Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,230
    Rep Power
    61

    Balzer comments from Sirius Radio

    Smith40: Jackson should get 20-24 touches a game either through the pass or runs. 16 runs a game isn't going to cut it, and is not a true indicator of Jackson's talents. He is a moose and he seemingly gets stronger with the more carries he gets.

    Howard: He averaged 19.8 touches per game.

    Smith40: Most notable was 6 carries in that loss in St. Louis to Arizona. I don't diminish the accomplishment of 1000 yard seasons. It still takes a lot of skill to accomplish such a feat.

    Howard: Jackson had 12 carries against Arizona, not 6. Now, 12 isn't a lot, obviously. Jackson totaled 6 yards on those carries with a long run of 6. That, of course, means he totaled 0 yards on his other 11 attempts.

    Jackson fails to take responsibility for his poor running and reads on many occasions (yes, some of it was blocking). As I've noted before, if you're getting stuffed for losses on first down, it's tough to keep running.

    And, yes, he exceeded that 62.5 average with an average of 69.7. Not much of a difference. The issue with Jackson is average per attempt. His was 4.1. Of the 15 other runners that had at least 1,000 yards, 11 had better averages than him.

    Smith40: When Jackson gets over 20 carries, he gets 100 yards. Anyone remember the Jacksonville game last season? Jackson was knocking people on their rumps in the 4th quarter when they needed to kill the clock.

    Howard: These are typical stats that don't look at the big picture. Why did Jackson get the ball so much in the fourth quarter? Because the Rams had the lead.

    In most of the games the Rams lost, they fell behind, and often by a lot, which meant they weren't going to run the ball. In those games, Jackson was often stuffed consistently and that led to more passing. When he would get minus 2 yards on first down, passes followed. When he was stopped on 3rd and 1, that turned the ball over to the defense, which kept the chains from moving and fewer offensive plays.

    It's interesting to note that Jackson is constantly yapping about running plays not being called, yet he had 254 carries last season. In 1999, Marshall Faulk had 253. In 2000, he also had 253 and in 2001, he had 260. In those years, Faulk averaged 5.5, 5.4 and 5.3 per attempt. Jackson averaged 4.1 last season. If he had Faulk's average, he would have gained another 330 yards.

    Smith40: The run blocking, and play calling on this team was horrid in the Cardinals game. They couldn't figure out a simple safety blitz?

    Howard: Well, it's interesting you bring up the safety blitz. As I recall, Bulger was injured on a play where Jackson didn't pick up a blitz. On another play, he got bowled over by Wilson. What is forgotten in this entire discussion about Jackson is that there's more to being a running back than running. You are often responsible for blitzers. And Jackson has had consistent problems doing that. It's not a matter of figuring it out, it's a matter of doing it and taking on the blitzer. Faulk was once very good at it, but not as much anymore. In that Arizona game, Arlen Harris came in the game late, because he was the only back capable of stopping Wilson on the blitz.

    Smith40: The Vikings were in the top 5 in rushing when Linehan was the offensive coordinator in Minnesota

    Howard: They were 18th in 2004 and 4th in 2003. Not very consistent. And, their top 2 running backs in 2003 had 281 total carries. The difference was that Culpepper had 422 rushing yards, which elevated their total rushing numbers. I don't think anyone would argue that Culpepper's rushing totals should be credited to the grounbd game, when most of them surely came on pass plays.

    The Vikings threw the ball virtually as much as Martz did under Linehan. So, where is the evidence that anything will change? Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. But I can assure you, Linehan is going to throw plenty, and that's why he has added tight ends that can catch.

    SMITH40: In 2005, like it or not, that was Martz team. For a man who was so sick and suffering such a serious illness, he sure did a lot of string pulling behind the scenes. Those theatrics cost him his job.

    Howard: Wrong. In reality, the thing that hurt Martz the most was when Mortensen reported what Martz had told him concerning statements Shaw made about the team losing money if it got to the Super Bowl.

    Smith40: There appears to be calm at Rams Park, and a consensus on both draft picks and free agency. This bodes well for the team now and in the future.

    Howard: Actually, there wasn't consensus in the first round. There were strong feelings by some to take Greenway

    Smith40: My feelings are that the Rams had a productive offseason and did some good things that they haven't done the past several seasons. My belief is that the same individuals still in our front office who were lambasted over the Martz situation are the same ones who are pulling the triggers apparently on these good signings and draft picks.

    No, there are no guarantees that any of these picks or free agent signings will work out. There are no guarantees in professional sports. What I can say with certainty is that the team was proactive, apparently did their homework and signed some players and drafted individuals that appear ready to make an immediate impact for this team, and supplied a badly needed injection of talent.

    I was listening to Balzer this morning on his radio show, and he had a subject on who is a draft expert, who gave the Rams an "A" in their draft. I am curious to read commentary on this issue from others here.

    Howard: That person, Rob Rang, also spoke highly of last year's draft, which was run by Martz. As for free agency, some perspective is in order. Yes, the Rams were proactive and got some players quickly. However, every year is different for different reasons. Last year, the best linebackers in free agency were Antonio Pierce and Ed Hartwell, but the Rams didn't have the salary-cap room to go for a big signing. This year, different than last, the cap went up mor than $17 million, thus the move on Witherspoon. Had Witherspoon been available last year, I'm quire certain they wouldn't have been able to sign him.

    So, last year, they hoped cheaper guys like Claiborne and Coakley would help a bad linebacking corps. There was little else available.

    Smith 40: The Rams have had more then adequate CAP room throughout the Martz years to sign free agents and draft properly despite the ramifications of Warner and Turley. By the way, I believe that Martz was the man behind the resigning of Warner to that hefty bonus before the 2004 season, and I thought Martz engineered the Turley trade.

    Howard: They had little cap room in several years. That's a fact. Having the cap go up $5M compared to $17M is huge. Anyone can figure out that if the cap had gone up only $5M this year, many of the moves the Rams made would not have happened. Once again, you ascribe every decision to Martz. In case you didn't realize it, he didn't negotiate contracts. Actually, it was Zygmunt that decided to pay Warner the bonus. Martz, and everyone, was in favor of the Turley deal, as far as I can tell, but it was Zygmunt that negotiated the contract. No one was to blame for that. No one could predict Turley would hurt his back. BTW, in case you forgot, the Rams were 12-4 the one year Turley played.

    The bottom line is this: The Rams have made moves this year that look good now, and they might turn out very good. But they were able to be aggressive because of the cap going up so much.

    This is like a spinning top, because you see everything black and white, when that is not the way it is. If Martz wanted Zygmunt to sign a player, and Zygmunt doesn't get it done (like Conwell or Wistrom), was that Martz's responsibility?

    How does anyone know that Martz might recommended moving on without Warner, but that Zygmunt said it was too dangerous and would create too big of a cap hit the following year?

    The reality is, that the relationship between the two turned sour, and one of the reasons is that Zygmunt didn't get players signed or added that Martz wanted. The truth is they all had responsibility for the roster, not one person. We all realize you have to believe it was that way so you can blame everything on Martz. But it's simply not the way it worked (or didn't work). Martz was responsible for mistakes, but so was Zygmunt, Lovie Smith, Armey and others. Most realize that, but you have never been able to acknowledge that others also contributed.

    nitwitdog: How do you think Bulger felt about the Cutler rumors? I know, it's just a business and all that, but stuff like this has got to make guys wonder how/where they stand with the team.

    Howard: Bogus rumors. Just like the ones that had the Rams trading for Culpepper.

    nickseiler: Howard, when you say bogus rumors, are you referring to the Rams actually being interested in Cutler at all, or simply the Rams trading up for him? Just trying to get some clarification.

    Howard: The trade up rumors.


  2. #2
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    This is why I love Balzer. Here's a simpler version of the above transcript:

    Smith40: opinions pretending to be fact...mis-information....speculation pretending to be fact....Martz hate, Martz hate, Martz hate

    Balzer: informed thought....logic....actual fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Balzer
    We all realize you have to believe it was that way so you can blame everything on Martz. But it's simply not the way it worked (or didn't work).
    Wow, Balzer pretty well summed up the entire "I hate Martz" crowd in two sentences.

    nickseiler
    atta boy, nick.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  3. #3
    rammiser's Avatar
    rammiser is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,071
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Comparing Faulks mvp years to Jacksons first full year of starting is just plain stupid if you ask me. If you want to compare stats take Marshall's first full year and Jacksons first full year.

    Faulk-314 attempts,1282 yds,4.1 average,11 td's,52 receptions,522yds,1td

    Jackson-254 attempts,1046 yds,4.1 average,8 td's,43 receptions,320 yds,2td's.

    That's a little more fair to a young rb. You can't compare MVP Faulk to a first year starter.

    For Balzer to make that comparison makes me think he is just not a Jackson fan and a stupid observation.
    Last edited by rammiser; -06-14-2006 at 11:24 AM.
    Just Fix It

  4. #4
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but the only comparison I'm seeing from Balzer is the carries for Faulk and Jackson. The point being.....Jackson should think twice when complaining about carries when it's the same amount of carries Faulk had during his prime.

    And a question I've been asking for months, which nobody has an answer for, is why are we so convinced Jackson will get a huge amount of carries when Linehan has only once given a back more carries than what Jackson had last year?
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  5. #5
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    I think HUbison's right. The main point there is the number of carries. Of course, at the height of his prime, I'm sure Faulk was getting more touches because he caught so many passes out of the backfield.

  6. #6
    rampete is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Posts
    654
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Quote Originally Posted by rammiser
    Comparing Faulks mvp years to Jacksons first full year of starting is just plain stupid if you ask me. If you want to compare stats take Marshall's first full year and Jacksons first full year.

    Faulk-314 attempts,1282 yds,4.1 average,11 td's,52 receptions,522yds,1td

    Jackson-254 attempts,1046 yds,4.1 average,8 td's,43 receptions,320 yds,2td's.

    That's a little more fair to a young rb. You can't compare MVP Faulk to a first year starter.

    For Balzer to make that comparison makes me think he is just not a Jackson fan and a stupid observation.

    good point, but balzer was actually comparing jackson's and faulk's first year numbers under the martz offensive system...

  7. #7
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Jackson needs to keep his mouth closed, put his head down and pick up some yardage.

    It really is that simple.

    Marshall did that all of his career and that's why he'll be a first ballot HOF'er.

  8. #8
    RamsFan16's Avatar
    RamsFan16 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Age
    25
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Quote Originally Posted by rampete
    good point, but balzer was actually comparing jackson's and faulk's first year numbers under the martz offensive system...
    You can't in my opinion compare there two first year starter years to eachother, we had a better line and also Jackson and Faulk are two diffrent kinds of runners, Jackson is north and south, Faulk was outside get around the tackles. Martz ran alot of sweeps with Jackson and that wasn't his style!
    RamsFan16

  9. #9
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,669
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFan16
    You can't in my opinion compare there two first year starter years to eachother, we had a better line and also Jackson and Faulk are two diffrent kinds of runners, Jackson is north and south, Faulk was outside get around the tackles. Martz ran alot of sweeps with Jackson and that wasn't his style!
    By this logic, you shouldn't be able to compare any one player to another player at all then. They all have different lines of varying degrees of strength and different individual styles.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #10
    RamsFan16's Avatar
    RamsFan16 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Age
    25
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Balzer comments from Cyrus Radio

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    By this logic, you shouldn't be able to compare any one player to another player at all then. They all have different lines of varying degrees of strength and different individual styles.
    I know, He utilized Jackson wrong, he runs between the tackles not outside the tackles where most of the runs were.
    RamsFan16

  11. #11
    LaRamsFanLongTime's Avatar
    LaRamsFanLongTime is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Foothill Ranch CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    808
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Balzer comments from Sirius Radio

    Faulk was a veteran that had learned the game. Jackson is young and still has a lot to learn. That is why no comparison should be made. It has nothing to do with the style.
    LET'S GO DODGERS

  12. #12
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,642
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Balzer comments from Sirius Radio

    I think we are getting farther and farther from the actual comparison. The comparison is not an in-prime Faulk vs. a 2nd-year Jackson......it's about the number of carries in a season. Here's the original quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Balzer
    It's interesting to note that Jackson is constantly yapping about running plays not being called, yet he had 254 carries last season. In 1999, Marshall Faulk had 253. In 2000, he also had 253 and in 2001, he had 260.
    The message is NOT "Jackson needs to be like GSOT Faulk". The message IS, "Jackson needs to shut his pie hole because he's getting as many carries now as GSOT Faulk did."
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  13. #13
    LaRamsFanLongTime's Avatar
    LaRamsFanLongTime is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Foothill Ranch CA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    808
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Balzer comments from Sirius Radio

    The message is NOT "Jackson needs to be like GSOT Faulk". The message IS, "Jackson needs to shut his pie hole because he's getting as many carries now as GSOT Faulk did."
    I will buy that
    LET'S GO DODGERS

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Glenrothes, SCOTLAND
    Posts
    9,970
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Balzer comments from Sirius Radio

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison
    I think we are getting farther and farther from the actual comparison. The comparison is not an in-prime Faulk vs. a 2nd-year Jackson......it's about the number of carries in a season. Here's the original quote: The message is NOT "Jackson needs to be like GSOT Faulk". The message IS, "Jackson needs to shut his pie hole because he's getting as many carries now as GSOT Faulk did."
    yea, I will buy that for a $ as well.

    that young pup needs to say a lot less and do a lot more.


  15. #15
    STLRAMSFAN Guest

    Re: Balzer comments from Sirius Radio

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Balzer On Steven Jackson
    He averaged 19.8 touches per game.

    Jackson had 12 carries against Arizona, not 6. Now, 12 isn't a lot, obviously. Jackson totaled 6 yards on those carries with a long run of 6. That, of course, means he totaled 0 yards on his other 11 attempts.

    Jackson fails to take responsibility for his poor running and reads on many occasions (yes, some of it was blocking). As I've noted before, if you're getting stuffed for losses on first down, it's tough to keep running.

    And, yes, he exceeded that 62.5 average with an average of 69.7. Not much of a difference. The issue with Jackson is average per attempt. His was 4.1. Of the 15 other runners that had at least 1,000 yards, 11 had better averages than him.

    Jackson was often stuffed consistently and that led to more passing. When he would get minus 2 yards on first down, passes followed. When he was stopped on 3rd and 1, that turned the ball over to the defense, which kept the chains from moving and fewer offensive plays.

    It's interesting to note that Jackson is constantly yapping about running plays not being called, yet he had 254 carries last season. In 1999, Marshall Faulk had 253. In 2000, he also had 253 and in 2001, he had 260. In those years, Faulk averaged 5.5, 5.4 and 5.3 per attempt. Jackson averaged 4.1 last season. If he had Faulk's average, he would have gained another 330 yards.

    Well, it's interesting you bring up the safety blitz. As I recall, Bulger was injured on a play where Jackson didn't pick up a blitz. On another play, he got bowled over by Wilson. What is forgotten in this entire discussion about Jackson is that there's more to being a running back than running. You are often responsible for blitzers. And Jackson has had consistent problems doing that. It's not a matter of figuring it out, it's a matter of doing it and taking on the blitzer.

    Wow Balzer don't sound very impressed with Jackson. If I said anything about this last year I would have been BBQ. I only mentioned that he was not blocking well and led the league in stuffed runs. Now it seems a lot of people are jumping on the bash Jackson bandwagon. While I just wish he would shut up and be a team player. I am still willing to give him a chance and reserve the bashing until mid season this year. But he needs to start backing up the talk and the signs he puts above his locker and show he can be a complete back.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -06-14-2006 at 11:02 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •