Results 16 to 30 of 44
-
-09-10-2006 #16
-
-09-10-2006 #17
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
Most running backs that gain over 100 yards in a game get a good chunk of it during trash time, running the ball to eat up the clock, or mostly by only a few big runs. It's nothing out of the ordinary or to be worried about. Marc Bulger threw 38 times, but Steven still got his yards. I'll take that every Sunday.
-
-09-10-2006 #18
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
To have a running game, you have to have an offensive line, something we did not have today. Jackson fought and scratched to get those 121 yards, including the 40 you say the Denver defense just decided to give him. You like Jackson? You have a funny way of showing it. Bulger didn't have the greatest day statistically, should we go to Frerotte? Pace yourself dude, it's a sixteen game season.
-
-09-10-2006 #19
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
I would even contend, as Ferter did, that the Rams should have run Jackson more. At the start of the second quarter after the Rams had forced their second turnover, Jackson ran once on a seven-play drive that started at the Denver 34 and ended with a field goal. Why we were passing the ball on 2nd down on Denver's two, I have no idea. The play calling was concerning at times today.

Country Roads, Take Them To St. Louis!
-
-09-10-2006 #20
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
To Jackson's defense, just imagine if Coach Linehan had decided to go for the [1st, yikes] Rams TD from the five or six yrd. line, right after Stephen's long gainer near the end of the game... and SJ Rams his way into the end zone!
Eureka!! Euphoria!!
That would have placed him on a much higher stand for today's results. As it is, he is among today's leading RBs with 121 yds. If sure would have been nice to see that TD next to his name Vs. Broncos.
But our new HC played it super conservatively to end the game. That's okay too.
-
-09-10-2006 #21
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
I cannot believe that some people still feel the need to complain! We beat the AFC WEST defending champion Denver Broncos by rushing and fierce defense! What more could a true Rams fan want? Sure we could score 37 points and lose, but I am much more interested in WINS! I know I am "new" here-but frankly, some of the posts I have read are pretty inane. Ir seems to me that some people here want to act like the so-called "analysts" in the sports media and pretend like they know what they are talking about. Get over it and enjoy the win!
:l
-
-09-10-2006 #22
-
-09-10-2006 #23
Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Southern California
- Posts
- 535
- Rep Power
- 10
-
-09-10-2006 #24
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
Well I could see now what we are dealing with. Using WWE as an example of a fight? UFC is a fight. Anyways back to topic. This is Kurt warner Vs Marc Bulger all over again. People cannot get over the fact that Jackson replaced an injured and old Marshall. I came here expecting happy Ram fans that were excited about the game. Instead we have this crappy thread. This thread could have waited till tommorow. I mean everyone is entitled to his/hers opinion but the timing is terrible.If I want to see a fight, I'll watch the WWE's RAW or SMACKDOWN!Last edited by LaRamsFanLongTime; -09-10-2006 at 06:04 PM.
LET'S GO DODGERS
-
-09-10-2006 #25
-
-09-10-2006 #26
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
Your just pissed because your signature is not true DGR!! Right???
LET'S GO DODGERS
-
-09-10-2006 #27
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
Actually he 121 Denver had 161 rushing yards. I will agree though that a Pro Bowl is possible, not a given, its a long season but hopefully he will be there.he had more yards then all of the denver rushing and they rush a whole lot hes goin to a prw bowl okLET'S GO DODGERS
-
-09-10-2006 #28
Re: Steven Jacksons' not the answer/Bring on Stephen Davis
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
-
-09-10-2006 #29
-
-09-10-2006 #30




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks

Reply With Quote



Bookmarks