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!
Correct. If I meant dominant then I would have said dominant. That owuld be why I said "don't read into, take exactly at face value...etc. And Taylor's seasons were all roughyl top 15 I believe, which would qualify as top caliber. I think. Please correct me if that's wrong.
This is how they've placed in my PPR:2008: Gore 15, Jackson 162007: Gore 8, Jackson 142006: Gore 5, Jackson 2Avg: Gore 9.3, Jackson 11.6I admit, closer than I expected, but I just prefer Gore's situation more than Jackson's in St.Louis, and I can't help but feel SJ is soft. Just doesn't seem like he's worth the headache. And if their numbers are so similar why is SJ a "steal" at 1.3-1.6 but Gore is dropping to the end of the 1st in PPRs when he's been (albeit slightly) more consistent?
Really though, You've picked out a bunch of older players and two injury-plagued ones, plus an OT that, if I remember correctly, is playing at near Pro-bowl level after moving inside to G.I think you'd agree that at worst its a 50/50 shot that Jason Smith turns out as a solid starter, and I would argue that it is even better than that. Add in a good free agent pickup on the inside, and you've got the makings for a much improved OL.See bolded names above - I think Cherilius was a major disappointment but started because of what they paid him. Injuries also are a factor.My point is that you can't just assume because the Rams drafted an OL with a high pick that this automatically upgrades their line. I haven't seen the team chemistry yet, and neither has anybody elseThe past few years highly touted/draft pick lineman rarely bust.
2008: Jake Long(stud), Ryan Clady(one of the best LT's last year), Chris Williams(injured, but starting this season), Brandon Albert(started), Gosder Cherilius(started), Jeff Otah(stud), Sam Baker(solid last year).
2007: Joe Thomas(stud), Levi Brown(solid), Joe Staley(solid), Ben Grubbs(stud)
2006'Brickashaw Ferguson(solid), Davin Joseph(solid), Nick Mangold(solid) both Jets lineman paved the way for that great running attack last year.
2005: Jamaal Brown(made the pro bowl), Alex Barron(has been soft), Chris Spencer, Logan Mankins.
2004: Robert Gallery(has been moved inside), Shawn Andrews(injured, but a solid when healthy), Vernon Carey(stud).
Where are all these lineman that bust?
Hey Mark,I appreciate your stance on Jackson. I can't say that I agree - I'm still on the fence - but I'm shocked the overwhelming amount of support he gets. There is little no chance he gets out of the first round in any draft. I noticed you had LJ ranked ahead of him. These are two players with similar situations. Can you explain why your higher than most on LJ, while continue to rank Jackson so low?
Hey gonzobill5, I'm glad to compare/contrast the 2 situations.I think that K.C. has upgraded their QB situation tremendously with the signing of Matt Cassel. Other than Dwayne Bowe, they don't have proven weapons there for him to throw to (but that's 1 more proven weapon than the Rams boast right now). The Rams went backward at QB this year doing subtraction by addition with Kyle Boller now the #2 behind a failing, flailing Marc Bulger. I'd rather bank on Cassel/Bowe as a combo than Bulger/Avery. I think the Chiefs have a better passing attack entering 2009 than the Rams.
Actually, I didn't pick out any of those players initially. I was responding to a list proporting to tout high draft picks on the OL compiled by another poster. I just highlighted players on his list that didn't really support his conclusions (IMO).LT is a tough position to play in the NFL. The Rams are asking Jason Smith to step into the LT position without any NFL experience and play at a high level. I think that it is unreasonable to suggest that rookie Jason Smith is going to easily fill Orlando Pace's sizable shoes.Really though, You've picked out a bunch of older players and two injury-plagued ones, plus an OT that, if I remember correctly, is playing at near Pro-bowl level after moving inside to G.I think you'd agree that at worst its a 50/50 shot that Jason Smith turns out as a solid starter, and I would argue that it is even better than that. Add in a good free agent pickup on the inside, and you've got the makings for a much improved OL.See bolded names above - I think Cherilius was a major disappointment but started because of what they paid him. Injuries also are a factor.My point is that you can't just assume because the Rams drafted an OL with a high pick that this automatically upgrades their line. I haven't seen the team chemistry yet, and neither has anybody elseThe past few years highly touted/draft pick lineman rarely bust.
2008: Jake Long(stud), Ryan Clady(one of the best LT's last year), Chris Williams(injured, but starting this season), Brandon Albert(started), Gosder Cherilius(started), Jeff Otah(stud), Sam Baker(solid last year).
2007: Joe Thomas(stud), Levi Brown(solid), Joe Staley(solid), Ben Grubbs(stud)
2006
2005: Jamaal Brown(made the pro bowl), Alex Barron(has been soft), Chris Spencer, Logan Mankins.
2004: Robert Gallery(has been moved inside), Shawn Andrews(injured, but a solid when healthy), Vernon Carey(stud).
Where are all these lineman that bust?
Do you realize how delusional this sounds, talking about a player, for whatever reason, that hasn't finished in the top 10 Rbs, much less top 10 players, in the league for two straight years?
It isn't delusional at all because when talking ceilings/floors, you assume a 16 game season. Prorated, I believe both his seasons are top 5 or 6.
It could be 200 carries again AND 10-15 TD. Jackson in 06 had no competition for carries pretty much AT ALL. HUGE difference IMO.Darko M said:
Instinctive,I have linked to his game logs in several of my posts. But since you insist I post that material here -
So when he plays, Jackson 75% of the time he goes over 100 yards, and he went under 7 points only once?Again...you don;t get that injury is irrelevant. You can't predict injury.
huh. this seems to support Mark's analysis. but maybe i'm being shallow
NAILS
hmm, so how do you figure that he only put up more than 16 fantasy points 4 times last year and was not a stud in the other 8 games he played? 4 out of 12 doesn't look like "odds in my favor i'm getting stud production." also, in 07 he topped the 16 FP mark 5 times n 12 games "on the field". Less than 50% solid games don't look like odds in "my" favor, but again, maybe i'm being shallow
You didn't read...or you just skimmed and nitpicked last sentence word choice. I know we all have different definitions of the term stud so:If I am almost guaranteed to get double digits when a guy plays, and half his doubl digit games are stud games, I would say odds are in my favor that he produces a stud game compared to another RB's odds. Actually, if you look at both my and Lott's analysis of each of the other RBs used as an example, you find that only Forte is as consistent a contributor as SJax.
If I get a guy who scores just as many "stud games" (as defined by Wimer in his most recent post) as Michael Turner, and never has a game below 7 (of which Turner had FOUR iirc) then I would call him more consistent. Wouldn't you?
I have to ignore all of your points, because you make things up in your posts. I picked one RB out of your list.. ONE!Westbrook had 19.3 ppg last year.. 270.8 in 14 games. SJax had 226.8 in 12 games for a 18.9 ppg. How many other discrepencies will there be if I do more FACT checking?Jackson had 100+ yards from scrimmage in 8 out of 11 full games last year. He had 90 yards in another. That is about as consistent as you get. TOP THREE ppg. Who did he outperform, on average, when he played?VERYHe scored 5 of his 7 rushing TDs in 2 games last year, with one of the 2 multiple TD games occurring in week 17 (worthless from most fantasy owner's perspectives) had only 1 receiving score, and left his fantasy owners with goose-eggs in the TD column 11 of 16 games last year (4 of them with absolute goose-eggs due to yet another series of nagging injuries). The surrounding cast in St. Louis is worse this year than last with the departure of Tory Holt, and nobody fears the QB tandem of Marc Bulger/Kyle Boller at all.Yes, Jackson is capable of making exciting big plays from time to time, but he is a marked man this year. He has a huge bulls-eye on his jersey due to being the sole game-breaking weapon that the Rams field. He'll face stacked fronts all year long unless (and I'm doubtful Bulger can do this) Bulger presents a credible threat to pass the ball with his youngster/journeyman WR corps.
EVERYBODY except Turner and Deangelo Williams. EVERYBODY. Peterson? Outperformed him. Gore? Slaton? LT? Westbrook? Forte? Portis? MJD? Outperformed ALL of them.
On a terrible team with not passing game and an O-line that was terrible DUE IN LARGE PART TO INJURIES.
What has changed this year? Holt was most certainly not a difference maker last year, and the passing game is not likely to be worse. Pace is gone, that is not good.... but those rookie O-linemen that bust 1/2 the time? They also DON"T bust 1/2 the time. Oh yeah, then there is the acquisition of Jason Brown, a HUGE upgrade at center. Then there is the statistical fact that teams that are snake-bitten by injuries (the Rams had something like 50% MORE starter games missed due to injury than the league average) tend to regress to the mean... so it's more likely that the Rams have fewer injuries than last year. The defense is going to improve with fewer injuries and the addition of a few good players that will allow existing talented players to play their natural positions instead of playing out of position.
They gained more in free agency than they lost in Pace and Holt. They have some good rookie prospects. This all points to an improved team, not a worse team. I'm not saying they are playoff bound, just that they are certainly not WORSE.
So is Jackson able to match last year's stats on a team that gets better, even if it is only a little better? OF COURSE.
With Jackson you get elite production when he is healthy. You DO NOT get "absolute goose-eggs" as Wimer stated when he misses games. You get whatever production your backup gets. BIG DIFFERENCE. 66 RBs had 5+ ppg. 50 had 7.35 ppg or better. You don't get zero from your backup.
I understand not wanting to draft him because you are worried about injuries. Sure, 1/2 the top 30 projected RBs are going to miss games due to injury, but Jackson has missed games two years in a row. Players get the injury prone label until they aren't injury prone, I guess. However, ALL RBs get injured, it's just a matter of when. But I understand the "logic" that other RBs are "safer" bets to stay healthy.
I understand being worried about the team being bad. But Jackson was very good last year on a terrible team. The Rams added more than they lost this offseason, so last year is roughly Jackson's floor. But I understand the theory, at least, that bad teams are less likely to produce good fantasy players.
What I don't understand is why people just don't get why other people like Jackson. YOU (the generic "you", not talking about any particular person) don't like him? Super. Other very smart people disagree with you, and the statistics back up the fact that Jackson has been very good on a very bad team. He has put up ELITE production in the absolute worst of situations.
Imagine if the Rams are 10% better.... or 20% better.... imagine if they have the league average in injuries, or *GASP* fewer than the league average... imagine that the #2 pick in the draft is *GASP* actually a good player.... imagine that the defense is better with more talent than last year and a defensive minded head coach...
Now imagine that Jackson only misses *GASP* 2 games.... he goes from very good to very VERY good. ELITE, even.
Now imagine Jackson doesn't miss any games. MONSTER.
Are all of these things going to come to pass? Not likely. What if NONE of them come to pass? Well, we get last year's production, #13 overall but #3 in ppg.
You can count the number of RBs with Jackson's ceiling on one hand.
SERIOUSLY????
Turner scored below 7 points 25% of the time, and also scored over 50% of his points against teams in the bottom 6 of rushing defense. He doesn't get to play those teams again this year.Whereas when SJax played, he scored over 7 points 100% of the time."I mean come on, lets just make up some more garbage!"(Had to put that in there...)
lots of qualifiers there. sounds like you are twisting numbers to get the result you desire to display. just my opinionfollowing your qualifiers = If I am almost guaranteed to get double digits an dhalf a player's games are stud games but the guy in question only plays 75% of the time (as S Jax has the last two years), then by my reckoning i'm almost guaranteed to get double digits in 9 of games played in a 16 game season (56%) and a stud performance in 4.5 (28%) of the games. Less than 30% stud games doesn't look too hot compared to the real studs from 2008 that Mark listed. but i'm known to be shallow
Was Jackson a consensus round 1 pick last year? I can't recall.
Well I just took the data and did the math. When he is healthy, you are 100% guaranteed to get at least 7 points, historically. Adrian Peterson can't say that. MJD can't say that. Michael Turner can come nowhere near to saying that.And once again you argument came down to how much he plays or doesnt play due to injury. Stop trying to nitpick your way into an argument and just admit "I only avoid him because I think he will get injured again."Tex Goldstein said:
He scores in the top 3 ppg every year. When he plays healthy, you are guaranteed to get at least 7 points 100% of the time, based on previous data. If you think he gets hurt again, thats your deal. When you draft like that though, you pass on guys like Brian Westbrook who then go for double digit TDs and 2000+ yards. Once again, SJax has the highest ceiling with only Adrian Peterson and MJD (both are drafted ahead of him...) in the discussion with him.Blue-Kun said:
final RB ppg rankings3 RB Jackson, Steven 15.85two_dollars said:
You're right. I will rephrase that.Steven Jackson scored over 7 points in 100% of the games he played healthy last season. That better? Now if you want to prove my point even further...why don't you try and find any other RBs who did that? There won''t be many...if any at all.
That is a personal preference, and that is fine. Some people like "safe" players, some people like upside.Going forward, you have to be able to predict injury to choose points per year over points per game.13 out of the 2008 preseason consensus top 20 RBs missed time due to injury last year. Good luck predicting injuries.
The trend is your friend.
Yeah, just ask Brian Westbrook or Curtis Martin or Fred Taylor or...[/sarcasm]
No follow-up on my "making things up"?
lol that's new. Now we pick players based on perceived value of heart. Man this is getting to be pretty one-sided.
Yes, it depends on scoring system... but you said I was making things up because YOUR scoring system is different. You implied that I was basically lying and that all my points were suspect because YOUR scoring system didn't match my factual data.As far as Jackson's toughness, you don't know what you are talking about. When he tore his groin muscle last year, not strained it, not pulled it, TORE it, I wrote him off for the year. The Rams were 2-5 when he tried to come back from a torn groin too early in week nine. He then sat out three games and came back in week 13 for a 2-9 team.So he slacked his way through the final five games for a last place team, showing no heart on his way to 638 yards and 4 TDs. He inconsistently put up 100+ yards in 4 games and scored TDs in 3 out of 5 games.It sucks when facts get in the way, doesn't it?
Matt Forte & MJD After that there were 4 RB's that had one game under 7 points and played FULL seasons and Frank Gore. Thomas Jones (week 17 - aka the week that doesn't matter for most people), Clinton Portis, Frank Gore, LT and Steve Slaton.
So, Just to make sure: "There won't be many..."And there were 2. I think that qualifies as not many. I stand by what I said, thank you for the data.Matt Forte & MJD After that there were 4 RB's that had one game under 7 points and played FULL seasons and Frank Gore. Thomas Jones (week 17 - aka the week that doesn't matter for most people), Clinton Portis, Frank Gore, LT and Steve Slaton.
As far as his groin is concerned, he injured it in the middle of the season, missed 4 1/2 games, then played extremely well for the final 5 games. The groin is not an issue. No other injuries. He is healthy.
Thanks, this should be an interesting year for sjax. I am considering him with the 5th but I really really love Slaton this year for some reason.
This is what I've heard/read as well.
I don't see how you can normalize his production over 16 games using this type of analysis. Jackson could just have easily had boom and bust games had he played in the additional 4 games.Last year, if you remove his top 2 games, his average PPG drops from 17.5 to 12.5. I love Jackson - I've owned him 2 years in my money league, love to watch him run, but I feel that he is too inconsistent to draft at his ADP and cannot find a reason to rank him so highly.
He doesn't score under 7 points, and rarely scores below 10. How is that inconsistent? Just because the big games are huge and the "small games" are simply big, does not mean that because they are small for him you can call them small.
