is what will happen, but I see as much chance (or better) of what I outlined happening than Jackson ranking in the Top 10.
Let's give Martz the benefit of the doubt and assume that he'll run more now that he has Jackson and runs it 350 times between Jackson and Faulk, with 250 to Jackson and 100 to Faulk, and gets 10 TD's. I would consider this his upside:250 carries x 4.5 = 1125 rushing yards

25 x 8 = 200 yards

10 total TD

192 fantasy points on the season

That still leaves him at RB20 (just about where FBG has him). I just don't see how he could do much better than that. I'm probably in a minority, but I would rather have Barlow, Dunn, and maybe even Bennett over Jackson.

 
#1: Martz has NEVER used the RB position to the level that some are suggesting.  Martz can't "return" to using the running game more--he hasn't been there to go back to.
Yudkin, I think you've put your own interpretation on what I wrote and come to the wrong conclusion, in regards to what I was trying to say.

Probably it's because I was not very clear in making my point.

Sorry 'bout that. :blush:

I did not say "I honestly believe Martz utilized the ground game less than he used to, because of Faulk's declining skill set.".....

However, I did say this;

I honestly believe Martz utilized the ground game less than he normally would've, because of Faulk's declining skill set.
Nowhere am I saying Martz will now return to using the RB position like he used to, because as you've correctly pointed out...that would be impossible.What I am saying is that I think with a far more effective RB now in place, Martz will, in all probability, use the RB position more so than he has previously.

I do not profess to be privy to Martz's inner thoughts, however it would not surprise me in the least, if I were to learn that Martz did not utilize the RB position as much as he would've liked to, due to Faulk's declining abilities.

*Note*

I have absolutely no supporting evidence for this. No Links, No Quotes.

This is plain and simply conjecture / supposition, based on my personal observations of the Rams & Faulk, since Martz took over as Head Coach.
We've pretty much beat this horse to death at this point, but I am curious as to why Martz would use Jackson more than he used Faulk in his prime. Add in that at the very least Faulk will have been their best RB2 that they've had in the Martz era, I really don't see Jackson getting more carries per game than Faulk used to get when he was Superman, and Faulk has averaged around 16 carries per game.In 6 years, the Rams top 2 Rams RB have averaged 312 carries combined per year. That's 19.5 per game. How many carries is reasonable for Faulk to get? I'm guessing 6-8 carries a game or why on earth would he bother coming back. If we call it 7, that's 112 carries for Faulk. That leaves 12.5 for Jackson or 200 on the season in an average season. Are 7 carries per game for Faulk too many to expect?

 
Unlucky, you seem to be saying two things that i disagree with:

1. Faulk's skills have declined such that he is no longer effective.

See my post on the first page.  Before bruising his knee last season, his production was exactly on par with the production Jackson provided as the feature back in his absence.  So it would seem that either Faulk's skills haven't declined as much as you think, or Jackson's production has not been impressive.  Which is it?  Or do you not agree with my premise for some reason?

2. Jackson is one of the most talented backs in the league AND will get the opportunity (304 carries) to show it.

As for his talent, I have a hard time seeing what everyone is so impressed about.  He hasn't shown much yet.  But perhaps he is as talented as you believe.

I have a hard time seeing him getting as much opportunity as you are projecting this year, between Faulk's presence and Martz's playcalling.  Faulk never had more than 260 carries and you are projecting Jackson for 304... and Faulk never had a talented threat to his carries like Jackson has in Faulk himself.
1. Faulk may still be somewhat effective, but I think Jackson is much more effective, so why would you play the less effective RB? Jackson's YPC and YPR was much higher than Faulk's. 2. Faulk played 16 games in only one of those seasons. In 2000 and 2001, he played 14 games an had 253 and 260 carries. With 16 games, he could have easily been around 300 carries. Also, Faulk caught an awful lot of passes. I don't project Jackson to catch that many, although I think he's good.

What I like about Jackson is his 5.0 YPC last year, and 9.9 YPR. Those are good numbers, and he wasn't just a 3rd down back that got a lot of draw plays.

I may be a little high on Jackson's carries. Perhaps something like 280 to 290 is more realistic. However, I really think STL will run more this year because of Jackson. I'm also writing off Faulk quite a bit more than others. I look at the talent, and I see that Jackson is a much better RB than Faulk right now. So, why would STL use Faulk as much as some are suggesting? I still have Faulk down for 85 carries and 35 receptions - I just don't see much more of role than that if Jackson is healthy.

This is one of those cases where I throw out some of the historic numbers and try to look at talent. I believe that often, the talented player makes the system, or at least refines it, and thus you have to change your outlook. Considering where Jackson is being drafted (late 2nd, usually early 3rd), I think he's a great value play with plenty of upside.
I understand that you are to an extent abandoning the numbers, and I realize that I have a hard time doing that sometimes, so I could definitely be underestimating Jackson, or, more accurately, Martz.However, I can see from the numbers that Faulk has played 93 games for the Rams and has averaged 16.53 carries per game during that span, despite averaging 4.7 ypc. The best season he had was 260 carries in 14 games, or 18.6 carries per game... which scales to 297 carries in 16 games. In 6 seasons with the Rams, he had 3 seasons of 18-19 carries per game and 3 seasons with less than 16 carries per game. IMO you are making quite a leap to reach 300+ carries.

I agree that Jackson has talent. But do you think he is more talented than Faulk was for the majority of his tenure in St. Louis? Every time I saw the Rams on MNF for most of that time, there was the statistic discussed that the Rams were undefeated when Faulk got 20 carries. And he was universally recognized as one of the few best backs in football for most of that time... yet he never got that many carries. So why will talent win out for Jackson when it didn't with Faulk?

I guess you're saying that Faulk got catches instead of carries, and those catches will be shifted to carries for Jackson. I'm having a hard time buying that. Maybe if Faulk wasn't still there... but he is.

As for your Faulk projections. 85 carries is 6 carries per game in 14 games, which is probably a reasonable number of games to project for Faulk since that is how many he played in 4 of his 6 seasons with the Rams. I think Jackson will have to stay healthy and productive for all 16 games to keep Faulk that low, but it is possible. However, if Faulk has 2 games of double figure carries, that number will likely end up low. And if Faulk manages to play 16 games since he is no longer carrying the load, it will also likely be low. Personally, if I project everyone at 16 games, I can't see less than 100 carries for Faulk.

By the way, you mentioned Jackson's outstanding ypc last season. Consider that Faulk averaged 4.75 ypc before he got hurt, and during that time, in spot play, Jackson averaged 5.22. Then once Faulk got hurt, Jackson finished the season by averaging 4.87 ypc.

What exactly makes Jackson's 4.87 ypc as the main back so much more impressive than Faulk's 4.75 when he was the main back? Or is it just that you expect Faulk to get hurt again and thus to not be as effective as he was when healthy last season? If so, I think you're arguing less about Jackson's talent and more about Faulk's durability (or lack thereof).

Now on to your projection of 35 catches for Faulk. How many games are you projecting him to play? Last season, he missed 2 games and played hurt in others and still had 50 catches. The prior season he played only 11 games and had 45, his career low.

Now it seems likely he will be healthier and fresher when on the field. He may be the third down back or at least play a lot in obvious passing situations. He may line up in the slot. I really can't see him getting only 35 catches. If you project him at 16 games, I don't see how you can project less than 50, which would still be a career low rate for him.

Now, do those extra 15+ catches come from Jackson? Maybe you feel they will come from someone else if at all. But you are projecting Jackson to go from 19 catches to 33, so they could come almost exactly from him in your projections.

All of this said, I think Jackson will finish somewhere in the 18-24 range... I don't expect the spread to be very large there. So he will be a somewhat below average RB2 IMO.

 
I am curious as to why Martz would use Jackson more than he used Faulk in his prime.
Actually Vermiel had Faulk in his prime, not Martz. By the time Martz got the Head Coaching position, Faulk was beginning to have his kneee issues and it's been all downhill since.

 
I am curious as to why Martz would use Jackson more than he used Faulk in his prime.
Actually Vermiel had Faulk in his prime, not Martz. By the time Martz got the Head Coaching position, Faulk was beginning to have his kneee issues and it's been all downhill since.
Vermeil only had one season with Faulk (1999), and it's been Martz ever since.Fantasy Points Scored:

1999: 315 (Vermeil)

2000: 375 (Martz)

2001: 341 (Martz)

 
Not much left to be said. I think we can all agree that if just one RB was healthy and played all year in STL, they'd be a very good fantasy RB, likely in the top 10. I think Jackson will get most of the workload - enough to be ranked between #10 and #12. Others think Faulk will take away too many touches, and thus Jackson should be in the #20 range. Whether I'm right or I'm wrong, I can still draft Jackson very late in the 2nd or early 3rd. If I'm wrong, I likely still have a player that meets his draft spot. If I'm right, I have a player that will exceed his draft position and be a key contributor.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top