Just How Good Is Steven Jackson (Too good to keep?)

[AvengerRam]

Right now, Steven Jackson is 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards and 2nd in yards from scrimmage. Alone, those numbers are impressive. But, when considered in the context of the lack of playmakers around Jackson, they are downright amazing. I think one could safely argue that Jackson is one of the top 5 skill position players in football today.

He is only 26, so he should have another 3-4 years of "prime" play (absent an injury). He is signed for that period, so the Rams can keep him if they wish.

It is inevitable, however, that the question will arise this offseason: should the Rams consider trading Jackson?

The argument in favor of trading him is certainly compelling. Does it make sense to put all the team's eggs in Jackson's basket, or should they try to "cash in" the asset for multiple players/draft choices (See the Hershel Walker trade).

The argument against trading Jackson is equally compelling. There is no guarantee that draft choices will pan out (See the Eric Dickerson trade), while Jackson is a known commodity that can be the foundation to build around.

If it were my decision, I'd publicly state that Jackson will not be traded, but leave a phone line open. Everyone has a price, after all.

My price? It would have to be a combination of an established RB, and either: (a) a top-half of the first round pick + a 3rd round pick, or (b) a bottom-half of the first round pick + a 2nd round pick.

Ironically, the team most likely to offer such a deal might be the hated Patriots. They have been stockpiling picks for years, and could offer the picks desired along with a guy like Lawrence Maroney. If the Patriots fail to make it back to, at a minimum, the AFC Championship game, I could see them making a bold move to get a guy like Jackson.

Whatever happens, though, Jackson is a big key to the Rams' future.

[Nick_Weasel]

I think I'm of a similar mind to you - if our goal were to maximize the odds the Rams win a SB in the next 10 years, I think a trade would do that. Jackson is amazing, but like you said he's got only 3-4 years left. And we're probably not going to be a SB contender in that time frame. A trade helps us rebuild. 4 years from now we'd probably have 2-3 additional starters in their prime because of it.

But there are a lot of other considerations. Publicity, for one - would it hurt season tickets to get rid of our only star? Also, how would our current players feel about it? Would free agents want to come to a team that has proved it will trade its best player, even when that player has played his heart out for you?

In the end, like you said everybody has a price. I just hope our threshold for a trade is a high one.

[shower beers]

Right now, Steven Jackson is 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards and 2nd in yards from scrimmage. Alone, those numbers are impressive. But, when considered in the context of the lack of playmakers around Jackson, they are downright amazing. I think one could safely argue that Jackson is one of the top 5 skill position players in football today.

The argument against trading Jackson is equally compelling. There is no guarantee that draft choices will pan out (See the Eric Dickerson trade), while Jackson is a known commodity that can be the foundation to build around.

I think that's just it. What are the odds of getting someone of that caliber in return for Jackson? There are how many players in the nfl, and only a small handful who can be in the same argument as Jackson. Our odds of failing to reach his equal are far greater than achieving that.

And without Jackson, we really have nothing left to build around on offense. Having Jackson in our backfield will ultimately speed up the rebuilding process, because he'll make the players around him better. He'll take pressure off our QB, whoever that may be in the future, and he'll open up the receiving game. We need Jackson now more than ever, because without him we have zero chance of winning games.

[Rambunctious]

If I thought we were miles away from winning I would consider a Jackson trade but... I think we are just missing a couple of pieces to the puzzle and Spags just needs a little more time to get his system into play.

We haven't won a game this year Ram how can you say we are close?

I offer the Titans and the Dolphins as exhibit A and B. Two teams that changed very little but have drastically different records than last year.

But Ram learning a new system shouldn't make that big of a difference?

Exhibit C would be the fact that Bill Belichick took over the Patriots in 2000 and coached them to a losing record. They then won the Superbowl the next year.

I'm not suggesting we are going to win it all next year but I just think we are in a great position to build on solid ground instead of trying to find the answers in desperate moves.

[GROUND DOG 39]

Interesting thread Av, this is a scenario that could quite easily play out if this trend of losing continues. SJ is getting no younger and could very well be tempted to join a contender. I believe SJ on a good team, would be unstoppable. Whether this would benefit the Rams depends on the front office. Who, as of today, I am losing confidence in!

[laram0]

Unless we're made an offer we can't refuse Jackson stays in the Horns.

[RebelYell]

I look at it this way: I don't really care what the Rams record is in 2010, I don't see them making the playoffs and I'm not focusing my decisions on making the playoffs in 2010. They (unofficially) wiped this season off as a rebuilding year and I think 2010 will be that as well but 8-8 is still a possibility. The franchise is going young to build for 2011, 2012 and beyond. With your eye on 2011, does keeping Jackson versus trading him make the playoffs easier to attain? If you can get 4 draft picks over the next 3 years versus having a guy who will be 29 when you need him, I'm thinking trade.

JMO but keeping him means you think the team is very close to the playoffs. Let's be serious, they are 0-7 and have lost 17 in a row. They have lost their games this year by an average margin of over 21 points. This team isn't a step or two away from the playoffs. They need a QB, WR, DT, DE, SLB, WLB, TE. Adding RB to the list of needs doesn't make it easier but if it means adding 4 draft picks, it might make it easier.

[clarasDK]

In Denmark we have a saying: It is better to have one bird in the hand than 10 on the roof.

I am all for keeping Jackson. In the NFL big change can happen fast both to the good and/or to the worse. Just look at the Broncos and Titans this year.

If our O is going to work we need Jackson so that our young WR's gets room because defences have to focus on Jackson.

If we want to reduce the time where the opponents can rack points up against our D and keep games closer so that we at least have a small chance of winning, we need Jackson to run for us and grind the clock. Jackson seems to be one of the few RB's in the league that can run even when defenses but everything in the box, just like Jacobs can do for the giants.

And last but not least, how big are the chances that high draft pick will become quality players? Lets say we get 3 good pick the probability that 2 of them are busts is high. So we might get one good player in exchange for Jackson, and thats not even a sure thing. I don't think it is worth the risk.

So I think we should keep the one elite player we have and build our team around him.

In my opinion we should rather discuss if he should be used less this year to make his career with us last longer.

Go Rams!

[3STL9]

In Denmark we have a saying: It is better to have one bird in the hand than 10 on the roof.

I am all for keeping Jackson. In the NFL big change can happen fast both to the good and/or to the worse. Just look at the Broncos and Titans this year.

If our O is going to work we need Jackson so that our young WR's gets room because defences have to focus on Jackson.

If we want to reduce the time where the opponents can rack points up against our D and keep games closer so that we at least have a small chance of winning, we need Jackson to run for us and grind the clock. Jackson seems to be one of the few RB's in the league that can run even when defenses but everything in the box, just like Jacobs can do for the giants.

And last but not least, how big are the chances that high draft pick will become quality players? Lets say we get 3 good pick the probability that 2 of them are busts is high. So we might get one good player in exchange for Jackson, and thats not even a sure thing. I don't think it is worth the risk.

So I think we should keep the one elite player we have and build our team around him.

In my opinion we should rather discuss if he should be used less this year to make his career with us last longer.

Go Rams!

Agreed, trading Jackson is not an option.

After Peterson he is the best RB in the league period....Never know how DPs pan out. Jackson has to be what we build around

[RebelYell]

Jackson has to be what we build around

Are you building around Jackson or are you building around Jackson with the goal of replacing him when everything else is in place? By the time this franchise is re-built it's 2011. Are we still expecting him to be the same player?

I don't believe he'll be traded because the salary cap hit next year would be prohibitive. Assuming they sign some sort of one-year salary cap agreement. I can't believe the players association would allow a lone cap free season for teams to dump all their veterans before a potential walk out.

[#39 Fan]

Agreed, trading Jackson is not an option.

Agree. You wouldn't get anywhere close to what he's worth in return.


You think we're bad now? Trade that guy. Then see, that it can get much, much worse.

He gives us a chance to compete with anyone we play, during the rebuild. (obviously, the turnovers and penalties by the O MUST stop before this can happen) He's a very unique talent. One this team can't do without, currently. You build around that, not use it for high-stakes roullette

[rams4life88]

Was LT too good to keep?

[AvengerRam]

Was LT too good to keep?

Well, one could argue that the Chargers would have been better off trading him two years ago and keeping Turner...

As for the notion that trading Jackson is "not an option," I think that's an overstatement. I'm not sure if any player (certainly any non-QB) is too valuable to trade. It just depends on the price.

[eldfan]

I said it other threads about SJ trade it make no sense, unless teams is going to give you a pair of 1’s and other player or picks. I don’t think they will he is the only star player the rams has the face of the team. As I try to get though this season he is one of a small list of players I am proud of. My boys can say the rams sucks I say yes but we got SJ then they give me pound. What’s in the best interests of the team I wish I knew but Devaney don't think trading Jackson is.

I can't begin to tell you how dumb it would have been to trade Jackson. Devaney has repeatedly said publicly that the notion of trading away his star running back was too asinine to even dignify with a comment.

[RebelYell]

The problem with trading him (in my mind) is that roughly you have to take a $12 million cap hit. I'd rather the Rams spend that $12 million on 3 young free agents who have a known skill base.