What do of think of Steven Jackson's attitude?

[RAMMAN68]

Just shut up and play. If you don't get the carries you hoped for it's because there are other talented players on the team. Hopefully Bruce, Holt, and the other vets on offense will change his attitude.

[Fat Pang]

Really? Who's to say what Steven Jackson is or isn't capable of? Capability is defined as having the ability required to complete a certain task. What's your system for measuring ability and capability, Pang?

The fact of the matter is we don't know how much he's improved from 2005, and I seriously doubt anyone knows what Steven Jackson's roof is, at least not to the point of pinpointing the greatest thing he'll ever be able to accomplish in his pro career or able to accomplish right now. Furthermore, I believe the capability of the running back is widely dependent on the blocking he receives. So for me, there are too many questions and unknowns surrounding the situation to believe he has or has not proven he's capable.

Though I'd be interested to see how you definitively know he isn't capable of it at this present time. And by that I mean not just your opinion that he isn't, since the caps lock and the lack of any "I think" or "IMO" seem to suggest you're presenting a cold hard fact that he isn't.




Actually, the bolded part is wrong. He didn't say it was likely, he said it was possible.

Big difference.

Which is why I asked for someone to find the other quotes to see if they're also being blown out of proportion or misrepresented as you are doing to the 2000 yard quote, which I even clearly provided two responses ago.




I stated on page two of this thread that his attitude is confident if not arrogant, but the extent to how much his confidence is actually arrogance, if any of it actually is, I have no idea.

I think it's rather hard to make a determination on someone's attitude merely through the written word. You seem to have no qualms about it though, so maybe I should adopt that approach.

That said, I seem to want to slow down and examine more evidence before making up my mind, whereas you've already been judge and jury and have jumped to the conclusion that he's cocky. And I'm the one who needs to take a breath? Hmmm, whatever you say.




Actually no. At least in the case of the 2000 yard quote, you claimed he said it was likely when he actually said it was possible.

So I think, at the moment, it would be rather hard for me to believe that you're really using his own words to prove your point when I've already shown how your recollection of at least one quote was inaccurate.

Again, just another reason I asked for the actual quotes to be presented so we could examine them once more.




Not at all, and that should be obvious due to the number of other threads where I've defended Jackson in recent weeks. I believe I did so once with tx in the Quotables thread and once with theodus in the Bernie-Faulk Unhappy thread. Am I targeting their posts because of some past grudge, as well? Puh-lease.

Besides, two posts ago I complimented you as worthy opposition in an intellectual debate. Why would I do that if I was holding some kind of grudge from a previous thread?

You sound as if you're taking this way too personally.




That's something you need to take up with Dez (hopefully with a more respectful and less demanding tone). As the administrator, he's the only one who can actually edit what's displayed and what isn't. Though from what I recall from Dez on this topic, he felt the numbers were accurate.

Sheer pedantry Nick, sheer pedantry.

Likely.......possible.

Not to mention the pointless nit picking over the number of people who view this board. I feel it's indicative.

Let me state this little more clearly then so we can avoid any further hair splitting on your part.

He shouln't even be muttering it at at all until it get's to the point where he's within breathing space of making it.

Past performance is an indicator of future performance. On past performance I think my comments have been reasonable.

If I was a teammate of his I'd be a little ticked by the insistence of a second year back that he should be the centre piece of an offense he failed to elevate last season.

As I said previously he should shut his mouth and get on with it instead of providing motivation for the opposition to shut it for him.

[Nick]

Not to mention the pointless nit picking over the number of people who view this board. I feel it's indicative.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one who brought the number of people viewing the board into this conversation, but now you're telling me that I'm nit picking it? That makes no sense.

Let me state this little more clearly then so we can avoid any further hair splitting on your part.

You said you were using his own words to prove his point, yet what you referenced wasn't what he said. If I'm splitting hairs by asking you to actually use his own words when you say you are, then yeah I guess I'm guilty as charged. LOL

Past performance is an indicator of future performance. On past performance I think my comments have been reasonable.

Are you suggesting that you know the extent of what Steven Jackson can do in the NFL because of two seasons of play?

I really hope "past performance" isn't your answer to the question about how you know Jackson isn't capable of these lofty accomplishments.

Not only are there numerous examples of players exceeding their past performances - Drew Brees, Priest Holmes, even our own Marshall Faulk - but that logic completely ignores any kind of growth a player will experience as he sees more time in the league.

[txramsfan]

As a Rams fan, and the importance of a RB to the offense, I hope SJ has a record breaking year this year. I would love to see SJ touted as the best back in the NFL after the 2006 season is over.

[Fat Pang]

I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one who brought the number of people viewing the board into this conversation, but now you're telling me that I'm nit picking it? That makes no sense.




You said you were using his own words to prove his point, yet what you referenced wasn't what he said. If I'm splitting hairs by asking you to actually use his own words when you say you are, then yeah I guess I'm guilty as charged. LOL




Are you suggesting that you know the extent of what Steven Jackson can do in the NFL because of two seasons of play?

I really hope "past performance" isn't your answer to the question about how you know Jackson isn't capable of these lofty accomplishments.

Not only are there numerous examples of players exceeding their past performances - Drew Brees, Priest Holmes, even our own Marshall Faulk - but that logic completely ignores any kind of growth a player will experience as he sees more time in the league.

I just give up, I completely give up.

I have never stated, ever that he won't ever get to 2000yards.

I have never said, ever that he's guaranteed it.

I stated quite clearly that until he gets close he shouldn't even talk about it.

He's talked about it.

I don't think he should.

There's little evidence to suggest he's justified in saying it's even a possibility.

I stated the number of people vieing the boards.

You said it was inaccurate to invalidate what I had said.

I said if it was inaccurate it shouldn't be displayed.

I feel that for you to focus on the smaller issue of whether the number is accurate or not, over the larger point, which has been raised by others, namely we have lots of people looking not posting, is nit picking.

Nit picking, hair splitting, which is indicative of the way you have attempted to 'jump all over' my comments.

You hadn't done this kind of thing until I raised the question of deletions. It's a difference of approach I feel which points to a little indignation.

Likely............possible.

Oh dear Nick,


LOL

[HUbison]

Sheer pedantry Nick, sheer pedantry.

This country boy had to look it up, so I thought I'd share with the rest of the class.

pedantry

n : a ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning

And of course there's the Redneck dictionary as well:

Pedantry -

Bubba: Hey Earl, did you pee on dis tree here?
Earl: No, I pedantry over yonder.

[AvengerRam]

For those who enjoy unintended irony, Fat Pang's use of the word "pedantry" in the context of this thread was, itself, pedantic.

But, hey... he paid $9.95 for that "Word of the Day" calendar and, by golly, he's going to get every penny's worth.

(as an aside, my word of the day is "golly.")

[txramsfan]

Hey, I knew the redneck version...or bootheel version whichever you prefer.

Back to Jackson, he seemed frustrated in Martz's offense and that offense isn't for every RB. Miami seemed to have a different way of running the ball that suited Jackson's style. Ricky W. always seemed to pick up yardage going straight ahead. Hopefully, that will be Jackson's style this year.

[HUbison]

Back to Jackson

Allright fine. Here's my take on Jackson:

Does it really matter what he says? If it were causing rifts in the lockerroom, I'd say......YES. However, there's nothing I've read or heard that would lead me to believe this is the case. In fact, in a recent interview, Bulger listed SJ first when discussing guys on the offense that are unselfish and team-oriented.

Is he cocky and arrogant? Yea, probably. All these young guys probably are. They've been the greatest player in their personal world since Pop Warner, so their self-esteem is a little high to say the least. So what?

Would we act this way? No, I don't think we would, but then again we carry the burden of living in the average world. These guys don't. Everyone around him, including the man in the mirror has been telling him he's the greatest thing since sliced bread for most of his 22 years.

I still say (assuming no lockerroom issues) the most important time is not now but after the season. How does he react then? Where does all the credit and blame go then? That's what I will be waiting for.

[AvengerRam]

All of this can probably be filed under "Things that really don't matter that much to the team but that fans are interested in during the offseason."

The only person I can really see being put off by Jackson's comments is Faulk.

[txramsfan]

bbbwwwaaaahhhhhh........

I love the offseason. Maybe Av can come up with a song about it done to the tune of "I love L.A." by Randy Newman.

Who cares what any athlete says really.....just run the dad gum ball, throw the dad gum ball, tackle the dad gum ball, catch the dad gum ball, and stay the dad gum onsides until the snap count is said.

Dad gum it.

[AvengerRam]

Dad gum it.

What your father does when he want's to eat but can't find his dentures.

[Nick]

I have never stated, ever that he won't ever get to 2000yards.

You're right. Instead of putting forth that claim in one sentence, you put forth two rather strange ones.

One, you said he didn't have the capability for it now - a claim you didn't really bother to defend, nor did you elaborate on why he doesn't currently have the ability to accomplish the goal.

Two, you claimed that past performance is an indicator of future performance, even though there are numerous examples of players not performing at a certain level only to turn it around in later stages of their career. I believe I even named three of them off the top of my head.

So it would seem to me that by saying these two things - (1) he doesn't have the capability to do it now and (2) his past performances dictate future performances - you're making it pretty clear that you don't think he'll accomplish it. Which is fine, you don't have to think he will.

But to dispute the mere notion that it's even possible - without offering much to actually defend such a position - is rather questionable.

I have never said, ever that he's guaranteed it.

I never claimed you did, though I think you're reacting as if he did, since I personally see little reason to get upset over a guy saying something is possible.

There's little evidence to suggest he's justified in saying it's even a possibility.

Again, this makes no sense. You haven't shown he isn't capable of it - you merely claim he isn't as if it's fact - so it's difficult to say that he's not justified in claiming it's a possibility.

The truth of the matter is we don't know what's possible or what isn't. None of us are in camp to see how Jackson has improved. We're not in meetings to see where he is mentally. We've not talked to his RB coach to see what his progress is from last year to this year. We don't know how the line will perform.

I just can't believe you're actually arguing that someone has to be justified to actually put forth the idea that rushing for 2,000 is possible. Is it likely? Probably not, but then again, contrary to what you claim, he didn't say it was likely. He said it was possible, which it is.

It's also possible that my chair breaks and I fall out of it onto the floor. Likely? No. But it is possible. There are many things that are possible. Through six pages of debate, I'm still baffled as to why this is something to get worked up over.

I feel that for you to focus on the smaller issue of whether the number is accurate or not, over the larger point, which has been raised by others, namely we have lots of people looking not posting, is nit picking.

You want me to focus on the larger issue, that being we have lots of people looking but not posting. However, if I feel the number is inaccurate, which I do, then why would I focus on it?

Your post contained the following sentences:

"I've just noticed that there are a 1034 people looking at these forums.

I can't believe Nick and me are the only people that feel strongly enough about it to debate this??????????"

Usually whenever someone ends their sentence in a question mark (or in this case, ten of them), they're actually asking a question. At least that's how I was taught.

So I answered your question - the numbers just can't be accurate. Meaning there likely weren't 1034 people viewing the forums at that time, which should make it easier to understand why others aren't chiming in.

Since nitpicking is defined as being concerned with insignificant details, and the number of people viewing the board is a rather significant detail when answering a question about why others aren't chiming in, I have a hard time believe this is nitpicking.

Just as I'm not splitting hair by asking that, when you claim you're making your point with Jackson's own words, you actually use the words he used. Again, there's a big difference between likely and possible, a difference that is rather important.

Nit picking, hair splitting, which is indicative of the way you have attempted to 'jump all over' my comments.

You hadn't done this kind of thing until I raised the question of deletions. It's a difference of approach I feel which points to a little indignation.

I'll respond to this simply by reposting something I said earlier to address this issue, which you must have missed:

"Not at all, and that should be obvious due to the number of other threads where I've defended Jackson in recent weeks. I believe I did so once with tx in the Quotables thread and once with theodus in the Bernie-Faulk Unhappy thread. Am I targeting their posts because of some past grudge, as well? Puh-lease.

Besides, two posts ago I complimented you as worthy opposition in an intellectual debate. Why would I do that if I was holding some kind of grudge from a previous thread?

You sound as if you're taking this way too personally."

But if you absolutely won't get off this idea that I'm somehow targeting you specifically because of a past thread, then I'll make it as clear as possible by completely leaving the discussion.

[theodus69]

I said Jackson will never gain 2000 yds. And that is kind estimate. Jackson may become one of the most over rated backs in Ram history. We shall see!

[Fat Pang]

I have just spent 20 minutes responding to Nick point by point only to find that the damn things disappeared, completely disappeared.

I cannot be bothered to do it again.

So I shall let Nick have the last word on the subject.