Jackson starter in 2005 - Page 2

**Nick** · #16 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by moklerman

Especially considering that 3 out of the 4 games he got the ball more than 15 times he rushed for over 120+ yards.

Of course, those defenses ranked no better than 20th in rushing defense on the season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moklerman

I think this is in poor taste by Martz and that he should be focusing on improving the piss-poor line and gameplans rather than annointing Jackson before Faulk's contract status is even addressed.

How do you know he hasn't been focusing on improving the line? It's pretty hard to make any personnel improvements until free agency starts. And who knows if there have been any talks with Faulk about his contract. You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what's going on behind closed doors.

If it turns out that Faulk hasn't spoken with the Rams about his contract yet or that Martz hasn't even begun looking at the O-line, then I agree with you. But you're making these assumptions without knowing what's going on at Rams Park. Seems a bit unfair to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike

If there has been no discussion on making this move, things could get ugly. Sending a message to Faulk this way just doesn't seem right, if that's the case.

I agree - if Marshall found out like the rest of us, then it was definitely a poor move by the Rams to air it like this. Until we know more though, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But if this is how Marshall found out he lost his starting job, then that's a pretty dick move.

**HUbison** · #17 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mok

I just don't see the benefit to announcing something like this.

Mok hits on a great point here....why make this announcement? What benefit does this bring to the team? If there is no benefit, then this was a stupid decision. However, assuming this was a calculated move, then what is the benefit to the team? Does this encourage Faulk to think about a restructure? Does this motivate Faulk to seek a trade? Does this inspire Jackson to spend the whole offseason focused on being the starter? Does this allow Faulk time to adjust to the duties of the back-up?

I don't know the answers to any of these, but there better be a reason for this announcement.

**Nick** · #18 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

I'm tempted to believe that if I'm a Rams player and I hear this news, I gain the realization that if Marshall Faulk's job isn't secure, no one's is, and I need to play to the best of my ability if I want to maintain my starting role. They should be thinking this already, but this would really back it up.

*theodus69* · #19 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

This is one thing I have never liked about martz and that is his Tact. He seems to be a behind the back guy!

*adarian_too* · #20 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by HUbison

Mok hits on a great point here....why make this announcement? What benefit does this bring to the team? If there is no benefit, then this was a stupid decision. However, assuming this was a calculated move, then what is the benefit to the team? Does this encourage Faulk to think about a restructure? Does this motivate Faulk to seek a trade? Does this inspire Jackson to spend the whole offseason focused on being the starter? Does this allow Faulk time to adjust to the duties of the back-up?

I don't know the answers to any of these, but there better be a reason for this announcement.

Of course there is a reason. It just is not one that makes much sense. Or as William James said:

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

For sMartz, the brain starts working the moment he awakes and doesn't stop until he stands up to mutter something in public.

*moklerman* · #21 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Quote:

Of course, those defenses ranked no better than 20th in rushing defense on the season.

Arizona didn't give up 100 yards every week. The held Shawn Alexander well under 100 yards for example. It took Willis McGahee 30 carries to squeak over the century mark at 102.

120 yards is 120 yards. These were all NFL teams and as a matter of fact, division opponents to boot. Jackson only went over 100 yards twice last year and that was against SF at the end of the year and Philly when they were resting their starters. Does that mean those games don't measure into everyone's perception of how much potential he has?

*theodus69* · #22 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Oh he has potential, He's just not ready to carry the team just yet! :mask:

**AvengerRam** · #23 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Nonsense.

Jackson is more than capable of being the feature back and will probably rush for 1,300+ yards and average at least 4.5.

Faulk is a shadow of his former self.

Its time to move on. Why some of you are unable to do so - well, I guess I'll chalk it up to sentiment - but you don't win in the NFL by starting your second best player at any position.

**Nick** · #24 (**permalink**) -16-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by moklerman

The held Shawn Alexander well under 100 yards for example.

So did we, so I'm not buying into this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moklerman

Jackson only went over 100 yards twice last year

Interestingly enough, those two games were the only two games Jackson carried the ball more than 13 times. Does the door to the Logic Room swing both ways? Keep in mind that against that same weak Philly defense, Faulk could only gain 3.2 ypc.

My perception about Jackson's potential isn't so much based on stats, but what I see - things like Jackson gaining more yards because he's able to carry guys, not necessarily needing as big a hole, a faster step and burst (IMO, though he looked like he was dancing more in the final weeks, probably because of injury).

If we don't make significant improvements to our offensive line, specifically in their ability to run block, I'd rather have Jackson carrying the load than Faulk, since Jackson seems to be more productive with a poor line than Faulk does.

*r8rh8rmike* · #25 (**permalink**) -17-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Nonsense.

Jackson is more than capable of being the feature back and will probably rush for 1,300+ yards and average at least 4.5.

Faulk is a shadow of his former self.

Its time to move on. Why some of you are unable to do so - well, I guess I'll chalk it up to sentiment - but you don't win in the NFL by starting your second best player at any position.

In all honesty Av, last year you flip-flopped more than a few times on Faulk's ability, but now it looks like you're sure. I'm not. Mok put it in perspective, when Faulk was given the chance, he produced, bottom line. Jackson's durability, or lack there of concerns me. It's hard to be a feature back if you're standing on the sideline in street clothes.

I'm not dismissing Jackson as the feature back, I just would like to know with a little more certainty whether or not Faulk can be the guy.

Unfortunately, barring the unforeseen, we'll never know.

*afrightertoo* · #26 (**permalink**) -17-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

Does the door to the Logic Room swing both ways?

That's one of the better questions I've heard in some time.

*maineram* · #27 (**permalink**) -17-02-2005

Things are beginning to take shape for a rollercoaster of an off season. Pace tagged early, now Jackson's named the starter. What's next, Turley moves in with Martz !!!!

Rams in 2005 - :ramlogo:

Maineram

**txramsfan** · #28 (**permalink**) -17-02-2005

This is posturing for the one thing we as fans always seem to forget.

The salary cap.

*Yodude* · #29 (**permalink**) -17-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by tx

This is posturing......

If that's the case, Martz should seriously consider doing his posturing behind closed doors with only those directly involved in attendance.

I think Faulk has accomplished enough in his career, and conducted himself with sufficient class that he doesn't deserve this kind of underhanded "posturing".

If this is a salary cap issue, Martz should have sat Faulk down in his office and calmly explained that the team just can't afford to carry his salary as currently structured and the team needs to restructure in order to compete for free agent talent for next season. Faulk is more than intelligent enough to understand the business side of the NFL.

It's funny how Martz decide to "take the high road" with a classless asshole like Turley, but felt compelled to go to the media to deliver a stab in the back to the consummate team player that Faulk has been since he joined the Rams.

Totally bush-league!

**Nick** · #30 (**permalink**) -17-02-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodude

If this is a salary cap issue, Martz should have sat Faulk down in his office and calmly explained that the team just can't afford to carry his salary as currently structured and the team needs to restructure in order to compete for free agent talent for next season. Faulk is more than intelligent enough to understand the business side of the NFL.

Please link me to the source that tells you he didn't do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yodude

It's funny how Martz decide to "take the high road" with a classless asshole like Turley, but felt compelled to go to the media to deliver a stab in the back to the consummate team player that Faulk has been since he joined the Rams.

Please link me to the source that says this is how Martz delivered this news to Faulk.