Steven Jackson is not a risky pick (1 Viewer)

[JKL]

I want to take the position that Steven Jackson is not a risky pick late in the first round (or at least, compared to those around him). I know there are alot of concerns about supporting cast. Well, he had a bad supporting cast last year.

I wrote this a couple of years ago. I updated the numbers to include the last few years.

104 backs with a VBD over 80 who played on above average passing offenses: 268.2 Fantasy Pts in Year N; 198.6 Fantasy Pts in Year N+1

45 backs with a VBD over 80 who played on below average passing offenses: 258.5 FPts in Year N; 215.3 FPts in Year N+1.

So, while we may think of the backs that play on bad passing offenses to be risks, they are the safer play the next year to hold their value, regression to the mean of the supporting cast, and of scoring opportunities and all. if you consider that he put up the numbers he did last year, on a really bad offense, he looks like a safe play, no where to go but up.

Then you consider that the problem with his fantasy production wasn't yards on a bad offense, but lack of td opportunities. 13 other backs have had over 1600 yards from scrimmage but scored 6 or fewer td's, and played the next season (Sanders and Barber retired, Lewis tore his knee in OTA's). Here are their Fantasy Points:

Year Player Year N Year N+11981 Dorsett 233 2171980 Andrews 206 2761999 Garner 212 2391985 McNeil 206 1631983 Anderson 209 2271999 Martin 202 2441993 Thomas 206 1982003 Barber 186 3002002 Bennett 201 642001 Davis 194 1442005 Dunn 188 1611998 George 196 2542005 Droughns 172 117Average Year N = 200.8, Average Year N+1 = 200.3Bennett and Droughns were one hit wonders who bear little resemblance to Jackson. The rest of them are pretty good comps for Jackson, and improved their per game production the next year due to increased td's, and those that scored fewer did so because of missed games with injury.

Even if we accept that the Rams are going to be bad this year, Jackson has already established what he can do with a bad team. And if Bradford can make just a few more big plays and get Jackson in scoring range a handful more times, that will improve his td total from the low low total from last year for a back so otherwise productive. I don't expect the Rams to be the greatest show on turf, but do expect that Bradford will improve the passing offense from ranking in the bottom 3 with a beat up Bulger and a second (and more healthy) year of Jason Smith at tackle. One other guy on that list, Tiki Barber, played over half a season with first overall pick Eli Manning as rookie and turned in an RB1 season coming off a low td total the year before.

He looks like the opposite of a risky pick to me, and one with some upside with only some improvement by the rest of the offense.

 

[dgreen]

I really haven't been following the Jackson talk this year. Is "The Rams suck" been the main argument against him? It seems most years people worry about injuries with Jackson.

I agree he's proven he can produce on a bad team, though, and could represent good value.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

My problem with him is he always seems to be dinged up. Yeah, he produces when he plays, I get that. You'll get a bleeding ulcer trying to determine that though since he always seems to be 'Questionable' on the injury report.

 

[Arizona Ron]

The first draft pick isn't going to win you a title but it sure can lose it if the first round pick is a bust or under-performs. I never want to rely on Steven Jackson. If he somehow makes it to a second round, sure, but no way I take him as first round pick.

I've been saying this about him for 2 or 3 years.

 

[Balance]

He is absolutely a risky pick relative to the other players with similar ADP... imho.

His risk relative to some random cherry picked list is irrelevant.

 

[Ridgelake]

What makes him risky isnt the Rams, its his back.

 

[Jason Wood]

Enjoy the thought process, but I assumed those who avoid SJax are more concerned about his back issues than his supporting cast.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

He's risky because he's getting older and he's always dinged up. He seems to always be on the injury report, even if he plays. If you've got season tickets somewhere and you're tailgating Sunday morning, he's a nightmare to have on the team because he's a game time decision a lot and you're trying to enjoy a beer and chili, and instead you're calling the friend that stayed home to see if there's any news on the guy or you're searching the web on your little smart phone to see if there's any updates so that you can make any last second switches.

At the end of the 1st round, he's not a bad risk. He's got the talent to be a beast at times, you just have to have the patience do deal with all that will come with owning him. I'll also add I've had him several times in leagues and he does seem like the kind of guy who plays better towards the end of the season, obviously that's a good thing for those wanting to advance in fantasy football.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I wonder how many NFL players have had productive careers after back surgery?

 

[dgreen]

I never want to rely on Steven Jackson.

I definitely understand the concern and the risk, but he's done well every season. He's finished the season as RB11, 3, 14, 13, and 10 the last 5 years in standard scoring. He only played 12 games in each of those RB14 and RB13 seasons, so he probably ranked well in PPG. As long as you had some decent replacement value for him in his missed games, I'd think Jackson owners received first round production for that RB spot in their lineup.Yes, he could easily miss four games. But, other guys you might take around that spot might be more likely to post four bad games and Jackson rarely has a bad game. In 84 career games, he's had 100+ yards from scrimmage 50 times. He has 50+ yards 74 times. 88% of the time, he gets you at least 50 yards. Of the 10 games he didn't get to 50 yards, 6 were in his rookie year when he was sharing time with Faulk, 3 were in his second season, and one was in 2008 where he left early with an injury. So, he's had one game in the last four seasons where he didn't break 50 yards from scrimmage and that was due to him leaving early with an injury.

From 2006 to 2009, Jackson has the most games over 100 yards from scrimmage.

He's third in games over 50 yards.

The guy pretty much never has a bad game...when he plays.

 

[fightingillini]

The main issue is obviously Jackson's injury risk. He has played all 16 games just once. Usually misses 2-3 games. Some will argue that you just plug in a replacement for those weeks....no big deal, since Jackson is a beast when he plays.

This argument is flawed in the fact that the FF season is a sprint, not a marathon. You can't afford to have your RB1 out for 2-3 weeks out of a 13 game season. For 2-3 weeks, you will have a RB3 or RB4 in place in your lineup while Jackson is out.....thats a major disadvantage....one can expect to lose most of those weeks. Since you generally need to be 7-6 or better to make the playoffs, you can't afford 1-3 expected losses due to your RB1 being out. Or worse to have Jackson miss weeks 14-16 and your playoff chances diminish.

Jackson is a beast, but still being on STL will still limit his upside so that when he does play, he probably won't carry you to many wins. I see solid games like 80-150 all purpose yards a game and a TD every other game. I don't see Jackson having 175+yd 2TD games, ones that can carry you to a FF win. If I am going to take a guy in round 1 that's an injury risk, I would want him to put up really big stats so that I have a big advantage in the games when he plays.

Also, you need to take into account times when Jackson may leave a game early due to injury and you can't replace him in the lineup. You will get a low score from Jackson in these games and you will expect to lose.

I want my 1st round pick to have a reasonable chance of playing all 16 games. Based on Jackson's prior history, one can't assume that.

 

[Sabertooth]

I love the argument that because his team isn't great, he will somehow take more hits or more violent hits. Look, every run that doesn't score generally results in a tackle. Those hits are sometimes very brutal, sometimes not. But just because the Rams aren't winning doesn't mean Jackson's will be any worse than anybody else's.

 

[Clifford]

He's going in the Mendenhall-Turner-DWill range, end of the first, along with Brees, Moss, Rodgers. I see all of those as safer picks, and think that both Mendenhall and Turner have a slightly higher ceiling. I don't see the first season back from back surgery being one of his best in recent years.

 

[Mimo]

The actions of Rams management don't support the feelings of the FF masses. They didn't draft or sign another RB this off season. It leads me to think they are not concerned about his back being an issue.

 

[Clifford]

The actions of Rams management don't support the feelings of the FF masses. They didn't draft or sign another RB this off season. It leads me to think they are not concerned about his back being an issue.

Look at how long it took them to address QB when it was obvious Bulger couldn't perform any more.

 

[JKL]

I wonder how many NFL players have had productive careers after back surgery?

It's hard to sift through the old archives with a targeted search, but I quickly found reference to the following:Aikman had surgery for a herniated disc before the 1993 seasonBrad Johnson in 1998Mark Schlereth in 1997 had surgery for a herniated disc and returned the next season to make the pro bowl. Warrick Dunn right before training camp in 2007. He was 32. His ypc dropped to 3.2 and bounced back the next year.Edgerrin James had a fracture to the transverse process in 2003 and missed three games, but I don't think he had surgery.Back injuries have certainly ended guys careers. I don't know how immediate those concerns should be for Jackson (versus say, thinking it may shorten his career where he doesn't play past 30). We know that Jackson played with this for several games last year, and (2) he's had surgery to correct it, and (3) he's 27, not 32, and (4) the Rams haven't viewed it as a problem and sought running back help. In a redraft, I view that he accomplished what he did last year as a positive for this year.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

The actions of Rams management don't support the feelings of the FF masses. They didn't draft or sign another RB this off season. It leads me to think they are not concerned about his back being an issue.

Yes lets trust an organization that has a grand total of 28 wins over the past six seasons.

 

[ATC1]

The first draft pick isn't going to win you a title but it sure can lose it if the first round pick is a bust or under-performs. I never want to rely on Steven Jackson. If he somehow makes it to a second round, sure, but no way I take him as first round pick.I've been saying this about him for 2 or 3 years.

Then you have missed out the past 2 years. Around his ADP, who did you take last year? Michael Turner, Matt Forte, Deangelo Williams, LT, Steve Slaton? All of these guys missed games last year and Forte just underperformed. You can go stud WR, but then you leave more questions at RB later.

 

[Shutout]

The others are right on: Its the injury risk and the general battiness that makes him a no-go here. I personally have always found him overrated (people tend to take him higher than he ever produces, sans one year). You simply just have to pay too much for too little return.. There are much safer picks but a lot of people gamble on him..and lose. I remember my ff team playing against him a couple of years ago. He tore it up against the Cowboys in the first 3 quarters and my divisional rival was gonna put me in 2nd place. then, as SJAX often does, he gets a boo boo and comes out and I win the game, the divison, and later, the league. All he had to do was do what true stud RBs do occasionally; single handedly put up the monster game when you need it. But he didn't...as usual. I feel like that one game is THE illustration of why you just can't take him. Who wants to spend all week watching the "questionable" report? Give me someone else.

I can't trust Rams managment to get it right either. Why on Earth they played him like they did last year when their one and only star on a team that was dead an buried had a bad disc in his back in utterly rediculous. I can't trust a team that can't protect their best investment better than that. At some point, SJAX WILL become Eddie George; that great workhorse player that simply snaps and becomes a shell of his former self because the team ran him into the ground.

 

[ATC1]

The others are right on: Its the injury risk and the general battiness that makes him a no-go here. I personally have always found him overrated (people tend to take him higher than he ever produces, sans one year). You simply just have to pay too much for too little return.. There are much safer picks but a lot of people gamble on him..and lose. I remember my ff team playing against him a couple of years ago. He tore it up against the Cowboys in the first 3 quarters and my divisional rival was gonna put me in 2nd place. then, as SJAX often does, he gets a boo boo and comes out and I win the game, the divison, and later, the league. All he had to do was do what true stud RBs do occasionally; single handedly put up the monster game when you need it. But he didn't...as usual. I feel like that one game is THE illustration of why you just can't take him. Who wants to spend all week watching the "questionable" report? Give me someone else.

I can't trust Rams managment to get it right either. Why on Earth they played him like they did last year when their one and only star on a team that was dead an buried had a bad disc in his back in utterly rediculous. I can't trust a team that can't protect their best investment better than that. At some point, SJAX WILL become Eddie George; that great workhorse player that simply snaps and becomes a shell of his former self because the team ran him into the ground.

Who are the safer picks? The bolded part can be said for any organizations featured back not in a RBBC.

 

[Jason Wood]

The actions of Rams management don't support the feelings of the FF masses. They didn't draft or sign another RB this off season. It leads me to think they are not concerned about his back being an issue.

I'm not sure it's the smartest thing to throw your hat in with the Rams front office.

 

[David Yudkin]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY.

For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:

2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)

2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)

2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)

2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)

2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)

So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

 

[CB31]

Here we go again with SJax...

Look, the guy has been, along with MJD, the only RBs since '06 to finish as top-12 RBs in non-PPR, including the '07 and '08 seasons where he played 12 games apiece. How on god's green earth can you get any safer than that? A guy that has literally been guaranteed a #1 RB finish in the past 4 years isn't worth your time as a 1st-rounder? Then who is?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

This is a money post.

 

[ATC1]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

Will also add that you don't need to spend a mid round pick on a handcuff. If you take Fitzgerald here and grab a RB later you will need to probably spend a pick on a handcuff instead of better value for RB depth or a better WR/QB/TE.

 

[fatmnkypants]

I had SJax the past two years, and when he plays- he's fantastic.. the lack of Td's hurt last year, but in ppr, he was still great..

The problem is the back.. I realize the Rams don't seem concerned and didn't bring in other players but heres my story.

I blew out my L2 disc a few years ago and it compressed my sciatic nerve. I had surgery to shave the disc down off the nerve. Same basic injury and procedure as SJax from what I have read. The problem is your disc lining never heals so the disc remains exposed and easier to reherniate. I have been battling pain since the surgery because of nerve damage, but it was finally getting better. 3 weeks ago- I leaned over to pull the GARBAGE BAG!! out of the can and felt a ripping in my back-- all the pain down my legs, lower back came surging back.. I had reherniated the disc..... From lifting a garbage bag!!!!!! I am a healthy 35 year old and my disc problems are not the result of some other problem. I had the same chance of hurting myself originally as any other healthy man...... My point being- if I can reherniate that easily- what's going to happen to a running back who basically gets in the equivelent of a car wreck 25 times over a couple hours!! Everyone's different- but I just can't feel comfortable knowing what I know that his back isn't a disaster that will happen.

 

[fightingillini]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

I get that. Again, will make two points.1) The risk of Jackson getting nicked up during a game and is done for the day.......you can't fill that spot. He goes down in the 1st quarter.....you get essentially a zero or close to it. Likely one loss right there.2) You really want to go into a season knowing that you will likely HAVE to play your RB3 or RB4 in your RB1 slot for 2 or 3 games? Sure, you can overcome that, but why put yourself in a hole when you don't have to? There's a good chance your RB3 or RB4, substituting for Jackson, flops and they get you 30-40 yards and 0 TDs.....you will probably lose that game. In a 13 game season, you can't afford to be at a significant disadvantage for 2-3 games. I do agree Jackson is a solid producer when he plays....except maybe 2008 when he had 3 huge games totalling 94 points and 9 games totalling 96 points. So for 9 games that year he produced like a very weak RB2 or good RB3. You likely didn't do well if you had Jackson as your RB1 that year.

 

[David Yudkin]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

I get that. Again, will make two points.1) The risk of Jackson getting nicked up during a game and is done for the day.......you can't fill that spot. He goes down in the 1st quarter.....you get essentially a zero or close to it. Likely one loss right there.2) You really want to go into a season knowing that you will likely HAVE to play your RB3 or RB4 in your RB1 slot for 2 or 3 games? Sure, you can overcome that, but why put yourself in a hole when you don't have to? There's a good chance your RB3 or RB4, substituting for Jackson, flops and they get you 30-40 yards and 0 TDs.....you will probably lose that game. In a 13 game season, you can't afford to be at a significant disadvantage for 2-3 games. I do agree Jackson is a solid producer when he plays....except maybe 2008 when he had 3 huge games totalling 94 points and 9 games totalling 96 points. So for 9 games that year he produced like a very weak RB2 or good RB3. You likely didn't do well if you had Jackson as your RB1 that year.

All of the things you cited for Jackson hold true for every other RB. You can poke and prod any player in the league and make an argument against him, and IMO, this is trying to find problems after the fact to support a particular position, rather than looking at the data and then drawing a conclusion.

 

[TWP]

He's going in the Mendenhall-Turner-DWill range, end of the first, along with Brees, Moss, Rodgers. I see all of those as safer picks, and think that both Mendenhall and Turner have a slightly higher ceiling. I don't see the first season back from back surgery being one of his best in recent years.

Mendenhall, Turner and DWill are the guys you mention as being less risk? Turner and DWill are both coming off of seasons with serious injuries. DWill has serious competition for carries (even his supporters say 60/40 split, others say 50/50 or worse), and Mendenhall has only one season of high performance, which he is being projected to exceed at his ADP, and he is missing his starting QB for the first 4-6 games and his O line has taken a beating in the offseason. Very happy to bet SJax vs. DWill or Mendenhall. Turner I think is much closer but certainly not without risk. And the guys who are saying not to take SJax aren't saying 'Take him 7th after Turner 6th'. They are saying 'take him in the 2nd round' which seems just plain wrong to me. He is a clear late first rounder, IMO.

 

[Clifford]

Sjax is no doubt a first round pick. But he is coming off back surgery. To me that edges Turner and Mendy just a tad higher, and puts him just above D-Will. So if I am choosing between him, Turner, and Mendy, I'd go Turner first, think hard about Mendy v Sjax and likely make the pick based on if I am feeling optimistic (Sjax) or pessimistic (Mendy) that day.

Basically I feel all three have a RB4-5 ceiling and RB9-10 floor. DWill is more like a RB7 ceiling and a RB9 floor.

 

[IVNACATES]

Picking 8th, this topic is one I am very interested in. I am in a PPR league though, and DWill, Turner, and Mendy don't hold a healthy SJax jock. The problem is the health. Has any StL homers heard how much he is participating in practices, or any news to shed some light on his health?

 

[KCC]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

What was his fantasy ADP those years? I'm guessing that still doesn't make him a value pick considering where he went in fantasy drafts - especially when you expand that list to include all positions (not just RBs.) To further complicate matters, Jackson was often listed as "probable" or "questionable" for a lot of games when he was banged up. Most owners in that situation probably started him (since he was their first round pick) and suffered through substandard peformance without the viable RB3 entering their line-up - and that assumes they had a RB3 who reliably produced those figures.

 

[CB31]

I don't have '06, but using fantasy football calculator, SJax's ADP has been 1.2, 5.2, and 9.2. May not be picking Ray Rice in the 7th round, but a mid-1st seems like a small price to pay for a guaranteed #1 RB.

As for being listed as "questionable" or "probable"...I'm not quite sure where you're going here. The above numbers all include the games where he played hurt or was listed as P or Q -- "substandard" games and all. Unless I'm missing something, your point of benching him when P or Q would give him even more upside, since you could avoid all the "substandard" games, no? Like I said earlier, if I'm missing something please let me know.

 

[David Yudkin]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

What was his fantasy ADP those years? I'm guessing that still doesn't make him a value pick considering where he went in fantasy drafts - especially when you expand that list to include all positions (not just RBs.) To further complicate matters, Jackson was often listed as "probable" or "questionable" for a lot of games when he was banged up. Most owners in that situation probably started him (since he was their first round pick) and suffered through substandard peformance without the viable RB3 entering their line-up - and that assumes they had a RB3 who reliably produced those figures.

For starters, there is a very high probability that a player listed as probable will play. Just look at Tom Brady. Jackson was listed several times as probable and played. He was listed as out one time (with time to insert another back).In 2009, he had 0 times where he played and had fewer than 15 touches.In 2008, he had 1 game where he played and had fewer than 15 touches (7 touches). In 2007, he had 1 game where he played and had fewer than 15 touches (10 touches).In 2006, he had 1 game where he played and had fewer than 15 touches (14 touches).In 2005, he had 1 game where he played and had fewer than 15 touches (13 touches).I couldn't easily find a list of times he's been listed as questionable, but he's had double digit touches in every game he's been a starter except one. So IMO, the argument that he's cost owners games by getting injured during games really doesn't hold much weight in my book.Again, as I mentioned earlier, people are deciding that they don't like/want Jackson and then are trying to find and discuss reasons not to like them after they already concluded he is a waste of a pick.As for whether Jackson truly earned back his draft spot, when you can consistently get Top 10 production from someone as a first round pick, be happy. There are plenty of first round fantasy picks that absolutely bomb and reap very little rewards. Technically, there may have been years when Jackson's year end value wasn't as high as his draft spot, but it's not like he fell off the face of the earth and ranked 62nd.

 

[Grahamburn]

Picking 8th, this topic is one I am very interested in. I am in a PPR league though, and DWill, Turner, and Mendy don't hold a healthy SJax jock. The problem is the health. Has any StL homers heard how much he is participating in practices, or any news to shed some light on his health?

Williams and Turner both have fantasy finishes higher than anything Jackson has ever accomplished. They were also both outperforming Jackson last year before their injuries, IIRC.

If you're set on RB in the 7-9 area those 3 players are the best options, but it depends on your scoring system.

Williams is the most explosive and has the highest upside, but his value is limited with Stewart stealing touches.

Turner plays in the best offense, which gives him 20 TD potential, but he's rarely used in the passing game.

Jackson plays in a below average (improving?) offense, has injury issues, but plays an extremely easy schedule. I think his total TDs will at least double to 8 this season.

I would take Williams in a .5 PPR, Turner in standard scoring, and Jackson in a straight PPR format.

 

[nysportsfan]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

/thread.

 

[Grahamburn]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

/thread.

The only issue I take with that line of thinking is the fact that Jackson plays in the NFC West, which undoubtedly leads to alot of 4 o'clock ET start times for his games. If he's a game time decision and your RB3 plays at 1 ET you have a major dilemma. I'd say at least half of his games this season will be of the "late game" variety.That's part of the issue fantasy players take with Jackson. He's a headache to own.

 

[nysportsfan]

People never seem to remember that YOU DON'T GET A ZERO WHEN YOUR RUNNING BACK DOESN'T PLAY. For argument's sake, say your team had an average RB3 to play for Jackson (say an 8 ppg player, which is usually what RB3 average). Here's what you would have gotten from Jackson + RB3 the last few seasons:2005: 197 + 8 = 205 points (RB9 level production)2006: 329 + 0 = 329 points (RB 3 level production)2007: 168 + 32 = 200 points (RB7 level production)2008: 190 + 32 = 232 points (RB6 level production)2009: 198 + 8 = 206 points (RB9 level production)So drafting Jackson and using a fill-in in the weeks he disn't play still netted Top 10 production in every year that he's been a starter.

/thread.

The only issue I take with that line of thinking is the fact that Jackson plays in the NFC West, which undoubtedly leads to alot of 4 o'clock ET start times for his games. If he's a game time decision and your RB3 plays at 1 ET you have a major dilemma. I'd say at least half of his games this season will be of the "late game" variety.That's part of the issue fantasy players take with Jackson. He's a headache to own.

I guess Gore falls into that category, too. I try not to overthink things, I owned him last year and loved the production in PPR.

 

[Mark Wimer]

The actions of Rams management don't support the feelings of the FF masses. They didn't draft or sign another RB this off season. It leads me to think they are not concerned about his back being an issue.

Yes lets trust an organization that has a grand total of 28 wins over the past six seasons.

IIRC, Frontiere's heirs are looking to unload the team but that given the difficulty of finding financing for big sports acquisitions since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there haven't been any successful new ownership groups put together to make a large enough bid. IMO, the current ownership isn't terribly interested in playing during the playoffs, but are milking the team for TV Money/profits until such time as they can unload the Rams.

 

[CB31]

I'd hardly call the late starts "major"; he's still top 12 even if you never have a fill-in. The Rams play 9 games after 4EST, but one is the first game of the season (where, barring a preseason injury, he'll be healthy), and one is the last game of the season, where your championship is probably already over. Plus, out of the 7 remaining games, there's no way to say how many times he'll be listed as Q or P. Sure, it's an inconvenience, but a "headache" for a guaranteed top 12 finish (with, factoring replacements, offensive improvements, and TDs, has major upside) is well worth the "trouble".

 

[Mark Wimer]

Jackson's value is very dependent on the scoring system of the particular league any given owner plays in.

In a basic scoring league, where TDs are very heavily weighted, he's definitely not a RB 1 or RB 2, IMO. There simply aren't enough scoring opportunities in St. Louis, and it is unlikely that starting the $78-$86 million rookie Sam Bradford is going to improve the number of scoring opportunities that Jackson enjoys during 2010. The cast surrounding Jackson is one of the worst in the NFL, in my opinion. He's had 6, 8, and 4 TDs per season over the last three years cited above (2006-2009).

In yardage + scoring leagues, Jackson is a borderline RB 2 value, IMO.

In PPR leagues, Jackson becomes a borderline RB 1/ RB 2 due to the fact that he may be the best receiver on the Rams' team, currently (see the negative comment about the pathetic supporting cast around Jackson above).

But all the above doesn't factor in Jackson's back injury/surgery this past offseason.

In reality, we'll have no idea how his back will hold up until he starts playing in full games, taking hits on practically every play he's on the field (as a runner/receiver or blocking to try and preserve the rookie QB).

I think Jackson is an extremely risky pick this year, and will avoid him this year just as I have (and have been advising others to do) over the past 3 years.

 

[CB31]

As for the back thing, GM Billy Devaney said he's been dealing with back issues "for a couple of years now". So he's been a top 12 RB in NON-ppr scoring all this time, and he's finally had a surgery to correct a back issue (I assume he wouldn't go under the knife to make the back worse)? Shouldn't knowing that he's been great WITH a back issue coupled with the fact that he had something done about said back issue make us like him MORE?

I'm actually not at a computer right now (thank heavens for web-enabled phones), but when I can I'll find a link to the quote.

 

[Grahamburn]

I'd hardly call the late starts "major"; he's still top 12 even if you never have a fill-in. The Rams play 9 games after 4EST, but one is the first game of the season (where, barring a preseason injury, he'll be healthy), and one is the last game of the season, where your championship is probably already over. Plus, out of the 7 remaining games, there's no way to say how many times he'll be listed as Q or P. Sure, it's an inconvenience, but a "headache" for a guaranteed top 12 finish (with, factoring replacements, offensive improvements, and TDs, has major upside) is well worth the "trouble".

I didn't say they were major, but in the context of the argument that you can just plug in your RB3 when Jackson is scratched late I think it's a factor.If Jackson is the dreaded game-time decision, plays at 4 ET (as you said he has 7-9 of these such starts), and your RB3 is Jonathan Stewart who plays most of his games at 1 ET you have a major decision to make before getting word on Jackson's status. Most fantasy teams won't have another viable option at RB with a late start time.I'm just saying that it's not as cut and dry as "just plug in your RB3."

 

[dgreen]

I'd like to see some numbers comparing ADP with weekly Start %. Or compare ADP with weekly fantasy points compared to some replacement fantasy value.

A big argument here seems to be based on the idea that a first round pick should be starting every week. But, my guess would be there are many first round picks that fantasy owners don't start every game (for reasons other than injury) or they simply aren't worthy of a start every game.

For example, here's Steven Jackson 2008 vs. Clinton Portis 2008 (standard scoring, no PPR):

Week Jackson Portis1 7.4 8.42 9.0 21.93 12.8 14.74 24.8 13.55 11.1 21.86 35.6 26.37 0.0 24.38 1.7 13.29 0.0 12.410 0.0 7.411 0.0 15.912 11.0 3.713 12.6 4.614 18.7 8.315 11.9 14.116 33.5 14.0Many are seeing those zeros and freaking out. But, in reality, one of those Jackson zeroes isn't different than Portis' 3.7. In both situations, in hindsight, both should have been on the bench for those games in favor of someone else. The question then becomes, at what level does it start to make a difference? What should be the expected replacement value for that position in any given week for someone who is looking for first round production? If it's 10 points (no idea if that's a good number or not), you can see that Jackson had 7 games (5 due to injury) under 10 points and Portis had 5.So, IF 10 is the number, even a guy like Portis, who played all 16 games and ended as RB8, had 5 games where he "shouldn't" have been starting for someone looking for first round production. Or, to put it another way, if your league had a rule that you could either take 10 points or start your top RB, there's really no difference between Portis' bottom five games and the five games Jackson was affected by injury. For those five games for each player, the optimal move would be to take the 10 points.

That's just one example to show what I'm talking about and isn't intended to prove anything. Some kind of expected replacement value and some kind of number to reflect how many games on average that replacement value is more valuable than starting a first round pick could shed some light on the concerns in this thread.

 

[CB31]

I'd hardly call the late starts "major"; he's still top 12 even if you never have a fill-in. The Rams play 9 games after 4EST, but one is the first game of the season (where, barring a preseason injury, he'll be healthy), and one is the last game of the season, where your championship is probably already over. Plus, out of the 7 remaining games, there's no way to say how many times he'll be listed as Q or P. Sure, it's an inconvenience, but a "headache" for a guaranteed top 12 finish (with, factoring replacements, offensive improvements, and TDs, has major upside) is well worth the "trouble".

I didn't say they were major, but in the context of the argument that you can just plug in your RB3 when Jackson is scratched late I think it's a factor.If Jackson is the dreaded game-time decision, plays at 4 ET (as you said he has 7-9 of these such starts), and your RB3 is Jonathan Stewart who plays most of his games at 1 ET you have a major decision to make before getting word on Jackson's status. Most fantasy teams won't have another viable option at RB with a late start time.I'm just saying that it's not as cut and dry as "just plug in your RB3."

Alright, I see your point there. I guess if an owner is that worried about it then they should consider investing in an Oakland RB or Justin Forsett later, but like you said it's not cut-and-dry. Still, don't think it's anything big, but it at least should be factored in.

 

[TWP]

I think Jackson is an extremely risky pick this year, and will avoid him this year just as I have (and have been advising others to do) over the past 3 years.

So how many years in a row do you have to be wrong for before you reconsider your position instead of picking new excuses for why he won't perform? Since he didnt have back surgery before the last three seasons, what were your (wrong) reasons for not picking him those years?

 

[Grahamburn]

I think Jackson is an extremely risky pick this year, and will avoid him this year just as I have (and have been advising others to do) over the past 3 years.

So how many years in a row do you have to be wrong for before you reconsider your position instead of picking new excuses for why he won't perform? Since he didnt have back surgery before the last three seasons, what were your (wrong) reasons for not picking him those years?

Technically, he wasn't wrong. Jackson hasn't met or exceeded his ADP since 2006.

 

[Mark Wimer]

I think Jackson is an extremely risky pick this year, and will avoid him this year just as I have (and have been advising others to do) over the past 3 years.

So how many years in a row do you have to be wrong for before you reconsider your position instead of picking new excuses for why he won't perform? Since he didnt have back surgery before the last three seasons, what were your (wrong) reasons for not picking him those years?

I admire Jackson as a player and I don't dispute that, when healthy, he is an elite talent at RB.However, the surrounding team stinks. They were absolutely horrid last year as an offense (16th in passing attempts, but 28th in yardage and 29th in TDs, with a mere 12 passing TDs all year: 20th in the NFL in rushing attempts, 22nd in total rushing yardage, and 32nd in rushing TDs with a mere 4). When an NFL team scores a mere 16 TDs in an entire 16 game season, I think it is safe to say that the offense STINKS.

The Rams offense is among the four or five worst units in the NFL despite having the good fortune to have Steven Jackson on their roster. His ceiling/upside is limited by the clods around him on that unit.

How many years will people tout Jackson as a "lock" for top-5 fantasy numbers, only to see him fall short (14th in 2007, 13th in 2008, 10th in 2009) before they realize that Jackson's opportunity to be an elite fantasy performer is much less than other elite talents (Adrian Peterson, Maurice Jones-Drew, etc) due to his dreadful team mates?

I was not "wrong" any of the years cited, BTW. I was much closer to Jackson's year-end finish in my rankings than those touting him as a top-5 fantasy RB.

Edit to add:

I also think that anyone expecting the offense to improve with a rookie QB under center are deluding themselves. I expect a VERY slow start for the Rams' offense this year with typical rookie trials and tribulations - lots of drives killed by bad decisions/bad throws/interceptions and etc.

 

[CB31]

I think Jackson is an extremely risky pick this year, and will avoid him this year just as I have (and have been advising others to do) over the past 3 years.

So how many years in a row do you have to be wrong for before you reconsider your position instead of picking new excuses for why he won't perform? Since he didnt have back surgery before the last three seasons, what were your (wrong) reasons for not picking him those years?

Technically, he wasn't wrong. Jackson hasn't met or exceeded his ADP since 2006.

Neither did Adrian Peterson.

 

[Mark Wimer]

I think Jackson is an extremely risky pick this year, and will avoid him this year just as I have (and have been advising others to do) over the past 3 years.

So how many years in a row do you have to be wrong for before you reconsider your position instead of picking new excuses for why he won't perform? Since he didnt have back surgery before the last three seasons, what were your (wrong) reasons for not picking him those years?

Technically, he wasn't wrong. Jackson hasn't met or exceeded his ADP since 2006.

Not "technically". Jackson hasn't met or exceeded his ADP for three years, and only scored 4 TDs during 2009, despite almost 400 chances at the football (325 carries + 74 targets). Who thinks 1 TD per 100 chances at the ball is a good ratio, or an elite ratio? I don't.