JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. Dr. Z's mailbagg---SI

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Rep Power

    Dr. Z's mailbagg---SI

    Here come the Rams. And a pair of thank you's to Stephen of North Vancouver, B.C., and Bart of Washington. Steve asks -- why was Mike Martz willing to do a quick switch from Warner to Bulger, but he's dragging out the Marshall Faulk to Steven Jackson thing? Bart wants to know what will be next year's approach, if Jackson really replaces Faulk? First of all, Martz dragged out the Warner-Bulger thing, too. Warner got his job back as soon as he supposedly got over the broken finger two years ago. Last season, going into the Giants opener, Martz told Fox's Pam Oliver, on camera, than Warner was his quarterback to the bitter end, come hell or high water. The high water arrived next week and lasted all season. Running back is a different position. You can alternate them, or use them together, but you can't do that with QBs. Jackson might be a slight improvement in the running game, but no back was the pass-catching threat Faulk was. Repeat, was. He dropped a couple against Seattle, remember? They won't be able to put Jackson in the slot and run him downfield as effectively as they did with Faulk. But who says Marshall will be gone? Maybe he'll be a third down passing-situations back.

    My question is - will Marshall's pride allow him to be a backup type like a third down back? Judging from his interview statements, he's as much in denial as Warner was, he's simply had less attention focused on him because he's not a QB and he doesn't have a call-in show junkie wife.

  2. #2
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Morgantown, WV
    Rep Power

    Re: Dr. Z's mailbagg---SI

    It's hard to say. Faulk has made it sound as if he doesn't think he's lost anything, but I'd disagree with him. The bottom line is production. If he's still able to produce, keep him in the role he's at. If not, then perhaps he should split more carries with Jackson. At some point though, we need to figure out what's going on because Faulk's taking up a good bit of the cap, money which we could use to improve the lines or the defense in general.

  3. #3
    general counsel Guest

    Re: Dr. Z's mailbagg---SI

    I understand the point guys. Lets all keep in mind that simply cutting faulk does not necessarily free up any money, since we will take a hit on the acceleration of the signing bonus. The best answer will be for faulk to take a pay cut and stay in a reduced role.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


Posting Permissions

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