Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

    And so, my friends, I fear we find outselves in somewhat familiar territory.

    A star player who helped the Rams win their only Super Bowl is potentially at a point of decline and it is questionable whether he can ever play at a level close to what we remember from 1999-2001.

    Behind him is a young, promising player who many feel is ready to step in and take over.

    If Faulk knee is not healed, and he can't be the feature back, the best thing for the Rams is to let him go and move on. Steven Jackson has the potential to be a feature back as a rookie. Even if he's not and never will be Marshall Faulk, if Marshall can't be either, he shouldn't be played because of nostalgia.

    Its the nature of the beast. Great players don't last forever.

  • #2
    Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

    Alot of people might be quick to anger and denial after reading the above post,but Marshall is at the tail end of his career.The key word is IF.If Marshall can continue to be healthy and productive he can still strike fear into opposing defenses.Plus he may still be valuble as a third down back and receiver for a couple of more years.The great thing about Marshall Faulk is the fact that IF Marshall Faulk is no longer playing like Marshall Faulk,he alone will most likely be the first to recognize this and step down.Marshall has a lot of pride and he has said himself that if he doesnt feel he can help the team anymore he would retire.Lets just hope that we can get another year or two out of him while Jackson develops.
    Last edited by Aries51; -07-10-2004, 08:52 PM.
    ST.LOUIS RAMS:THE MOST FRUSTRATING TEAM IN THE NFL!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

      I thought that the FO should have offered KW a position as a coach. If nothing else, his on field experience and mannerisms would have helped somewhat. Since he moved on, another team gets the benifits....but we will survive.
      Faulk, however, is just plain dangerous. He knows what to do, when and how t o do it, better than anyone in the league. We can't afford to let him go to another team, instead, we should be finding a way to keep him on staff...
      temp_4394_1467243487543_20
      RAMS!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

        Originally posted by AvengerRam
        Behind him is a young, promising player who many feel is ready to step in and take over.
        Steven Jackson is young and promising, but to say he is ready to take the reins is a little premature in my opinion. Steven Jackson is a power back, but Faulk is/was much more than a running back. As we all know Faulk can run, catch, block, and keep defenses honest anytime he is on the field. Jackson is...well...a rookie. He needs to be much more than a power back to replace Faulk.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

          You're right Myrow, Jackson is a power back, but he also does the other things quite well. He blocks well and he catches passes. He has some large, sure hands and he is not a fumbler, much like Faulk. He also has a great stiff arm. The only thing that worries me, if Faulk can't go and Gordon doesn't step up, is how fast can Jackson learn the intricate Rams offense. He needs to be a quick study so he can contribute at a high level. Rookie RBs can play in this league, but the Rams offense does have a high learning curve.



          :ramlogo:

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

            Originally posted by AvengerRam
            If Faulk knee is not healed, and he can't be the feature back, the best thing for the Rams is to let him go and move on. Steven Jackson has the potential to be a feature back as a rookie. Even if he's not and never will be Marshall Faulk, if Marshall can't be either, he shouldn't be played because of nostalgia.
            I agree that we shouldn't be playing a subpar Faulk for nostalgia purposes alone, but I would rather try to restructure his contract to fit his new role so that we could keep him as a situational back before just letting him go or trading him. If Marshall realizes he's on the decline, perhaps he'd be willing to help the team out by freeing up some cap space and hanging around in very restricted roles so he can help develop Jackson.


            Originally posted by RamsFamily
            I thought that the FO should have offered KW a position as a coach. If nothing else, his on field experience and mannerisms would have helped somewhat. Since he moved on, another team gets the benifits....but we will survive.
            If Kurt was unwilling to be a back-up quarterback, I have serious questions about whether he would have even considered an offer to be a coach. The situation with Kurt Warner is he still thinks he's a starting QB capable of playing at an elite level in this league (and he very well could be right). As a back-up QB to Bulger, he'd at least have a shot at seeing the field. As a coach, he'd never put the pads and jersey on again. I just don't see him accepting that offer right now since he still believes he's starter material.



            Originally posted by Ferter
            You're right Myrow, Jackson is a power back, but he also does the other things quite well. He blocks well and he catches passes. He has some large, sure hands and he is not a fumbler, much like Faulk. He also has a great stiff arm. The only thing that worries me, if Faulk can't go and Gordon doesn't step up, is how fast can Jackson learn the intricate Rams offense. He needs to be a quick study so he can contribute at a high level. Rookie RBs can play in this league, but the Rams offense does have a high learning curve.
            Very good points, Ferter. There are more similarities between Faulk and Jackson than one might think just by glancing at them. And yes, the Rams offense is fairly difficult to learn. Look how hard it is for offensive linemen to get a good feel for the offense. Turley and Wohlabaugh had problems stepping in last season and they're seasoned vets. Jackson's inability to attend some of the functions because of the CBA's rules about graduation is only going to hinder how effective he'll be for the Rams in 2004.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

              Originally posted by RamMyrow
              Steven Jackson is young and promising, but to say he is ready to take the reins is a little premature in my opinion. Steven Jackson is a power back
              Actually, Jackson ran a 4.45 40 on grass during his workouts, and ran faster on turf. He's more than just a power back.


              As we all know Faulk can run, catch, block, and keep defenses honest anytime he is on the field.
              One of the reasons Jackson was taken is that he was considered as good a receiver and blocker as any back in the draft.

              Jackson is...well...a rookie. He needs to be much more than a power back to replace Faulk.
              Actually, Running Back is probably the position that rookies can step in and play with the greatest amount of success. There is no shortage of examples of RBs who came in and made an impact as rookies.

              The funny thing is that we're already starting to see the same kind of "he's no [former star]" analysis as we see with Bulger and Warner.

              That's really not the point. Jackson may never be a Marshall Faulk, just as Bulger may never be a Kurt Warner. But the team needs to play the guys who are the best players RIGHT NOW. Not the guys who WERE the best players.

              If Faulk is healthy, he's still the man. No question. But if he's not, Jackson should be given a chance to show what he can do.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                It's true great players don't last forever. Tackles, turf, and age will take their toll. Marshall isn't young for a running back, but he has still has some moves and probably a few years left in the tank if he is played correctly, provided he can overcome his injuries.

                The Rams made a good move in picking up Jackson. Multiple running backs with the ability to run, catch and block is good. Good for the Rams.

                Avenger, you are pushing the extremes yet again with this concept of needing a clean break from Faulk. This is different from the Warner situation because a team can utilize more than one RB. Just like WRs, there can be many RBs used. Now QBs are a different story. You can only have one starting QB.

                I hope Faulk stays healthy and struts his stuff for the Rams this year.
                :ramlogo: :ramlogo: :ramlogo:
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                  That is true to a point, but I question whether Faulk would ever be used as a mere role player.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                    Originally posted by AvengerRam
                    That is true to a point, but I question whether Faulk would ever be used as a mere role player.
                    What do you mean by "mere role player"? What role are you talking about? Do you think that Martz will limit Faulk to say only play in short yardage situations for example? Or maybe Faulk will only be put out in a receiver role?

                    You don't think this is possible for whom? For Martz or for Faulk? Who is the limiting person in changing Faulk's role on the team?
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                      Martz has never really platooned RBs, and Faulk is used to being a feature back. So, I have my doubts that Faulk or Martz would be comfortable with a system in which Faulk is anything but the feature back.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                        Originally posted by AvengerRam
                        The funny thing is that we're already starting to see the same kind of "he's no [former star]" analysis as we see with Bulger and Warner.

                        That's really not the point. Jackson may never be a Marshall Faulk, just as Bulger may never be a Kurt Warner. But the team needs to play the guys who are the best players RIGHT NOW. Not the guys who WERE the best players.
                        Good point. And even if Jackson never becomes as dangerous as Marshall Faulk, he can still be very efficient and productive enough for this team to win and for him to be a playmaker for us. The idea that players like Bulger or Jackson have to be equally as good as their predecessors is somewhat ridiculous, IMO.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                          Originally posted by NickSeiler
                          Good point. And even if Jackson never becomes as dangerous as Marshall Faulk, he can still be very efficient and productive enough for this team to win and for him to be a playmaker for us. The idea that players like Bulger or Jackson have to be equally as good as their predecessors is somewhat ridiculous, IMO.
                          Nick, I understand what you're saying and I agree. However, I think for those that require the heir apparent to match the production of the predecessor, they do so because the predecessor won a SuperBowl. I know you mentioned Bulger and Jackson, but I would throw Martz in there as well.
                          Last edited by HUbison; -07-12-2004, 12:50 PM. Reason: grammar, grammar, grammar
                          The more things change, the more they stay the same.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                            Originally posted by HUbison
                            Nick, I understand what you're saying and I agree. However, I think for those that require the heir apparent to match the production of the predecessor, they do so because the predecessor won a SuperBowl. I know you mentioned Bulger and Jackson, but I would throw Martz in there as well.
                            Hmm, good point. For me, as long as the heir apparent can be productive enough to win, I don't think there's a reason to necessarily match the efficiency of the person before them. Winning is winning. If you can pass for 3,600 yards and 25 TDs and win a Super Bowl, so be it. Warner passed for 4,830 yards in 2001 but that made no difference in the end because the Rams lost the Super Bowl. Meanwhile, Brady and his 2843 passing yards, less than what Bledsoe did the year before, walked away with a ring.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Like Warner, If Faulk's Not Faulk, A Clean Break Is Needed

                              Originally posted by AvengerRam
                              Martz has never really platooned RBs, and Faulk is used to being a feature back. So, I have my doubts that Faulk or Martz would be comfortable with a system in which Faulk is anything but the feature back.
                              I love how you make me look words up. Who uses the word "platooned" in a sentence? lol... well you do. And after reading the definition, you did a fine job of applying the word. Apparently it is a football word.

                              Now I can't claim to know what Martz will do, because he surprises me all the time. And I can't claim much Ram history, so I'll have to take your word that Martz does not platoon RBs; however, in my opinion, Faulk has not been much of a "feature back" in the last season. Faulk was on the sidelines quite a bit and Gordon and Harris got a fair amount of handoffs. I actually don't see much difference in using Faulk and Jackson, versus Faulk, Gordon and Harris.

                              Martz may have a problem with platooning RBs, you may be right on with that thought, but I think Faulk would play whatever role he can to contribute to the team. Faulk seems to be a team player, a competitive team player, mind you. He does want to run the ball himself, but I think he would be happy to play a more limited role if it could extend his time in the NFL. Faulk showed interest in mentoring and coaching last season. I think he is already moving away from the "feature back" mentality. These are just my opinions. I may be way off base.

                              In the end Martz is the guy calling the plays. I am sure he can take Faulk out of the game as easily as he did Warner.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              • argpdt
                                Rams Owe Marshall Faulk Playing Time
                                by argpdt
                                I find it disgusting the way that the Rams are "utilizing" Marshall Faulk these days. The past 5 or 6 games Faulk is getting very few on field plays with even fewer touches. I think that now that the season is over, the Rams should let Faulk start and see if he brings anything to the running game. Steven Jackson may be the back of the future for the Rams, but his performance has helped contribute to this lost season. When Jackson catches the ball he can be a threat, but he doesn't make people miss in the open field like Faulk either running or receiving, and Jackson has looked like he has hands of stone on far too many passes.
                                Faulk needs less than 40 yards receiving to be #1 all time amongst NFL RBs and the Rams owe him that honor.
                                :helmet:
                                -12-06-2005, 03:38 PM
                              • AvengerRam_old
                                I want Marshall Faulk to retire
                                by AvengerRam_old
                                Will Marshall Faulk retire?

                                I don't know. Nobody here does. Marshall's not saying, and everything else is mere inference and speculation.

                                Do I want Marshall Faulk to retire?

                                Without question... yes. Yes I do.

                                I am a big Marshall Faulk fan. I think his performance from 1999-2001 was the greatest three year run by any RB in NFL history, bar none. We can all talk about Martz, Warner, Bruce and Holt, but make no mistake... the element that made the GSOT one of the greatest offenses ever was Marshall Faulk's ability to be a threat on every single play.

                                I know many are holding out hope that Faulk can play another year or two at a high level, even if that means being more of a role player in Steven Jackson's shadow.

                                I have my questions as to whether Faulk, or, more specifically, Faulk's knees, can still do that.

                                But the main reason I want Faulk to retire is my impression of where Faulk's head is right now. From all I've heard, read and seen, Faulk's words and actions this offseason are those of a guy who just doesn't have that drive anymore.

                                Who can blame him? I'm sure its hard for him to accept that he's no longer the feature back. I'm sure he's feeling unsure of what his role will be under a new coaching staff. I'm sure he's concerned about returning at this stage of his career to a team that went 6-10 last season.

                                If he does return, what would be his reason? Money? Records? Glory? Faulk has all of these things.

                                Some players reach this stage of a career and are still the kind of players you want around because of their "locker room demeanor." Faulk's not that kind of guy. He's not a vocal leader of the team, and he has had the reputation of being a difficult personality when he's not happy.

                                Add all of this up, and I can only conclude that the best thing for the Rams this year would be to have Faulk ride off into the sunset. Frankly, I think that may be what is best for Faulk as well.

                                All good things must end.
                                -06-23-2006, 08:11 AM
                              • laram0
                                What is the story with Marshall Faulk?
                                by laram0
                                Do the Rams want him back?

                                Is he going to be healthy enough to play?

                                Does he want to stay with the Rams?

                                I haven't heard any facts or rumors lately but this is an issue that needs to be addressed, the sooner the better IMO.
                                -01-24-2007, 06:49 AM
                              • Nick
                                More from Hadley (Re: Faulk)
                                by Nick
                                Friday, July 9

                                UPDATES ON MARSHALL FAULK, BRETT HULL AND CARDS
                                04:11:37 CDT

                                FOLLOW UP... FAULK, CONROY, HULL, & CARDS


                                Updating storylines I discussed on KTRS this week.


                                MARSHALL FAULK: My sources are indicating that Marshall Faulk remains an enigma for the 2004 season with training camp on the horizon.

                                The level of anxiety differs with sources; however, the common dominator has each individual, unwilling to guarantee Faulk is ready for action.

                                As one source said, "There are reasons to believe that Faulk won't play this season but I expect to see him run through tunnel at The Ed (Edward Jones Dome) on the 12th (opening day, 9/12/04)."

                                Faulk has indicated to mutual acquaintances that he remains concerned whether his knee will be 100% for training camp and there is a chance that he will not play in 2004.

                                "I won't mislead you, there is an incertitude permeating through the front office into the coaches offices about the situation. You will not get anybody to confirm on the record, unless they have a position waiting with another organization. Write it if you want but he ready for the wrath of Coach (Mike Martz) and number 28 (Marshall Faulk)," were the words of another source.

                                Based on various conversations the consensus is that Faulk will play in 2004 however his role will be lessened (likely more than advertised).

                                A third source said, "I would say it's fair to question whether Marshall will be ready but never underestimate his toughness, mentally, or physically. I will say this; we need Steve Jackson and Lamar Gordon to be ready. Gordon is the real question. I have the utmost confidence that Jackson can fill the bill but if Marshall can't go, Gordon must elevate his game supporting Jackson for this offense to operate properly.

                                Faulk has managed, in the past, to rise to the elite level after rehabbing injuries, his badge of competitiveness is worn well, and there is ample reason to believe he can do it again.

                                Please read this carefully, I'm not communicating that Faulk won't play this season. I'm simply reporting that it's a possibility. Additionally, I'm communicating, if he does play his role could be even more limited than discussed in most circles. The news value is simple... Faulk donning the Rams uniform isn't "a given."

                                Let me repeat, so that the information isn't misrepresented, mangled or altered by those on forum boards or airwaves... I'm not writing the final chapter of Faulk's career. I'm simply conveying the fact Faulk isn't near 100% nor ready to rock 'n roll.

                                Simply stated, the pulse of uncertainty regarding Faulk's future is beating rapidly (at Rams Park). There is a chance he might not play; best-case scenario passed along by sources has his role more...
                                -07-10-2004, 03:13 AM
                              • argpdt
                                Marshall Faulk as a slot receiver
                                by argpdt
                                Does anyone think that there is a chance that Martz will use Marshall Faulk as a slot receiver, when Steven Jackson is in the backfield? It seems logical to find another way to use Faulk other than just as a backup to Jackson.
                                -05-31-2005, 04:01 PM
                              Working...
                              X