No announcement yet.

Jackson VS Faulk

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jackson VS Faulk

    An interesting thought and a simple question,

    With the 2009 Rams offense, who would have a better season? Jackson or Faulk? (IN THEIR PRIME)

    Not trying to create controversy or anything, but Jackson has been absolutely incredible and to me, it's a really interesting question to ask.
    Last edited by Varg6; -12-07-2009, 06:48 PM.
    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  • #2
    Re: Jackson VS Faulk

    I think with the way the offense is playing, Jackson would put up better #'s in 09. Reason being he can still get yards when there is just nothing there. It's obviously been a while, and I was very young when I was watching Faulk, but it seemed like if there was a hole for him, he could take it to the house every time. So, because there seem to be no holes this year, my vote is for S-Jax.


    • #3
      Re: Jackson VS Faulk

      Originally posted by Varg6 View Post
      An interesting thought and a simple question,

      With the 2009 Rams offense, who would have a better season? Jackson or Faulk?

      Not trying to create controversy or anything, but Jackson has been absolutely incredible and to me, it's a really interesting question to ask.
      Jackson, because Faulk is 36 years old now and sits behind a desk. ;)

      Sorry, couldn't resist.


      • #4
        Re: Jackson VS Faulk

        Originally posted by ramsbruce View Post
        Jackson, because Faulk is 36 years old now and sits behind a desk. ;)

        Sorry, couldn't resist.
        Oh you are SO funny!

        Ahem, BOTH IN THEIR PRIME lol
        Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams


        • #5
          Re: Jackson VS Faulk

          i recall a play where faulk took it to the house with terrible blocking and literally wasnt touched by anyone.

          Faulk slightly edges jackson on this one i think


          • #6
            Re: Jackson VS Faulk

            Jackson can drive carrying multiple defenders on his back. Faulk....can't. Additionally, Faulk was a better receiver than Jackson, which is also problematic considering we have trouble throwing the ball.

            Faulk may be more shifty than Jackson, but things tend to blow up on offense for the Rams faster than a back can "shifty" his way out of trouble.

            I'd say Jackson gets the slight nod.


            • #7
              Re: Jackson VS Faulk

              Faulk. No question, no doubt.
              That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!!


              • #8
                Re: Jackson VS Faulk

                Have to go with Faulk here, he was the best.

                But Jackson is pretty darn good too.

                I consider myself lucky to be a fan of both of them.


                • #9
                  Re: Jackson VS Faulk

                  Faulk, does anyone still remember how he was coming out of the backfield in the passing game?


                  • #10
                    Re: Jackson VS Faulk

                    It certainly seems like Faulk is the guy. But its an interesting argument. Faulk was so dynamic and so fast and if utilized correctly in the WCO, he'd be stunning. He was also a better blocker than SJax at this point. People tend to forget how intelligent Faulk was as well, he really understood the game.
                    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams


                    • #11
                      Re: Jackson VS Faulk

                      Steven Jackson is the better running back in my opinion. Faulk was probably a better overall player, primarily due to his incredible football IQ ...

                      Look at Faulk's rushing totals in Indy, very pedestrian compared to his GSOT days. He did what he did in that GSOT offense because he was such a deadly multi-dimensional weapon, and such a cerebral player. Also, it helped open running lanes when the passing game was virtually unstoppable. 1999-2001 are clearly different than any other year(s) in his career ....

                      Faulk would barely get 4.0 YPC if he was in his prime playing on this Ram team. The holes aren't there as frequently as they need to be ...

                      While Jackson may not be the route runner that Faulk is, he does have great hands. He caught 90 passes in 2006, more than Faulk ever caught in a single season. For some reason, they are not utilizing him like they should in this "WCO". Instead of 25-30 carries a game, I'd love to see Jackson gettign 18-20 carries, and 6-8 receptions, on designed "run" passes ....

                      I could only dream about what kind of numbers that Jackson could put up if he were on the GSOT teams. I doubt he ever would have gotten 850-1000 yards receiving, but it would not have surprised me to see him get 1500-1800 yards rushing and 6 YPC in that offense. Could you imagine what would happen if he got to the 2nd level so easily like Faulk, and had a full head of steam?


                      Related Topics


                      • AvengerRam_old
                        How should S.Jackson be utilized?
                        by AvengerRam_old
                        After seeing him in the preseason, what do you think the Rams should do with Jackson?
                        As good as he's looked, he's not ready. Let him watch Faulk.
                        Faulk's still the man. Jackson should be a short yardage specialist.
                        While Faulk is still No. 1, Jackson should spell him and get 10-15 carries per game.
                        The Rams need to use Jackson and Faulk in a 2 back set.
                        The future is now! Jackson should start and Faulk should be a 3rd down back.
                        The future is REALLY now. Start Jackson and trade Faulk.
                        -08-30-2004, 12:20 PM
                      • theodus69
                        Jackson or Faulk
                        by theodus69
                        Now I have took a beating on my remarks about Jackson. I have said I'm not sold on him and of course, the Line thing is the sticking point, But if the Rams are gonna get back to the High flying offense, Where does Jackson fit in? Isn't he a 30-40 carry a game guy? And if so, where does that fit a high flying offense? I think Faulk would be the better choice even at his present age! Jackson to me doesn't fit this offense. Which actually wouldn't surprise me if the Rams don't go after a R-back in the draft early. Jackson could be some good trade bait also. That's my thought so let yours fly!
                        -03-04-2006, 12:51 AM
                      • Guest's Avatar
                        I think everyone should stop with their BS story about Faulk not wantin to play more.
                        by Guest
                        Faulk may have went to management and told them it was time to make a change because he is good hearted and they chose a RB with their first over all pick.
                        How many players anywhere in the NFL would go to management and tell them to play some one else ahead of them none is the answer because they are all after the dollar but not Faulk he wants to see the kid get a chance and succeed. But Faulk still has a lot of game left in him and if Jackson ever went down with an injury and they had to play Faulk you would see that I can honestly say Jackson has helped contribute to our losing season with his no gain runs and getting two QB's blown up by bad blocking both Bulger and Martin were the victims of his poor blocking.

                        Faulk has a lot of game left and this was the first off-season in a long time he did not have to have surgery. He is as healthy and as good as he has been in a long time. I guarantee you if I had to win a game I would take Faulk over Jackson as my running back. Once Faulk saw they drafted a RB he knew he did not have a lot of years left and he knew they had to play the #1 RB in the draft pretty quickly and that is why I believe he said they should play him. Because how would people feel if Faulk played good and we did not start Jackson for another 4 years they would all be wondering why we spent such a high pick on someone that sets on the bench.

                        Nick Faulk did it for the team and Jackson no one else in the NFL would have done what he did. Faulk may have thought at the time that Jackson might be able to handle the starting job and knowing that they selected him so high they would have to play him soon. Faulk is today better then Jackson. He is as healthy as he has ever been.
                        -12-11-2005, 09:25 PM
                      • sbramfan
                        Jackson should not have replaced Faulk this year
                        by sbramfan
                        This guy is a rebel. He thinks he can do everything on his own. Marshall is smarter and better than Steven Jackson.

                        On the 4th and 2 play, all the blockers went to the left. The play was designed to go to the left. FOR SOME REASON, Jackson decides to give up on that, and "stop", and cut back to the middle. If he just keeps going behind the blockers, he get's the first down.

                        Give him the ball? Why?

                        He needs to shut his big mouth and learn how to be a running back in this league. There have been numerous mistakes this guy has made at critical times.

                        HE SHOULD NOT HAVE REPLACED MARSHALL FAULK. He should have been the situtational guy to come in and get more experience. I hope he learns, but I'm starting to think he will just be a frustrating dissapointment.

                        We can't even trust him to follow the play call. We can't trust him to get 1 freeking yard because he will abort the play, and try to "cut back". Sure if there's a wide open hole, he looks like he could be great, but who doesn't when there's a hole?

                        @#%[email protected]%J%$#%)"(#$U%
                        -12-11-2005, 10:58 AM
                      • 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.
                        -12-06-2005, 02:38 PM