Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    sbramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    los angeles
    Age
    42
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    10

    The Future is bleek...

    Jackson has NEVER shed ONE block in the backfield in his entire career. Marshall literally would tell his blockers to take the second guy, because he'll get around the first guy. I think that was clear in this game. Nobody gets Marshall on the first try. Everyone gets Jackson on the first try. I'm sorry, but if you were to ask me what makes a good back, it would things like, finding the end zone, or the first down marker. Finding the hole. Shedding tackles. Jackson has none of this. He has one thing: Give him a big hole, and he'll run through it and it will be hard for the secondary to bring him down once he gets a head of steam. Even the TD he scored was another "hmmm, maybe if I run all the way around the line I'll see an opening". It does work once in a blue moon, but this guy sucks. And the O line is not the excuse because as soon as Marshall comes in, they move the ball on the ground. I'm also starting to think that Steven Jackson is "telling" the defense when he is going to get the ball by his stance, or whatever. He must be. You know, when he stands on his toes, vs. flat footed, or something like that.

    The whole team is full of mediocre players, other than about 3 guys. Even Tinoisamoa is just an average, decent Linebacker. Problem is, since he's the only guy on this defense that can tackle, he almost looks like he could be a star.

    With this many mediocre players, it's impossible to know which one's to keep, and which one's to replace. It will take years. They can only bring in so many new guys. This is not a team that is on the way up, where you just need to fill in a few blanks. This is a team that will patch a few of the holes in the damn next year, only to find more created. Guys on the O'line will start to retiree, as well as Bruce and Faulk, so even if they fix a few holes next year, there will be others to fill.

    There are teams on the rise out there, and the Rams are not one of them. They did not have good luck with the Defensive players they drafted, but they're all busts. Really, it just came down to luck. I mean, if Robert Thomas was the best Linebacker on the board, the Rams had to take him. And the same with Damione Lewis, and Travis Fisher, etc... I mean with 3 first round picks at DT, they should have a great D'line, but they don't. And their other 1st round pick, Archuleta, is in the same league as Coady, and Sorenson. He's a better tackler than these guys, but not much better, if at all, in coverage. Furry gets the "overachiever of the year" award, but not a starting job at free safety in 2006. Sad that he is one of the better players they have on the defensive side. Also, I think the bookends of Little and Hargrove are a liability. They are good passrushers, but the Rams need DE's that are bigger and can stuff the run. Little and Hargrove would be great at 3rd down blitzing, but unfortunately, there's 2 other downs before that. Usually teams end up with a 2nd and 3 or 4.

    Bulger may be good for an extra 2 or 3 wins more than this year, so perhaps 8-8, but the Seahawks will beat this team on Sundays, and twice on Monday for the next 3 years.


  2. #2
    Tony Soprano's Avatar
    Tony Soprano is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Jersey
    Age
    50
    Posts
    1,373
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Marshall Faulk had 3 carries for 5 yards with his longest run of the day being 2 yards.

    That's about 1.5 yards per carry against vaunted SannFran..

    I think there may be some nostaglia in your post. Our O-line stinks.

    .
    I agree with you on us being overloaded with mediocre players, no doubt.
    How many years now has it been known (by the rest of the NFL) that we can't stop the run.

    We are too light on DEFENSE in my opinion, when teams take it directly at us they hammer our smaller D. and Hammer us good.

    .
    .
    Last edited by Tony Soprano; -12-25-2005 at 01:13 AM.

  3. #3
    OldRamsfan's Avatar
    OldRamsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fort Mohave, AZ
    Posts
    886
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    We are very soft on D and the heart of our RAMS has been in a shooting gallery the hole season with every thing thats gone on ... Its one of the worst RAMS Ds I seen in a very long time ...

  4. #4
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,927
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Quote Originally Posted by sbramfan
    Nobody gets Marshall on the first try. Everyone gets Jackson on the first try.
    Quote Originally Posted by sbramfan
    Shedding tackles. Jackson has none of this.
    You know, I really wouldn't have a problem with Jackson critics if they at least made valid arguments. But when a guy ranks fifth in the entire league in broken tackles as of ealry December, please don't try to tell me that he always gets brought down on the first try and can't shed defenders. That just isn't true.

  5. #5
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,603
    Rep Power
    64

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Look guys, I know it's bad, but the fantastically pathetic nature of our D blew our season up a while back. We're all agreed that wholesale changes are needed and soon and there's no doubt it's going to happen.

    But all is not lost, there is talent there which, when given sufficient motivation and coaching will show up next season. Hargrove's shown up in recent weeks, Bartell was commented on positively in this forum a week ago, Pickett has played well, Little has had his issues, Fisher and Butler have been out virtually all season, and Tinoisamoa's a competitor.

    Problem is that mentally I think they're in a position right now where they are expecting bad things to happen, and having played the game, like many others on this site, I can tell you that when you expect bad things to happen they invariably do and generally in the most horribly obvious ways (73 yard TD runs).

    It's a vicious circle that isn't ended easily.

    As for the offence, we'll be fine next season, a top 5 unit with some new additions probably through Free agency as I expect the draft to be defensive all the way.

    And I just don't see Jackson as a problem.

    There is hope guys!

    Having said that, I have had one or two (or maybe even several) glasses of mulled wine.

  6. #6
    STLRAMSFAN Guest

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Where, Who, and How?
    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    You know, I really wouldn't have a problem with Jackson critics if they at least made valid arguments. But when a guy ranks fifth in the entire league in broken tackles as of ealry December, please don't try to tell me that he always gets brought down on the first try and can't shed defenders. That just isn't true.
    Do you consider this stat more valid then stuffed runs?

    I really wouldn't have a problem with Pro-Jackson people if they at least made valid arguments.


    I have a few questions about this:
    1. Where does this stat come from? (I believe it’s STATS INC but I would like to know where you can see it)

    2. Who compiles this stat (Who is responsible for it)?

    3. Is it left to the judgment of one person? (Most stats are recognized by multiple sources and are not as much of a judgment call such as a tackle is a tackle down by contact, a stuffed run is one where the refs do not move the chains in the forward direction, an INT is a change of possession signaled by the ref, a fumble is signaled by the ref, and a sack is a sack all end with the ref blowing the whistle or signaling the call. No ref blows a whistle or signals a broken tackle)

    3. What is the judgment criterion for broken tackles? (Is it if the defender gets a finger on him then he gains a half yard or what is the criteria. STATS Inc mentions it on their website but does not give their definition)

    4. Could this stat also be partially due to the RB having poor vision in the running game that he doesn’t see the holes when they are there? (If not if it’s all on the OL I would like to do a comparison of Faulk on a per carry basis.)

    5. Jackson was also in the top half of the league in carries for the year at the time of his 5th place ranking so he should be in the top half in broken tackles.


    Stats Inc who some cited as the source said he was then at 5th place in broken tackles still don't have a description of their grading criteria. They also have no area that I see to view the stats on how many the RBs have for the year and if it includes receptions by the RB or is it just running. If you could provide a link that describes this whole process if it's just rushing or if it includes receiving and how they decide what a broken tackle is. I am dying for information regarding this issue please provide me with information. Every other stat is out there for scrutiny after every single game like stuffed runs and they are black and white either they get caught behind the line of scrimmage or not. Either the chains move or they don't that is an official stat, which Jackson leads with the help of the OL.


    Broken tackles is not an official stat and should not be judged as one. Please provide information on how they derive this stat, what the current standings are, what the current totals are, and a link on how to get this information. This is not a bash on Jackson I just want either information about this stat or some validity to it and what it means. I have never even heard how many broken tackles he has had for the year only that he was 5th.


    I don't deny that our running game goes beyond our RBs it also extends to the OL and possibly play calling but this stat keeps coming up and its not put out there for anyone to analyze. I would like more information then has been provided by the people that keep using this stat that no one even knows how many total he has are we talking 10 or are we talking 100 no one knows so I don't see how you can make this a justification for a RB doing good.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -12-25-2005 at 01:31 PM.

  7. #7
    brawleyramfan's Avatar
    brawleyramfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    39
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Fella's lets put the blame where it belong's. Our Defensive Coodinator sucks! Our entire coaching mind set needs to be overhauled. MaxQ turned into Maxcrp! They have our team believing they are doing great, when they should be telling them the truth "we suck". We need to get back to the fundamentals. That's what got us to the SuperBowl in 2000 and thats what going to pull us out of this nightmare next year. We some how got caught up believing all the hype of how great we were, and that slowly destroyed this team, And blame once again goes to our entire coaching staff.

  8. #8
    RamJackson39's Avatar
    RamJackson39 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    990
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Mediocre players won the Super Bowl three times in New England. A good coach can change an entire team. That's what the Rams need.

    Also, Bulger went 12-4 in 03' despite a defense that really feel apart later in the season. Last season, he missed two games and I believe that we lost both of them. He came back and won the last two games though. He was above 500. in his record.
    The Roman and The Prince. Playmakers until the end.


  9. #9
    Fargo Ram Fan's Avatar
    Fargo Ram Fan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Fargo,ND
    Age
    50
    Posts
    696
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Quote Originally Posted by RamJackson39
    Mediocre players won the Super Bowl three times in New England. A good coach can change an entire team. That's what the Rams need.

    .
    Yes sir you are correct. This team has lacked LEADERSHIP and DISCIPLINE for several years. For the most part they have been a pretty SOFT team for the last several years...IMO a DIRECT REFLECTION of the head coach. This was really exposed in the SB loss to NE. The Rams have done NOTHING to over come it...how could they...its HIS personality. He has had 5+ year to MAKE THIS HIS OWN TEAM...AND WHAT YOU SEE NOW IS EXACTLY THAT!!!!

    You dont need a full squad of ALL PROS to win a title...PERIOD. Its not about MEDIOCRE players...its about LESS THAN MEDIOCRE coaching and PERSONNEL(players AND staff) decisions!

  10. #10
    RamsFan16's Avatar
    RamsFan16 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Age
    24
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    You can't base the future on one season. Our players will come along more once we have a real NFL DC not a Pop Warner DC. And a new HC
    RamsFan16

  11. #11
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,927
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN
    I really wouldn't have a problem with Pro-Jackson people if they at least made valid arguments.
    Wow, what a horrible comparison. sbramfan started this thread with a complete inaccuracy right off the bat. 100% untrue based on STATS, INC. Show me where someone who is pro-Jackson has done the same.


    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN
    I have a few questions about this:
    Then e-mail STATS, INC or Jim Thomas about it.

    You apparently had no problem thinking their stuffed runs stat was a written-in-stone criticism of running backs that required absolutely no fleshing out or analysis. But now you question the source when a stat is provided that supports the RB and his talents.

    Gimme a break. :drunk:

  12. #12
    STLRAMSFAN Guest

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    Then e-mail STATS, INC or Jim Thomas about it.

    You apparently had no problem thinking their stuffed runs stat was a written-in-stone criticism of running backs that required absolutely no fleshing out or analysis. But now you question the source when a stat is provided that supports the RB and his talents.

    Gimme a break. :drunk:
    Stuffed runs is easy to determine its did they move the chains or not yes or no. There is no gray area STATS INC defines it on their website and they give you stats for it. However they do not do the same for broken tackles.

    You keep using this stat that is at least three weeks old that says he was 5th in broken tackles. What qualifies as a broken tackle its not even an official stat. Is a broken tackle when some one lays a finger on the player and the player gains an extra half a yard or what constitutes a broken tackle STATS, INC don't have the stats available for anyone to look at and they don't even mention what makes a broken tackle. They furthermore don't even give the number for how many Jackson has or anyone else all the say is that he was 5th in the league at some point this year. I find it amazing with all your football knowledge that you would keep referring to this stat when defending Jackson without knowing any of the questions I have raised. I am not saying it can’t be true but WE have no idea what they are using to determine a broken tackle does it only count for runs, or runs and receptions, does it just take one guy touching him with one hand, does it require that he gains so many yards afterward or could he conceivably run backwards getting away from one tackle and then get tackled and still get credited for a broken tackle. If you were unable to answer all these questions I would think you would find different ammo when trying to defend Jackson.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -12-25-2005 at 11:55 PM.

  13. #13
    AlphaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    a
    Posts
    2,521
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    I will counter a couple of items in this thread without responding directly to the authors.

    Steven Jackson gets stuffed at the line due to hesitation and side shifts. He cannot run in the same style as Faulk. He needs to hit the holes and not stammer at the line.

    Regarding the Patriot's Super Bowl win, part was due to coaching and part was due to lax officiating regarding holding of receivers. That is why the newest interpretations of the contact with the receiver originating from last year is called the "Patriot Rule".

    Ultimately, our defensive coordinator has little imagination and not much motivational skill. Lovie Smith had the "loaf list".

    Finally, the losses the past two weeks greatly hinged on going for it on 4th down. The 4th and 2 Sunday at the 36 would have been a FG kick had Martz been coaching. Vitt does not seem to have game-time response to situations on the field. For the record, though, Vitt never claimed to be head coach material.

    GO RAMS!!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  14. #14
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,927
    Rep Power
    147

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN
    I find it amazing with all your football knowledge that you would keep referring to this stat when defending Jackson without knowing any of the questions I have raised.
    Since we're talking about things we find amazing, I found it amazing that you tried to use a stuffed run stat as a means to criticize Jackson and Jackson alone, only bringing up the play of his blocking pages later after many people persisted in not letting you ignore it.

    I also found it amazing that you criticized Jackson for having a ypc average enhanced by long runs, yet made no criticism of Marshall Faulk's average being boosted by the same thing, and apparently have no interest in addressing the point.

    I said if you want those specific answers, e-mail STATS INC. It's their information, so they're the ones who should be explaining it. Otherwise, I would suggest you hold it to the same validity as any other stat provided by them, as they're perhaps the leading authority on professional football statistics.

    If you don't, well that's up to you. But to blindly accept the stats that support your point while questioning and dismissing those that don't is perhaps the weakest position I've ever seen taken on a message board.

  15. #15
    STLRAMSFAN Guest

    Re: The Future is bleek...

    Quote Originally Posted by NickSeiler
    Since we're talking about things we find amazing, I found it amazing that you tried to use a stuffed run stat as a means to criticize Jackson and Jackson alone, only bringing up the play of his blocking pages later after many people persisted in not letting you ignore it.

    I also found it amazing that you criticized Jackson for having a ypc average enhanced by long runs, yet made no criticism of Marshall Faulk's average being boosted by the same thing, and apparently have no interest in addressing the point.
    Nice come back with support for the stats that you point out him being 5th in without any information at all on it you can't even tell me how many broken tackles Jackson has that is because even STATS INC don't post their own findings or describe how they would calculate it but they do for stuffed runs.

    Why don't you stay on topic because I have already answered your questions in the other thread and you are being an ass by trying to put words in my mouth from a previous post can't you openly debate your current stance with out trying to bring old posts into it.
    I am not going to let you get by with avoiding the question about you describing anything about the stat that you keep bringing up beyond 5th place at some point this year.

    I said if you want those specific answers, e-mail STATS INC. It's their information, so they're the ones who should be explaining it. Otherwise, I would suggest you hold it to the same validity as any other stat provided by them, as they're perhaps the leading authority on professional football statistics.
    All their other stats are described in detail and most are based off the officials officiating the game. Stuffed runs is based off did the officials move the chains. Yards are off the marking of the referee; interceptions are signaled by the referee nearly every other conceivable stat is based off the official’s calls. The officials do not call broken tackles and STATS INC don't even describe it or put their findings out there about this but they do stuffed runs and most all of their other stats. Same validity when I don't even see them posting it or describing it and the only way I hear about it is through a newspaper reporter that Jackson was 5th sometime this year and they don't even say the number of broken tackles. I am not saying it may not be true but who knows what the criteria is for the stat you obviously have no clue yet you keep using the stat without being able to describe what they consider a broken tackle and what is not.

    If you don't, well that's up to you. But to blindly accept the stats that support your point while questioning and dismissing those that don't is perhaps the weakest position I've ever seen taken on a message board.
    CONTENT DELETED (Attack the post, not the poster - AR). I am not blindly accepting any STATS I go out to their site and I see the number of stuffed runs Jackson has had I look for this so called 5th place in broken tackles and its not out there I ask you who keeps bringing it up and you cant tell me anyone’s totals or what they call a broken tackle. You SIR are BLIND, BLIND, BLIND, for not knowing anything about the stat you keep posting. I am not dismissing this stat at all but I can give you all the answers you want on the stuffed run stat and probably 15 other RB related stats with a description for each because they post the information about all the other stats and they are based off what the referee called.

    Read all my previous points in this thread and then if you are really into talking football then either answer some of the questions or ignore the posts.

    In summary don't get defensive if you bring up a stat in defense of something and have no clue how they calculate it or even the number anyone I mean anyone has tallied in that stat.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -12-26-2005 at 06:16 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
  •