For those who think Steven Jackson has durability issues...

[Dr.Ram]

I find it curious how the media and a lot of fans have latched on to the idea that Steven Jackson is not durable. Yes, he had a knee issue that caused him to miss time last year, but consider his track record. In his last two years at Oregon State, here's a good indicator of his durability:

2003 (Senior Year): 13 games, 350 rushes, 44 receptions
2002 (Junior Year): 13 games: 319 rushes, 17 receptions

That's 730 touches in 26 games over two years, for an average of 28 touches per game! How is that not an indicator of durability?

Let me give you another way of viewing what happened to Jackson last year. He had a knee problem, which was made worse by the Rams' horrible artificial surface, and instead of going on IR or having surgery mid-season, HE PLAYED THROUGH THE PROBLEM!!!! Let's not forget that, in the two games he missed, he was actually able to play in one, but was not put in the game because of some weird mixup with the coaches.

Will he get injured this year? Who knows? Certainly, he absorbs a lot of impact and will have to be tough to stay healthy. But, geez! Give the guy a chance before giving him that dreaded "fragile" label!

[HUbison]

Excellent post, Doc. I've never understood why this misconception of Jackson's health got started, for the very reason you pointed out. Other than one game last year, he's been healthy, moreso than most NFL backs.

[ZigZagRam]

Add to that the fact that the new turf being installed will help him even more and I don't forsee any 'durability issues' in the future.

[moklerman]

I guess you can't expect objectivity from Rams fans about the Rams but c'mon, people. If I went strictly from the posts on this board, every single thing that was said about the Rams that was remotely negative would be false.

Case in point: Steven Jackson doesn't have durability issues. If there weren't issues, people wouldn't talk about them. Yes, he had a lot carries in college but didn't he have a problem with his knee also? I don't know the details about his college days but I do know what I saw from him with the Rams last year.

He only played in 14 games (which is a generous account of how much he actually played), had two starts and had to leave both times due to injuries. The only thing we really have to go off of is that he hasn't been able to play a full season and stay healthy. Add to that, it's never a good sign when a rb starts getting all dinged up early in his career.

Is any of that stuff conclusive? No, but it does raise questions. Valid questions. So, just because someone isn't convinced of Steven Jackson's durability doesn't mean there's a "misconception of durability". Assuming he's going to be perfectly healthy through 16 games in 2005 seems like more of a misconception to me.

[HUbison]

Assuming he's going to be perfectly healthy through 16 games in 2005 seems like more of a misconception to me.

But Mok, isn't that true of ANY player in the NFL. Injuries are part of it, but to label a guy as "injury-prone" or "fragile" because he only played in 14 games is just as much of a misconception. Personally, I've never liked the term injury-prone anyway. ANY player could go down on ANY play. Injuries aren't something that can be predicted, so equally I'm surprised to see some people trying to put a label on him as such.

As Dr. Ram pointed out his last two years in college, he averaged 28 touchs a game without missing any time. Just because he got a little banged up during a game or two last year IMO shouldn't give us that much reason to be concerned, especially over something as unpredictable as injuries.

[moklerman]

As Dr. Ram pointed out his last two years in college, he averaged 28 touchs a game without missing any time. Just because he got a little banged up during a game or two last year IMO shouldn't give us that much reason to be concerned, especially over something as unpredictable as injuries.

I don't think you're looking at his season in context. He didn't get a little banged up in only 2 of 14 games, he had to leave each of the 2 games he started. He barely played last year and still got hurt enough to leave 2 different games. Was it a fluke? Was it a trend? No one knows at this point but based on how often he got dinged up and how little he played, it raises the question of durability. "Is" he going to be durbale. Not: He "isn't" durbable.

[AvengerRam]

I don't think that Dr.Ram was trying to say that Jackson can't or won't miss time for injuries. He's just saying its a little premature to call him "injury prone" or "not durable."


I agree with that.

There are plenty of examples of players who had injury issues early in their careers and then went on to be "iron men" of sorts. I remember a lot of teams passing on Dan Marino in part because there were concerns that his knees would never last a season. He did okay, as I recall.

To me, a player deserves the label "injury prone" when he starts missing time season after season for a variety of injuries (i.e. Fred Taylor). But even those players may just be unlucky, as opposed to lacking durability.

[RealRam]

Just because he got a little banged up during a game or two last year IMO shouldn't give us that much reason to be concerned, especially over something as unpredictable as injuries. --HUbison

Absolutely. I agree. As already implied, for 2004 SJ could have gone through a combination of poor / tough condition of our EJD turf; a simple bad break; the 'NFL initiation' for rookies, etc.

Nevertheless, I believe that there are certain players whose physical nature is somehow less susceptible to damage and injury as compared to others. The so called Iron Men category: athletes that perform hard nose football for 12, 15, even 20 years, i.e., more than 250 games, and unbelievably, are almost injury-free after all those battles.

Jackie Slater for example. But then again, No. 78 was a phenomenon.

Rams No. 39, RB Steven Jackson. I hope and trust he'll be as durable and rugged as a Marshall Faulk or an Eric Dickerson -- now I'm only referring to durability here (MFs knees have been iffy lately and ED suffered a turf toe and other injuries but for the most part these two greats have been healthy).

From the little I've known of him, SJ should be ready to go for 16+ PRODUCTIVE, SUCCESSFUL games. Best wishes.

Give the guy a chance before giving him that dreaded "fragile" label! --Dr.Ram

GO RAMS!

[VegasRam]

[quote=AvengerRam]I don't think that Dr.Ram was trying to say that Jackson can't or won't miss time for injuries. He's just saying its a little premature to call him "injury prone" or "not durable."


There are plenty of examples of players who had injury issues early in their careers and then went on to be "iron men" of sorts.

Isaac Bruce comes to mind...

[AvengerRam]

That's a great point, Vegas. Bruce was labeled everything from "soft" to a "so-called superstar" by none other than Dick Vermiel. Since then, he's been very durable and extremely productive.

[moklerman]

Is this some form of denial or something? If a rookie rb get's dinged his first start (after not playing in a majority of the season), get's dinged in his second start and then can't play in the biggest game of the regular season how is this all cause for optimism? Have we all forgotten Trung Canidate already?

How can I be anything but skeptical after what he did last year? On top of all that, he's a north/south type of runner. A bruiser who tries to run people over in most cases and is going to be taking a lot of hits simply because of his style. All of this is cause for me to not envision him having a long and lustrious Rams career. That's not what I'm hoping for, just what it looks like so far.

[AvengerRam]

For all you know, Mok, Jackson was in so much pain that most backs in his situation wouldn't have even suited up. You accuse us of being overly optimistic, but you seem overly pessimistic.


If someone gets in one fender bender, do you call them accident prone?

[moklerman]

If someone gets in one fender bender, do you call them accident prone?

No, but if a 16 year old get's into an accident on Wednesday, then get's in another one on Thursday and then can't take the car out on Friday night because it's all banged up, I'm not overly optimistic about their driving.

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by moklerman

No, but if a 16 year old get's into an accident on Wednesday, then get's in another one on Thursday and then can't take the car out on Friday night because it's all banged up, I'm not overly optimistic about their driving.

But Mok, driving is a skill. Not getting injured is just a roll of the dice. But to stick with the analogy, he went out driving 28 times every week for the past two seasons without getting in a wreck. With that in mind, why would a minor injury in his rookie year have us so worried. Bulger missed two games last year, and nobody calls him injury prone. Jackson got hit more than Bulger, yet nobody talks about Bulger being accident prone.

Could Jackson go down on the 1st play from scrimmage and be gone the whole the year? Sure, anybody could.

Would I classify him as any more likely of that than any other RB in the league? No.

[sbramfan]

The guy's washed up. He's injury prone. Hopefully Marshall can carry the load.