For the "Jackson Stinks" Crowd: Explain This

[AvengerRam]

Sometimes I marvel at your interpretation of things Avenger.

This isn't Faulk vs. Jackson it's about Faulk being under and misused.

Well, you see, Mok, I don't have to "interpret" what this thread is about, because, you see, I started the thread. If you even bothered to read my first post (I'm starting to wonder if you did, or if you just chimed in mid-stream), you'll see that Faulk is not even mentioned. Rather, I tried to make the point that the ypc averages of even successful backs can decline greatly from one year to the next, which I attribute to extraneous factors (as opposed to backs "forgetting how to run") such as poor line play.

I only brought Faulk into the picture later (quoting his early career stats) to bolster that point, not to make this into a "should Jackson have replaced Faulk" thread.

So, once again, I don't care who the Rams had running the ball this year. With the (1) poor line play, (2) greatly diminished passing threat, and (3) predictable playcalling, nobody was going to set the world on fire running the ball.

[Nick]

I don't remember Faulk saying that he wanted a reduced role from his 2004 numbers in particular so it's a bit of a reach anyway.

Faulk said himself that if he had to play a full season, it would probably be his last, and that's not what he wanted. How is that a stretch?

While I seriously doubt that, when he suggested a reduced role, Faulk meant a reduction from 17.5 touches per game to a little over six, you can't sit here and tell me that he made that suggestion under the idea that he'd only see a dropoff in 15-20 carries. If he was happy with that number, there was no reason to make the move.

I think that you'd agree that 180 carries in a season is a relatively low number for an NFL rb so targeting that number for both Faulk and Jackson are realistic for my scenario.

According to Faulk himself, it's too high for him. So it's a moot point. I would have prefered to see Marshall get around 100 carries on the year as a back-up to Steven Jackson, and I think if you looked at what other back-up RBs in this league have gotten in terms of carries behind full-time starters, you'd see that's not only a fair number, but nearly a 50% reduction in the workload placed on him in 2004.

We both agree Faulk should have been utilized more than he was this season, but to argue that he should have remained the starter and received around 180 carries just ignores the actual situation itself and Faulk's own statements.

[ramsbruce]

I guarantee that we'd be back with the Elite!

We will never even be close to being with the elite until we fix the defense, it won't matter who we have on offense.

[ramsbruce]

So, once again, I don't care who the Rams had running the ball this year. With the (1) poor line play, (2) greatly diminished passing threat, and (3) predictable playcalling, nobody was going to set the world on fire running the ball.

That's why it is pretty amazing that Jackson has the numbers he does this year.

[AJD45]

Here's a good article explaining one way to scheme a successful running game...

Article was a good read, but IMHO way too much hype and way too little attention to the "bad side" of Alex Gibbs. A good argument can be made that the main difference why Gibbs' teams succeed is thanks to techniques that are illegal (leg whip) or should be illegal (the cowardly cut block).