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 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)
:own3d:
 
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.
You are right. :thumbup: Seems a case of overanalysis to me. And it only took 3 pages for someone to come up with that. :D
 
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)
You're right, I apperciate the correction. Martz indeed had a top flight injury free Faulk for 2000 & 2001.In 2000 Martz used Faulk predominantly. Faulk set an NFL record in 2000 with 26 touchdowns, including 18 on the ground. He led the NFC with 2,189 combined yards, went to his fifth Pro Bowl, and was named the NFL’s Most Valuable Player.

The story I've heard after 2000 ended, is that in the off season Faulk reviewed his performance and worked on what he determined was his biggest weakness. He felt he needed to be more precise in his patterns, and run them like a wide receiver would. His focus in the spring and summer of 2001 was his pass routes.

Martz used the 2001 version of Faulk more often on the outside, to exploit coverage mismatches against linebackers or safeties. Faulk still ran for nearly 1,400 yards—averaging more than five yards a carry—but his off season dedication to improving his passing game paid big dividends when he caught 83 passes, including a career-high nine for touchdowns.

It was 2002 when the wheels started to come off for Faulk.

He registered career lows in starts (10) and carries, and for the first time in four seasons, his rushing average dipped below five yards and has been declining since.

How the above history relates to Jackson will be quite different, in that he is much more of a North/South banger type runner than Faulk ever was.

I honestly don't think Faulk will figure in the run game as much as most seem to. But, will Martz know how to use Jackson effectively, since his skill set is so much more different than Faulk's? I think Martz will. Even more importantly will Martz figure out he needs to call the run more often?

As you yourself said Yudkin;

Overall, WE ALL know that the Rams SHOULD run more. My azalea bush fully realizes this and informed me as such.
(I loved this line and was dying for the chance to quote it :lmao: )But then you had to go and ruin it by saying this

Unfortunately, Mike Martz does not understand and comprehend this, and he's the only one that has a vote!
Personally, I think that this is the year when Martz finally reaches the intelligence level of your azalea bush David.
 
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.
C'mon. Faulk averaged 9 inches a carry inside the 10 last season. Jackson averaged 8 times that with the same line in the same situation. Now, to give Faulk some credit, inside the 5 he did crank it up to about 18 inches a carry.Please don't tell me that a RB in the NFL that has any kind of superior skills at all can't do better than that. This is just outright excuse making.
 
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. 
C'mon. Faulk averaged 9 inches a carry inside the 10 last season. Jackson averaged 8 times that with the same line in the same situation. Now, to give Faulk some credit, inside the 5 he did crank it up to about 18 inches a carry.Please don't tell me that a RB in the NFL that has any kind of superior skills at all can't do better than that. This is just outright excuse making.
:yawn: You're absolutely right, one of the greatest to ever play the game has lost it completely and I can't imagine why he is still in the league with such incredible double-digit annual TD machines like say, Curtis Martin and Tiki Barber. Get over yourself, Junior.
 
:yawn: You're absolutely right, one of the greatest to ever play the game has lost it completely and I can't imagine why he is still in the league with such incredible double-digit annual TD machines like say, Curtis Martin and Tiki Barber. Get over yourself, Junior.
Get over myself? Doesn't 0.25 ypc mean anything to you? I posted those numbers earlier in this thread. That's what Faulk averaged inside the 10.So, since you want to call me out on this, please explain how Faulk can put up such putrid numbers down deep while Jackson did so much better on the same team in the same situation.

Junior

 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2. I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. I use to see the risks with Jackson as 1) slightly above average injury threat2) potentially losing touches to Faulk3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.

 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2. I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy.

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
If 2 is fading fast, do you mind posting how many carries and receptions you now expect from both Jackson & Faulk?I think projections are particularly helpful here... not saying or expecting that you would do this, joffer, but I think some people make statements that sound right to them at face value without thinking through the numbers. If you try to predict how many carries & catches Faulk will have, it can help to define an upper bound on Jackson IMO.

 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2. I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy.

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
Given this new revised outlook, I would probably alter my opinion on S-Jax to earn back his draft position (which I had some serious reservations about previously). I still think fantasy teams could do much better at RB, and based on who else has been available with Jackson at the same point he's been going I'm still not sure I will call his name.In a draft I am in right now, Jackson was selected BEFORE AGreen, Westbrook, Lewis, Martin, and Jordan. I doubt I would have taken him before those guys.

 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2.  I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. 

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
Given this new revised outlook, I would probably alter my opinion on S-Jax to earn back his draft position (which I had some serious reservations about previously). I still think fantasy teams could do much better at RB, and based on who else has been available with Jackson at the same point he's been going I'm still not sure I will call his name.In a draft I am in right now, Jackson was selected BEFORE AGreen, Westbrook, Lewis, Martin, and Jordan. I doubt I would have taken him before those guys.
before Green, Lewis and Martin is ridiculous. I am down on Westy so, while I think it's an odd thing to do, I can see that. I have Jackson and Jordan ranked pretty equal, and I believe they represent an equal risk as well.
 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2.  I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. 

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
Given this new revised outlook, I would probably alter my opinion on S-Jax to earn back his draft position (which I had some serious reservations about previously). I still think fantasy teams could do much better at RB, and based on who else has been available with Jackson at the same point he's been going I'm still not sure I will call his name.In a draft I am in right now, Jackson was selected BEFORE AGreen, Westbrook, Lewis, Martin, and Jordan. I doubt I would have taken him before those guys.
Funny you mention that. I've faced the Jackson decision in mock drafts and I always get that old sinking feeling (you know the one - "damn all the good guys be taken!) at the end of the second round as RBs continue flying off the board. A few times its ended up being Jackson at my position and it just "seems" like a drop-off immediately upon reaching him (this is probably a great indicator that I'll be wrong in passing him up as he goes off for 1600 yards this season :rolleyes: ). Living in St. Louis with a bunch of homers, my drafts will likely see Jackson go somewhere around #14-17, so I may not have to worry about it.

 
Last edited:
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2.  I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. 

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
If 2 is fading fast, do you mind posting how many carries and receptions you now expect from both Jackson & Faulk?
absolutelyJackson - 275/1200/8, 26/234/1, RB16 (no ppr)

Faulk - 110/450/3, 33/254/1

 
absolutely

Jackson - 275/1200/8, 26/234/1, RB16 (no ppr)

Faulk - 110/450/3, 33/254/1
2004 Rams total rushing stats from pro-football-reference.com:381 carries

1624 yards

4.26 ypa

11 TD

Looks like your projection does not allow for any other Ram to rush with the ball, unless you feel the Rams will run a lot more this season....

 
absolutely

Jackson - 275/1200/8, 26/234/1, RB16 (no ppr)

Faulk - 110/450/3, 33/254/1
2004 Rams total rushing stats from pro-football-reference.com:381 carries

1624 yards

4.26 ypa

11 TD

Looks like your projection does not allow for any other Ram to rush with the ball, unless you feel the Rams will run a lot more this season....
a slight increase in rushing, maybe 400 carries total. But nothing significant from any other RB.
 
How are the Jackson lovers incorporating the OLine situation into the equation? Or, are you thinking that he is SO GOOD that it will not matter?

 
absolutely

Jackson - 275/1200/8, 26/234/1, RB16 (no ppr)

Faulk - 110/450/3, 33/254/1
2004 Rams total rushing stats from pro-football-reference.com:381 carries

1624 yards

4.26 ypa

11 TD

Looks like your projection does not allow for any other Ram to rush with the ball, unless you feel the Rams will run a lot more this season....
a slight increase in rushing, maybe 400 carries total. But nothing significant from any other RB.
Makes sense, only twenty something carries went to other RB last year anyway...I do think Faulk will have more receptions than SJax, too.
 
absolutely

Jackson - 275/1200/8, 26/234/1, RB16 (no ppr)

Faulk - 110/450/3, 33/254/1
2004 Rams total rushing stats from pro-football-reference.com:381 carries

1624 yards

4.26 ypa

11 TD

Looks like your projection does not allow for any other Ram to rush with the ball, unless you feel the Rams will run a lot more this season....
a slight increase in rushing, maybe 400 carries total. But nothing significant from any other RB.
Makes sense, only twenty something carries went to other RB last year anyway...I do think Faulk will have more receptions than SJax, too.
Don't forget that Bulger has had 20-30 carries a year as well.
 
How are the Jackson lovers incorporating the OLine situation into the equation? Or, are you thinking that he is SO GOOD that it will not matter?
I think it would affect Faulk more than Jackson, but hopefully the line comes along as the season goes by. Considering the overall ypc for Jackson in limited work, I think he'll be ok. With the Rams offense and 3-4 receiver packages, its pretty hard for a defense to sell out to stop the run.
 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2.  I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. 

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
If 2 is fading fast, do you mind posting how many carries and receptions you now expect from both Jackson & Faulk?
absolutelyJackson - 275/1200/8, 26/234/1, RB16 (no ppr)

Faulk - 110/450/3, 33/254/1
Thanks, I think those numbers look fairly reasonable for Jackson, assuming 16 games of course. It is worth noting that, even when he was the best RB in football, Faulk never got more than 260 carries. But the caveats are that (a) he always missed a couple of games, so projecting that to 16 games is in the same ballpark, and (b) Jackson may get a few more carries where Faulk would have gotten catches.The only thing I think you are off on is Faulk's receptions. Last season, he had 50 despite missing 2 games and playing hurt in a few others. His career low is 45, and he only played 11 games in that season. Now they are potentially talking about using him in the slot, split out, and as the third down back.

Perhaps you are projecting him to miss some games, but then I would think your rushing attempts would be lower... so if you're projecting 16 games, I think you are low.

 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2.  I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. 

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
Given this new revised outlook, I would probably alter my opinion on S-Jax to earn back his draft position (which I had some serious reservations about previously). I still think fantasy teams could do much better at RB, and based on who else has been available with Jackson at the same point he's been going I'm still not sure I will call his name.In a draft I am in right now, Jackson was selected BEFORE AGreen, Westbrook, Lewis, Martin, and Jordan. I doubt I would have taken him before those guys.
before Green, Lewis and Martin is ridiculous. I am down on Westy so, while I think it's an odd thing to do, I can see that. I have Jackson and Jordan ranked pretty equal, and I believe they represent an equal risk as well.
... then that damages your credibility as far as I'm concerned.In a PPR league Westbrook is a top 10 back. And he's been so with and without TO

 
I'm warming up to Jackson, he's slowly inching up my rankings to a strong RB2.  I generally like to listen to what John Clayton has to say from his training camp reports, and he can't stop gushing about this guy. 

I use to see the risks with Jackson as

1) slightly above average injury threat

2) potentially losing touches to Faulk

3) pass-happy idiot for a coach.

1 and 3 are still there, 2 is fading fast.
Given this new revised outlook, I would probably alter my opinion on S-Jax to earn back his draft position (which I had some serious reservations about previously). I still think fantasy teams could do much better at RB, and based on who else has been available with Jackson at the same point he's been going I'm still not sure I will call his name.In a draft I am in right now, Jackson was selected BEFORE AGreen, Westbrook, Lewis, Martin, and Jordan. I doubt I would have taken him before those guys.
before Green, Lewis and Martin is ridiculous. I am down on Westy so, while I think it's an odd thing to do, I can see that. I have Jackson and Jordan ranked pretty equal, and I believe they represent an equal risk as well.
... then that damages your credibility as far as I'm concerned.In a PPR league Westbrook is a top 10 back. And he's been so with and without TO
sorry that you feel I am damaged goods. It jsut so happens that I don't play in any PPR leagues. Does that help my street cred?
 
I dont think there is much of a question that if jackson is given carries he can avg. probably over 4.5 YPC, but in the rams system they just run the ball enough, and there defense doesn't exactly help and faulk will proabably keep jackson's receiving totals down a bit.He should be good for around 270 carries X at the least 4.4 about 1200 rushing and at least match his recieving from last year of 200 thats 1400 yards and around 8-10 TDs probably

 
Is he not a viable option as number two running back on a fantasy team? :(

King Kickoff
The problem here is that Jackson is being drafted as RB2, but "viable option" as RB2 is his CEILING, not his floor. Faulk WILL cut into his numbers, and Martz WILL abandon the running game several times. When you draft your RB2 in the 2nd or 3rd round, you need to be drafting someone who is almost guaranteed to put up RB2 numbers and has a reasonable chance of putting up RB1 numbers. Jackson, OTOH, has almost zero chance of RB1 numbers, and about a 50-50 chance of putting up RB2 or RB3 numbers. If you are drafting him as your RB3 in the 5th round, then that's fine. But he's not being drafted there. You have to draft him as your RB2 in the late 2nd round or early 3rd round if you want him, and he provides no value and no upside there.So is he a viable RB2? Yes, but I'm not wasting an early 3rd round pick on someone who might perform at RB2 level, might perform at RB3 level, and won't perform at RB1 level.
:no: :no: :no: just happened across this thread on a search and this among many posts deserved calling out. In both my money leagues, one ppr, one not, SJax is RB #5 in points....

 
Jackson is the #5 RB in all 3 leagues that I'm playing in, various scoring systems.Kind of interesting to pull these up halfway through the season. There was some outstanding discussion in this thread.

 
Is he not a viable option as number two running back on a fantasy team? :(

King Kickoff
The problem here is that Jackson is being drafted as RB2, but "viable option" as RB2 is his CEILING, not his floor. Faulk WILL cut into his numbers, and Martz WILL abandon the running game several times. When you draft your RB2 in the 2nd or 3rd round, you need to be drafting someone who is almost guaranteed to put up RB2 numbers and has a reasonable chance of putting up RB1 numbers. Jackson, OTOH, has almost zero chance of RB1 numbers, and about a 50-50 chance of putting up RB2 or RB3 numbers. If you are drafting him as your RB3 in the 5th round, then that's fine. But he's not being drafted there. You have to draft him as your RB2 in the late 2nd round or early 3rd round if you want him, and he provides no value and no upside there.So is he a viable RB2? Yes, but I'm not wasting an early 3rd round pick on someone who might perform at RB2 level, might perform at RB3 level, and won't perform at RB1 level.
:no: :no: :no: just happened across this thread on a search and this among many posts deserved calling out. In both my money leagues, one ppr, one not, SJax is RB #5 in points....
Calling out?It was a good argument. Did it end up wrong? Sure...but he doesn't need to be nailed to the floor for it.

 
Is he not a viable option as number two running back on a fantasy team? :(

King Kickoff
The problem here is that Jackson is being drafted as RB2, but "viable option" as RB2 is his CEILING, not his floor. Faulk WILL cut into his numbers, and Martz WILL abandon the running game several times. When you draft your RB2 in the 2nd or 3rd round, you need to be drafting someone who is almost guaranteed to put up RB2 numbers and has a reasonable chance of putting up RB1 numbers. Jackson, OTOH, has almost zero chance of RB1 numbers, and about a 50-50 chance of putting up RB2 or RB3 numbers. If you are drafting him as your RB3 in the 5th round, then that's fine. But he's not being drafted there. You have to draft him as your RB2 in the late 2nd round or early 3rd round if you want him, and he provides no value and no upside there.So is he a viable RB2? Yes, but I'm not wasting an early 3rd round pick on someone who might perform at RB2 level, might perform at RB3 level, and won't perform at RB1 level.
:no: :no: :no: just happened across this thread on a search and this among many posts deserved calling out. In both my money leagues, one ppr, one not, SJax is RB #5 in points....
Calling out?It was a good argument. Did it end up wrong? Sure...but he doesn't need to be nailed to the floor for it.
No...it was a really bad argument. declaring with certainty that he will be at best low RB2 and has no chance of being a RB1 couldn't be more wrong.
 
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?
No, but apparently Joe Vitt does. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top