J. Jones vs. K. Jones vs. Jackson minus 4th rd pick

*ramhard* · #1 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

I posted earlier that Monday night would be interesting to watch in the continuing saga of evaluating Rams drafting. They gave up a 4th rounder to move up to get Jackson, Cincinnati used that on a developmental right tackle.

As I said before, I think Jackson is a good back, but it will be interesting over the next couple of years to see if moving up was worth the draft pick rather than staying put and getting J. Jones or K. Jones.

Jackson is a better receiver than both, and I think a better past protect, but if Jones or Jones continue to churn out 200 yard games like they've done in the last 2 games... then it doesn't Jackson a bad pick, just Jones or Jones better ones...

I hope Jackson gets a chance with a better O-line.

**AvengerRam** · #2 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

You can't go on one week. The Jones boys had great games, but that doesn't mean they will continue to do so.

I still would take Jackson over them (and the Viking's M.Moore, who has also had some good moments) because he is bigger, more likely to be able to carry a heavy load, and is a very good receiver and blocker.

In the end, time will tell, but I wouldn't change anything right now.

**Nick** · #3 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Jackson's skills better fit our offense, thus making him the right pick for the Rams in my opinion. Both of the Jones 'backs are looking like they'll be good as well, but given our system, I'd still pick Jackson if I had to do it over again. Whether or not I'm wrong, we'll find out in the next couple of years.

#4 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

The Big Boy is our man. He does more things and i agree he is a better fit for our offense. No reason to look back on this move, although it does make for an interesting academic discussion once you get a couple of years down the road.

Meanwhile, we are in first place.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

**AvengerRam** · #5 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Not that its a fair comparison, as these four have had different opportunities to start this year, but here is how the top rookie RBs stack up (Chris Perry and Tatum Bell, who have played sparingly, not included):

Steven Jackson (St. Louis)
Rushing: 100-496-5.0-2 tds
Receiving: 15-138-9.2-0
Total yards: 634

Kevin Jones (Detroit)
Rushing: 145-703-4.8-2 tds
Receiving: 19-93-4.9-1 td
Total yards: 796

Julius Jones (Dallas)
Rushing 98-445-4.5-5 tds
Receiving: 6-24-4.0-0 tds
Total yards: 469

Mewelde Moore (Minnesota)
Rushing: 64-376-5.9-0 tds
Receiving: 27-238-8.8-0 tds
Total yards: 614

**HUbison** · #6 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

That's a good comparison. Jackson and J. Jones are in the worst situations with poor O-line play and pass friendly offenses. With the Detroit or Minnesota front lines, SJ would be leading this pack going away, IMO.

**AvengerRam** · #7 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Also, Jackson has only had one start this year, while the others have all had at least 3 I believe.

*RAMarkable* · #8 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

The Big Boy is our man. He does more things and i agree he is a better fit for our offense. No reason to look back on this move, although it does make for an interesting academic discussion once you get a couple of years down the road.

Meanwhile, we are in first place.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

Hey Gc, AV, and Nick:
This is an interesting subject; however I would like you all to give some of the reasons why you feel that Jackson is a better fit than the Jones' boys. ON the surface a good case could be made for any of the three. These players appear to be similar, other than Jackson is bigger, but that has not been a consideration in the past. Marshall certainly is not a "big" back.

WHAT SAY YE

**Nick** · #9 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Here's my logic. Jackson is a better receiver out of the backfield than Kevin or Julius. Jackson shows good change of direction ability and is probably the best of the three in pass protection. He's a smart player with good agility and acceleration despite his larger frame, and as we've seen, he can make a weaker offensive line look better by hitting the hole hard and being a powerful runner. Kevin Jones is quite fast but doesn't secure the ball as well, didn't get a lot of experience using his hands in the passing game in college, and isn't as good a pass blocker. Julius Jones probably wouldn't have been able to absorb our playbook as well and isn't a strong route runner as a receiver.

#10 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

I would have drafted the same way if I were the Rams org.
you take the best RB available and that was Jackson.

having said that, both Joneses are going to be studs as well.
my question is this. how do the Bungles pass on both Joneses for Chris Perry? if any team should be ashamed, it should be them.

**AvengerRam** · #11 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

I wouldn't be to certain of that. The Jones' have had some good games, but that does not mean that they will be able to sustain it. One of the keys for any RB is the ability to stay healthy while being pounded each week. Perry could prove to be a very good and durable back down the road. You never know.

I think people are making too much of the play of the Jones'. Did you see the holes Julius had to run through? And Kevin was playing against Arizona, after all.

#12 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

AV-

Arizona has a good defense this year. remember, they don't have Marmie, we do.

**evil disco man** · #13 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Steven Jackson is the better all-around running back of the three, and I'm gonna love seeing the mix of finesse and power he brings to the offense. I think having him will be good for Mike Martz (as far as playcalling). The more carries SJ gets, the more effective he is.

*adarian_too* · #14 (**permalink**) -07-12-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Disco Man

Steven Jackson is the better all-around running back of the three, and I'm gonna love seeing the mix of finesse and power he brings to the offense. I think having him will be good for Mike Martz (as far as playcalling). The more carries SJ gets, the more effective he is.

Well, some want to see him as fumble prone already. I'm wondering if durability will be the next criticism he will have to harden himself to. I can see some of the scribes now - "If it is just a bruise, or a contussion as the experts label it, can't you will yourself to play thru it, when the team needs you the most?"

Fair? No. But if the rest of the season means anything, there is no tomorrow. It is time to put up or shut up. Take one for the team. It is time to show heart. OK. Insert your own cliche at this point. How many carries can you take, SJ? And, does he have to even take any, paleontology man? Who's got game, boys?

*sbramfan* · #15 (**permalink**) -08-12-2004

Jackson is definitely not in the "Faulk" mold. (Not that many are, but by that I mean low center of gravity, shifty, good receiver, etc...), so I'm not so sure that he is the "better" fit in Martz' offense compared to a Faulk style. Some differences are:

He runs tall, ala Erik Dickerson. (not sure I really like that, but so far I can't complain with the results). It appears he generally moves the pile forward, which is a plus.

I don't think anyone "wants" to see him as fumble prone. I believe another thread was discussing if his ball handling style is prone to fumbling, as I know I have held my breath on a few plays where it appears he is loosely holding on to that rock.

But I definitely agree that the mix of a power running back who can wear defenses down would be a good fit for any offense.