Jackson starter in 2005

[psycho9985]

What does it matter.I agree with Avenger,but faulk will end up being the starter after the turf takes out Jackson.By the end of the season Arlin Harris will be the starter.

[Yodude]

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

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

Originally Posted by NickSeiler

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

See what happens when you type before you think?

Since you obviously missed it, I'll explain that my thoughts were in response to tx's claim that this is just salary cap posturing. Nowhere did I imply that I was privy to some obscure information that I gleened during some clandestine meeting with unsavory characters.

Thus ...no links.

If this is salary cap posturing, and Martz sat down with Faulk and explained the salary cap ramifications of his contract (which I'm sure Faulk understands anyway)...then there is no need for posturing.

If he didn't sit down with faulk, then that means Faulk find out through the media just like us.

As I said...totally bush-league.


And as a side note...my speculation is no less valid than yours. Even without links.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Yodude

See what happens when you type before you think?

Well, that was certainly necessary. :bored:

The way you posted, it sounded as if you knew what Martz had done - you said if it was a cap issue, Martz should have sat Faulk down in his office and talked about it there. Do we know he didn't do that already? No, we don't. So I guess I'm not seeing your point of saying what Martz should have done while not knowing what he actually did to begin with.

Referring to this as being "underhanded" or a "stab in the back" seems like a fairly big exaggeration to me. It would be a stab in the back if Marshall found out he lost his job this way - the AP report suggests that's not the case. But other than that, I don't think this is as big a mountain as you apparently want to make it out to be, but rather just something else you feel you can harp on him about.

[majorram]

I don't understand why Martz has done this now!!! must be something to do with the cap,I agree Jackson should be the starter, it just puzzles me its only FEB... Alot could change by the time the Rams take the field in sept!!

steve :ramlogo:

[theodus69]

What I see is Jackson as more of A between the Tackles runner, Not a side to side guy like Faulk! They need to use Jackson to Pound the opposing Defense so by games end they don't want to tackle him! This could also reduce the Injuries he suffered from the old turf already. But and a big(!) Martz has alot of different Personel since the the big win in 99. Yet he still tries to make the new dog do the old dogs tricks! Times change and so do players.....I'm not saying to get rid of him yet, He just needs to adjust to the times at hand!!!!

[AvengerRam]

Originally Posted by r8rh8rmike

In all honesty Av, last year you flip-flopped more than a few times on Faulk's ability

Not really. I expressed concern about Faulk's status before the season started, and I started calling myself a "Jacksonite" at mid-season. I did, jokingly, revise my title to "Faulksonite" after Marshall had a couple of good games, but that does not change the fact that I have thought that Jackson should be the feature back for some time.

I think the whole "Jackson is not durable" is the kind of myth created by people repeating it a lot of times. He had a nagging knee injury that was made worse by the turf. The injury was dealt with after the season (why isn't anyone praising Jackson for playing through it?) and there's no reason to presume it will recur. He was pretty durable in college as a feature back, so I'm not ready to question his durability due to one relatively minor injury.

[sbramfan]

I don't think Jackson's durability will be an issue, however, I do think this offense needs a running back who can catch out of the backfield. Not NEEDS, but would run more efficiently with. Jackson is mediocre at catching the ball, as most RB's are.

I felt having Faulk last season was great for passing downs, to block and/or slip out for a pass, or even go up to the line of scrimmage as a receiver.

I think that announcing Jackson as the starter is because they need to start negotiating with Faulk NOW on re-structuring his contract so they know where they stand in getting FA's. To have Faulk think he is the starter next year would probably lead him to believe that he still deserves starter money. (And I would HOPE Martz told Faulk before he announced it publicly). I guess you have to look at the NFL as a business, and if you can't afford to keep the 30+ year old RB at a high salary, you announce that the other guy is going to start, and hope the old guy will stick around for less money. I didn't like the way Martz/the Rams handled the Warner scenario, and I'm probably not going to like the way this Faulk situation pans out, but this is the era of Free Agency and it's dog eat dog.

I just hope that somehow Faulk realizes that he could either play 2 more seasons for a losing team for the money the Rams owe him (Jacksonville or Frisco or Chicago, or somewhere) or he can take a bit less and end his career as a Ram, and as the backup to Jackson. - knowing that being a backup to Jackson in this offense means that you still see a lot of action, not just your typical backup, meaning you sit on the bench. Not to mention that he could find himself back in the starting lineup for a Playoff bound team and continue to break Ram records.

RB by committee again in 2005 is my battle cry. Jackson on the run, and Faulk on the fly. (And mix in Faulk to spell Jackson in general as well.)

[moklerman]

Does the door to the Logic Room swing both ways?

You tell me. If a rb does well against a poor defense then it doesn't count, so if he does poorly against a poor defense what would that mean?

You say you're not basing things on stat's but perception but you keep referring to Faulk's YPC?

You wanna know what I perceive? Jackson was a solid rb in college that quite a few team's passed on, possibly due to questions about one of his knees. He showed sparks of potential during the regular season, helped greatly in my opinion, by teams keying on Faulk and Jackson not running in predictable running situations. I also saw a guy who had to leave each of the games he started with some kind of injury. I also see a rb who's having knee surgery after only a partial year in the league.

Many like to praise his ability to "carry" tacklers but that is one of the biggest misconceptions going. Yes, he chooses to run into people but he was very ineffective in short yardage situations last year. Whatever strength he has, isn't nearly enough to overcome the Rams' o-line deficiencies. I also seem to recall Jackson getting stuffed just as much as Faulk when defenses decided to key on him.

All in all, he might be alright, he might not. I'd like to see him play a few consecutive games as the starter before I make any final decisions on whether he should supplant a hall of fame back like Faulk, who's shown that he can still get it done when the situation is even remotely realistic. Anyone else remember the third and 1's that Faulk faught to convert? I wonder why he was getting the ball instead of Jackson and his power to carry defenders?

[GSOT]

Just so you guys know faulk is in support of this. He knows this could prolong his career.

[theodus69]

This off season is big and if whoever can't pull their head out of their ass and patch the holes this ship will sink with a hell of a lot of talent! Jackson gets to start ...Yeah... Faulk may produce better #'s not feeling he has to make something happen!Jackson is a pounding back, you can't give him the ball 10 times and expect him to break one....he has to break them down first. Who knows, maybe the combo of Jackson pounding the D ,leaves way for the foot work of a great back to scat in for the score while the D is recovering! But it is all gonna hinge on who makes the right decision on working out the O-line problem!

[moklerman]

Just so you guys know faulk is in support of this. He knows this could prolong his career.

I'm wondering if anyone has seen a quote from Faulk on the subject? I saw that Martz said that Faulk said that he was fine with it but we all know how much stock should be put in what Martz says don't we?

[theodus69]

Originally Posted by moklerman

I'm wondering if anyone has seen a quote from Faulk on the subject? I saw that Martz said that Faulk said that he was fine with it but we all know how much stock should be put in what Martz says don't we?

Couldn't agree more!

[Nick]

Originally Posted by moklerman

You tell me. If a rb does well against a poor defense then it doesn't count, so if he does poorly against a poor defense what would that mean?

I'm not saying it doesn't count at all. I'm saying a good performance against a poor defense needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I think all performances count, but I don't think it's right to say Faulk still has it because he was able to run the ball against bad defenses.

Originally Posted by moklerman

You say you're not basing things on stat's but perception but you keep referring to Faulk's YPC?

What I said is that my perception of Jackson isn't based so much on his stats but what I see him do. So why is it wrong that I bring up Faulk's YPC?

Originally Posted by moklerman

You wanna know what I perceive? Jackson was a solid rb in college that quite a few team's passed on, possibly due to questions about one of his knees. He showed sparks of potential during the regular season, helped greatly in my opinion, by teams keying on Faulk and Jackson not running in predictable running situations. I also saw a guy who had to leave each of the games he started with some kind of injury. I also see a rb who's having knee surgery after only a partial year in the league.

I think a lot of times, Jackson did succeed because defenses weren't focused on him. However, I don't think it was as big a distraction as you're making it out to be, because I would suggest that situation represents a minority of his plays.

And also, I'm not sure I agree that Jackson was seeing success because he was running in situations where the defense wouldn't suspect runs. If you look at the splits, the majority of his carries came on first and 8-10 and second and <6, which seem like situations where running the ball is likely. Of Jackson's second down carries, only 16 carries came whenever it was second and 8+. On third down, 9 of his ten carries were third and two or less. While down and distance isn't the only determination for playcalling situations, these things should certainly be considered.

Finally, 14 games is a partial season? He might not have started, but he saw time in all but two games. I'd say that's a bit more than "partial."

Originally Posted by moklerman

Yes, he chooses to run into people but he was very ineffective in short yardage situations last year.

Carrying tacklers isn't restricted to short yardage situations, but I agree that he wasn't very successful in short yardage situations.

[moklerman]

Finally, 14 games is a partial season? He might not have started, but he saw time in all but two games. I'd say that's a bit more than "partial."

Depending on the context and technically speaking, yes, that's a partial season. 14 games isn't 16 games. But, I wouldn't be listing his season as "partial" if the 14 games he was in were a little more substantial.

10 out of 14 games with 10 carries or less doesn't constitute a full season to me. We're talking about a concern for his durability and he didn't even come close to playing a full season yet still managed to get dinged/hurt on multiple occasions in his abbreviated playing time. Now, he'll be coming off of knee surgery to start next year. Minor surgery, but the fact remains he's having issues already and his career is barely a year old.

For a guy who's "good" and not "great", it isn't encouraging to see him having to deal with injuries already. Having him slow down at all will only take away from his goodness.

[Nick]

Definitely can't argue those points, Mok. You bring up some good ones. I think if the Rams want to help Steven Jackson and the rest of their team, they really need to fight for some new turf.