Steven Jackson, filling those big shoes nicely

[laram0]

We all know Steven Jackson had quite the challenge ahead of him. Taking over for the Superstar Marshall Faulk. Steven Jackson had his breakout season in 2006. How did 2006 compare to some of Marshall's best seasons?


Steven Jackson (2006) 16 games

Rushing:
1528 yds-4.4 avg-13 tds

Receiving:
90 rec-806 yds-9.0 avg-3 tds- yac=8.8

Marshall Faulk

1. 1999, 16 games played
2. 2000, 14 games played
3. 2001, 14 games played

Rushing:
1.(1381 yds-5.5 avg-7 tds)
2.(1359 yds-5.4 avg-18 tds)
3.(1382 yds-5.3 avg-12 tds)

Receiving:
1.(87 rec-1048 yds-12.0 avg-5 tds- yac=10.8)
2.(81 rec-830 yds-10.2 avg-8 tds- yac=8.3)
3.(83 rec-765 yds-9.2 avg-9 tds- yac=7.4)


I would say Steven Jackson is on the right track. Question is can he keep it going?

[Rambos]

I think he can, he will not get as many touches with the new cast. I am more worried about his long term deal getting done.

[blood85]

We need to make it a priority to sign him (SJ) long term.

[helorm341]

How long is it until he becomes a free agent??

[TekeRam]

I believe he still has two years left, does he not? Of course, his price will only go up if he has another huge year like we all know he will. Sign him up until he's 30 to 31 and then see where he's at.

[ActionJackson]

As long as he can bring his rushing average up a little more so he can get less carries, he'll be fine.

On another note, the front office isn't going to let him get away, they'll sign him to a deal.

[81~BIG-GAME]

As long as he can bring his rushing average up a little more so he can get less carries, he'll be fine.

On another note, the front office isn't going to let him get away, they'll sign him to a deal.

That should be the case but look at the way the FO are supposedly making signing Bulger to a long term deal thier priority this offseason, doesn't exactly give me a lot of confdence. I seriously hope this time next year we are not worrying about SJ signing an extension like we are this year with Marc. Here's hoping that eventually both get long term, lucrative deals that they have earnt on the field..

[bruce4life]

We Can Only Hope He Keeps Pace On The Faulk Track

[ramsanddodgers]

One of the ways statistics can be misleading.

A more versatile team has a better chance of succeeding? A team needs to be able to depend on it's personnel to perfom when called upon but not be dependent on one or two players to carry the load. It become seasier for an opponent to concentrate on that (those) player(s) at least a high enough percentage of the time to control the game. But then I am preaching to the choir here.

Spreading the wealth will keep more players happy in their roles, reduce the inevitable nicks and injuries, and prolong careers and even a Rams Dynasty!?!

Agreed, players like the numbers better as the financial rewards and accolades pille up quicker. That and in this day of salary caps and ree agency it is hard to maintain much more than a nucleus of a team. Talent pools are, for the most part, fairly even so it becomes a matter of adjusting a system and/or game plan to take best advantage of match-ups/tendencies so a RB or a QB who is recognizably a bit better than another is worth paying for and keeping happy. (So SIGN BULGER and JACKSON before they become disgruntled)

[Bulger_to_Holt_TD]

I remember when we drafted Jackson. I was personally surprised because we had Faulk and he seemed to be so durable and so great. But apparently the Rams knew what they were doing and Jackson has become one of the top backs in the game. I agree, we need to lock this guy up for a long time, because if he hits the free agency waters then someone will scoop him up.

[ramsanddodgers]

I remember when we drafted Jackson. I was personally surprised because we had Faulk and he seemed to be so durable and so great. But apparently the Rams knew what they were doing and Jackson has become one of the top backs in the game. I agree, we need to lock this guy up for a long time, because if he hits the free agency waters then someone will scoop him up.

Maybe it was because our fall-back-to guy was Stephen Davis?:\