Jackson was ready, but didn't play

[RamWraith]

By Jim Thomas
Of the Post-Dispatch
12/19/2004

TEMPE, Ariz. - One of the more bizarre occurrences of an increasingly bizarre Rams season was the sight of Steven Jackson - the first running back selected in the 2004 draft - standing on the Rams' sidelines.

All day long.

Even though his bruised right knee was deemed healthy, Jackson did not play in Sunday's 31-7 loss to Arizona.

"He was healthy," Martz said. "They blitzed us just about every snap the first half, and you need to have a guy in there that kind of knows what's going on. We felt like with the blitz pickups, that we could use Marshall in some of the pass routes."

So Jackson was not ready to be used in such a role?

"No, that's not what I'm saying," Martz said. "There's nothing wrong with Marshall, I guess, is probably what I'm trying to tell you."

Martz, who obviously was disappointed in the Rams' run blocking, then added: "Is Steven going to make the difference in that game by being in there? No. Whether Marshall loses four yards or Steven loses four yards, which one you want? It just doesn't matter at that point. Your best player's Marshall right now. How'd you like his third-and-one run?"

In one of the few highlights for the Rams on Sunday, Faulk made a spinning move to fight for extra yardage and a first down on a third-and-one carry in the third quarter. But that was about it for the running game.

The Rams gained a season-low 22 rushing yards on 10 carries - all by Faulk. The lack of output was particularly puzzling, because the Cardinals have one of the league's worst run defenses. Over the past six games, the Big Red have allowed 167 rushing yards per contest and 5.1 yards a carry.

Martz says he generally leaves it up to running backs coach Wilbert Montgomery on how much Faulk plays and how much Jackson plays.

"Marshall didn't want to come out," Martz said. "He was playing fine. ... That's not an issue to me."

Jackson basically declined comment after the game.

"I didn't play," he said. "I've got nothing to say."

When asked if he was surprised that he played the entire game, Faulk said, "I didn't pay any attention to it. Things were just kind of going on out there. I didn't have time to kind of explain to (Jackson) what was going on. So I didn't want to just throw him out there and not alert him to the different things that were happening out there."

In the early going, the Cardinals gave the Rams a lot of different looks with their defensive front seven - looks that the Rams had not anticipated. Faulk said he was trying to figure out himself what the Big Red were doing, in consultation with Montgomery.

"They mixed it up pretty good," Faulk said.


Polley is ejected

A disappointing season for linebacker Tommy Polley didn't get any better Sunday. Polley was ejected early in the fourth quarter after shoving Arizona defensive tackle Russell Davis in the face. Davis was standing on the sideline with his helmet off at the time.

"I don't know what happened," Martz said. "There's no excuse to be ejected. ... I need to talk to Tommy about that. I'm not happy about that at all."


Cason sits

Despite returning a kickoff for 30 yards last week in Carolina, a season best for the Rams, Aveion Cason was among the Rams' seven pregame inactives against Arizona. But with Faulk and Jackson dressed, Martz felt he still needed Arlen Harris ready and didn't feel like he could dress four halfbacks.

Without safety Aeneas Williams in the lineup, DeJuan Groce took over nickel back duties in the secondary.


Butler cramps up

There were no injuries of note after the game. Cornerback Jerametrius Butler left early in the third quarter because of dehydration, but returned at the start of the fourth quarter.

[AvengerRam]

Man, that ticks me off. What did Marshall do yesterday to warrant him deciding that he would stay in the game? I would have started Jackson in the second half and given him a chance to get things going with the running game.


Just more Martz inflexibility (see my other thread on Martz).

[txramsfan]

I don't think Earl Campbell in his heyday could run behind the current Rams O line.

[AvengerRam]

Well, one could speculate on that if they wish, but one thing's certain...

Cambell would have had exactly 0 yards if he, like Jackson, remained on the sidelines.

[Tailgage-Mayor]

Martz has too much trust in Marshall. He allows Marshall to make the decision. Marshall was a great player, with a huge amount of insight, but he’s not in a position to be neutral with regard to evaluating his own ability.

Unfortunately when you look at the facts, Marshall’s talent has eroded over the years. Marshall no longer practices at Macomb, he seldom practices during the week, and he still can’t make it through a season without injury. It’s a shame when our heroes get old. But with a cap figure of 7M a year, he’s got to either renegotiate, or get cut.

Martz should demote Marshall to a third down specialist, at a salary of maybe 500k per year.

The only reason I can think of that Jackson didn’t play is that Marshall didn’t want to come out.

[UtterBlitz]

Well 10 carries for the running game ain't worth much either. With Martz's attitude that the ball carriers are going to lose 4 yards a carry, it's no wonder there are so few running plays called. And this is against a team that is ranked way down there on run defense.

I would have put Jackson in. He looked real good the last time he was allowed to run.

Faulk's first down effort was impressive. He still has a few moves in him.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by UtterBlitz

And this is against a team that is ranked way down there on run defense.

People keep using this stat but ignore the stats of the game. While the Cardinals do rank in the pathetic level in terms of run defense, they certainly looked capable of defending the run yesterday. Take away the one carry for twelve yards, and on nine carries, Faulk gained ten yards. Does that run defense sound equally pathetic considering that number?

The Cardinals came to play yesterday, and because of weakness on the offensive line, weakness at the quarterback position, weakness on the defense, and weakness in the coaching staff, the Rams had little hope of making something happen.

To address the article, I am also bewildered as to why Jackson wasn't used. Reading what everyone was saying, it sounds like it's more than just Martz working the post-game spin on this issue. Faulk's statements sound a bit skeptical to me, to be honest. He's making it sound like he and Montgomery were having their own little tactics session which Steven wasn't allowed to listen to, since Marshall says he needed time to explain it to Steven. Why not just let him in on what's going on with the little meeting?

[r8rh8rmike]

The statements made by Martz and Faulk here are truely bizarre. All of a sudden Martz doesn't have the say-so in who's running the ball? Are you kidding me? And what's with the flippant comment , "Whether Marshall loses four yards or Steven loses four yards, which one you want?", like it's a given that any attempt is going to be a loss?? Is this like giving up on your team? And we are now to believe Faulk decides when or when not to send Jackson in the game?? I must be missing something here. If these quotes are accurate, this team is in far worse shape than I ever thought. Does anyone else see this stuff as disturbing?

I was at the game yesterday and could not understand what was up with Jackson because he was sitting on the bench looking ready to go the entire game. Well I guess I know now that Martz, Montgomery and Faulk decided to take Jackson out of the mix without so much as a single carry. This can't be right can it?

[Nick]

That's the kind of stuff I was seeing when I read the article, Mike. And it's the kind of stuff I'd like to see the FO do something about this offseason.