Why Keep Jackson?

[Curly Horns]

I think the Rams need to trade their star RB. Lately I've been searching for good reasons to keep Jackson, but I'm just not coming up with any that outweigh the trade value.

It's not that I don't like Jackson. I was one of his strongest supporters when he was drafted. I have written that I think he is better than Dickerson.

But...

He's not better than Faulk was. Three big areas as to why Jackson comes up short to Faulk....cut-back ability, instincts, and football smarts.

To me, RBs in this league are almost a dime a dozen. Their average life span in the NFL is minimal. You hold onto a Faulk type back for as long as possible, since they are a rare breed. To me, Jackson is just not that rare breed.

The NFL is a QB driven passing league. Look at the best teams and those with the next best results. Year after year it is this way. Teams with great passing attacks tend to dominate. Jackson can't carry the load and that's not a knock on him because no RB could do better than he has.
This offense is just too darn conservative. It's almost as bad as ground chuck. I'm not sure what Spags is thinking when it comes to offensive philosophy. Oviously he's not thinking and he did not get his thoughts from philly or ny. Look at the game those two teams played a few weeks back. Up and down the field aerial attack.

As Long as Jackson is around Spags is going to use him as a workhorse. He's almost admitted as much. Saying he is well aware of defenses preying on the run, yet his temptation to keep running in hopes of breaking one takes precedent. He's always going to keep running because he is always thinking he is that close to breaking one. Not only is that a stupid philosophy it is damn boring to fans and is getting the team no where but dead last in the offensive categories.

Trade Jackson while he still has value and get back to a viable passing attack which is the reality in the NFL.


:helmet:

[tomahawk247]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

Jackson is a rare breed of a running back, hence why on this quite frankly terrible team, and constantly facing a stacked box, he is still near the top of the league in rushing

At the moment we have tons of holes on this team and no long term answers for those holes. Positions like DT, DE, RT, OLB, QB, CB, WR. By trading Jackson, who is a long term answer at RB, we create another hole. And who do we bring in? Draft picks? You only need to look at the history of Rams drafts to see that drafting a position isnt a long term answer

Id be all for trading Jackson if some team would give us a Herschel Walker style deal, but would a team really do that? And does any team have the resources to do that? Is there a team that is one running back away from winning the SB that would trade everything for him.

You say running backs are a dime a dozen in this league, so what incentive is there for a team to give up tons of picks and players for S-Jax?

[jackson3909]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

jackson is a rare breed he is one of the biggest and fastest players in the game for his size. its so amazing that he is second in the nfl in yards from scrimmage for running backs and he faces 8 men in the box consitently.

trading jackson is to much of a gamble, since no one today is willing to give up as much in the herschel walker trade we wouldnt get full value. also getting the draft picks could mean more busts and then this team would be even worse than before.

if jackson is as good as he is with one of the worst offensives ever. imagine him with with a good qb and explosive wide recievers

[Curly Horns]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

:ram:

We'll have to agree to disagree that Jackson is a rare breed. He is not leaps and bounds ahead of the top ten in rushing. Don't get me wrong. I think he is a great RB just not a rare breed. Chris Johnson is proving to be a rare breed.

its so amazing that he is second in the nfl in yards from scrimmage for running backs and he faces 8 men in the box consitently.

Jackson is a rare breed of a running back, hence why on this quite frankly terrible team, and constantly facing a stacked box, he is still near the top of the league in rushing

Does the OL get any credit for this or does Jackson make his own holes and running lanes? Do you guys even consider the possibility of injury? RBs do get injured in this league. Nothing is guaranteed. He's been injured the past two seasons. He's got a bad back now. I don't see him as a superman that can take the constant pounding year after year. Average life span of NFL RB is roughly 4 years.

At the moment we have tons of holes on this team and no long term answers for those holes. Positions like DT, DE, RT, OLB, QB, CB, WR. By trading Jackson, who is a long term answer at RB, we create another hole. And who do we bring in? Draft picks? You only need to look at the history of Rams drafts to see that drafting a position isnt a long term answer

trading jackson is to much of a gamble, since no one today is willing to give up as much in the herschel walker trade we wouldnt get full value. also getting the draft picks could mean more busts and then this team would be even worse than before.

Id be all for trading Jackson if some team would give us a Herschel Walker style deal, but would a team really do that? And does any team have the resources to do that? Is there a team that is one running back away from winning the SB that would trade everything for him.

You say running backs are a dime a dozen in this league, so what incentive is there for a team to give up tons of picks and players for S-Jax?

We are not going to get a Walker type deal nor did I state that we could get a Walker type deal. We are never going to fill holes with the attitude that every future draft pick will be a bust simply because the previous regime had such a terrible track record with the draft.


:helmet:

[tomahawk247]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

so what do you suggest we trade Jackson for?

[Curly Horns]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

so what do you suggest we trade Jackson for?

If there is indeed interest from other teams then I think the Rams should listen and strongly consider offers.

I'd like to think they could get 2 draft picks (1st & 3rd or 4th) and a serviceable player for Jackson. Or a 1st round pick and a high caliber player. If they can't get that then they should keep him.


:helmet:

[tomahawk247]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

If there is indeed interest from other teams then I think the Rams should listen and strongly consider offers.

I'd like to think they could get 2 draft picks (1st & 3rd or 4th) and a serviceable player for Jackson. Or a 1st round pick and a high caliber player. If they can't get that then they should keep him.


:helmet:

What teams do you think would be interested, and what players would you hope to get from said teams?

[dgr828]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

If JAX goes, Rams will need to replace his spot with someone equal or better. Who might that be?

[Varg6]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

I'm pretty sure the Giants weren't a passing attack a few years back and they won the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure Spags came from that team too...That formula worked with good players. We don't have the right players as of right now. What makes you think we'd be a good passing team right now? Without Jackson, we'd have no offense whatsoever. I think you build around what you have. If we had star-studded WRs and a pro-bowl QB, then yeah I get your argument but as of right now we have neither. The only sure thing right now is Steven Jackson.

[Ramblin` Ram]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

i`d only accept an offer of 3 picks in the first 2 rounds for Jax with atleast 1of those being in the 1st...and then that would only be because of the high risk of injury at the RB position compared to other positions.
i dont think we as many years away from turning this thing around as some..tho if theres no salary cap then i would probably agree with peeps who are saying stuff like us being 3 years away.

[Curly Horns]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

What teams do you think would be interested, and what players would you hope to get from said teams?

I have no idea as to what teams, if any, would be interested. Perhaps there are none that would be interested in trading for just another NFL RB.

Per the title of the thread.....I'm looking for good reasons to keep Jackson.

You've basically given no good reasons to keep him. At least none that can't be easily argued against.

Are you saying a good reason to keep Jackson is because there are no teams that would want to trade for him? Or are you saying there are no teams that will give the Rams good value in return?

If JAX goes, Rams will need to replace his spot with someone equal or better. Who might that be?

Yeah, so......Are you trying to say he is irreplaceable?

Personally, as stated in the initial post, I'm not a fan of this ultra conservative, workhorse RB - style of offense. As we've all painfully seen, the results are less than to be desired.

If you like this style of offense then you must also like being on the losing end of games week after week.

Or perhaps you are in love with Jackson and truly believe he is irreplaceable?


:helmet:

[tomahawk247]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

I have no idea as to what teams, if any, would be interested. Perhaps there are none that would be interested in trading for just another NFL RB.

Per the title of the thread.....I'm looking for good reasons to keep Jackson.

You've basically given no good reasons to keep him. At least none that can't be easily argued against.

Are you saying a good reason to keep Jackson is because there are no teams that would want to trade for him? Or are you saying there are no teams that will give the Rams good value in return?

And you have given no good reasons as to why we should trade him. You suggest we give up our only current offensive weapon in a trade, but for what? There is no reason to trade him unless we end up better for it. But what trades could be made that would end up with us coming out on top? To provide an argument as to why he has to be traded you need to come out with an idea for a trade.

I could understand if Jackson was coming off a bad year and was a locker room cancer. But this guy is leading by example and is having a tremendous year with very little in the way of a supporting cast.

You say Jackson is no better than any other NFL RB, but not every other RB in the NFL is leading his conference in rushing yards.

[Curly Horns]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

I'm pretty sure the Giants weren't a passing attack a few years back and they won the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure Spags came from that team too...That formula worked with good players. We don't have the right players as of right now. What makes you think we'd be a good passing team right now? Without Jackson, we'd have no offense whatsoever. I think you build around what you have. If we had star-studded WRs and a pro-bowl QB, then yeah I get your argument but as of right now we have neither. The only sure thing right now is Steven Jackson.

The giants were at least a balanced attack and their running attack was more a product of their offensive line rather than a big name, overpaid RB.

On the offensive side of the ball I think you want to build around the QB not a RB. What we have now is a stop gap situation with Jackson. If there is trade value I think you pull the trigger and build around an elite QB - OL, WRs, TE and RB in support.

Our own Rams history (Dickerson era) shows that an offense built around a RB only goes so far.


:helmet:

[Rambunctious]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

I think the Rams need to trade their star RB. Lately I've been searching for good reasons to keep Jackson, but I'm just not coming up with any that outweigh the trade value.

Because you are talking about trading a known value for perceived value.

Right now we don't have a hole at RB. Trade Jackson and we do.

Immediately we have to use the #1 pick or our #2 to fill his position. It is an honest to God crap shoot on whether you get a Darrin McFadden or a Chris Johnson in the draft. It is very doubtful, in my opinion, we will draft better than Jackson and still pretty doubtful that we will draft an rb with the same level of talent.

But.... let's say we do get a stud rb as good as Jackson. What do we have left over from the trade? A second round pick? A serviceable player?

Way too much of a crap shoot for me. I think we would just fill one hole by creating another.

I respect your opinion but I think we need to build around Jackson. Besides... the last two games we have been passing the ball a lot more.

[Curly Horns]

Re: Why Keep Jackson?

And you have given no good reasons as to why we should trade him. You suggest we give up our only current offensive weapon in a trade, but for what? There is no reason to trade him unless we end up better for it. But what trades could be made that would end up with us coming out on top? To provide an argument as to why he has to be traded you need to come out with an idea for a trade.

I could understand if Jackson was coming off a bad year and was a locker room cancer. But this guy is leading by example and is having a tremendous year with very little in the way of a supporting cast.

You say Jackson is no better than any other NFL RB, but not every other RB in the NFL is leading his conference in rushing yards.

I said if the opportunity presents itself then I think they should trade him. They aren't going to listen to me and I am in no position to manufacture a trade.

RBs typically don't play at a high level for as many years as a QB. The legs and knees wear out and the body breaks down on RBs. Typically most are only as good as their OL and OL often play at a high level for more years.

Considering we have one win - How much worse would the Rams be without him?

Some weapon !!

I guess it comes down to what you want in an offense. I want an offense built around a QB. I think the Rams could find a RB that can be effective in the running game with the west coast style offense.


:helmet: