Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiple Runningbacks

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Multiple Runningbacks

    Alot of teams in the NFL have approached the running game with 2 or 3 decent if not solid runningbacks. Times have changed but we haven't. As we all know we have an absolute STUD in Steven Jackson but that's it, period.

    The question in my mind is how important is it to have at least one other decent if not solid back behind SJ?

    With all the holes in our team how high on the priority list is this issue?
    sigpic :ram::helmet:
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Multiple Runningbacks

    That's very high because as a franchise you want to keep fans in the seat. So in order to extend Steven Jackson's career by a couple of year or so, they need to get two more solid backs.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Multiple Runningbacks

      I think it's important and our FO and coaches realize it, but we just haven't found that guy to steadily back up Jackson. We've had short bursts of solid play from some, but no one has stuck around enough to lock down the spot. I expect us to make a move for someone this off season, because Jackson simply can't be taking as many carries as he has been if we expect him to be around in three years.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Multiple Runningbacks

        I think a #2 RB is important, but not because of fans in the seats.

        The team is being designed as a solid defensive team with a power run game to control possession and kill the clock when in the lead. If this is attained, fans will naturally be in the seats cause that is what winning does. If SJ runs down or gets injured, then the plan suffers.

        SJ is our best, and almost only weapon, on offense. A proven or high probability of being good RB behind SJ insures against stalling the running game should SJ get hurt and provides breathing time for the big man.

        As for current importance, I'd put it as the #2 or #3 priority behind DT and possibly QB.

        I posted earlier that I thought a deal should be pursued for Micheal Bush in Oakland. He'd fit the bill in my opinion and OAK has Fargas and McFadden eating salary and playing time.
        Semper Fi!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Multiple Runningbacks

          it's up there but there are definitely other needs. qb, dt, de, rt, te, and a couple of lb.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Multiple Runningbacks

            You could fill the backup RB position pretty easily with a 5th round draft pick and a lower tier free agent. With a team having so many holes, you basically are relegated to filling gaps everywhere and hoping those gap fillers turn into something better than expected down the line. For example a Noel Devine? Maybe a McCluster falls because he's so small? Michael Smith of Arkansas in the 6th round? Getting one of these guys doesn't have to be more of a priority, it's just that they need better talent behind SJ.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Multiple Runningbacks

              Great point. I've been wanting us to go in that direction for a few years now. The teams that win in the playoffs have great running games. Even Arizona with Kurt Warner's passing wouldn't be as successful without Tim Hightower or Beanie Wells running well.

              I'm not sure how we address it draft-wise or FA, but we need to do it this off-season. At one point I thought Jonathan Dwyer (GA Tech) might be a good pick, but he looked awful in the Orange Bowl.

              Go Rams!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Multiple Runningbacks

                Hmm. I figure Chris Ogby will figure into the mix. He's got some good potential. I'm guessing we'll probably use a late round pick who can rotate with Ogby as the back-up running back.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Multiple Runningbacks

                  It is very important- and he needs to do several things well; one, pick up 2-3 yards in short yardage situations when teams key on Jackson. Two, block and pick up blitzes well in the passing game. And three, spell Jackson effectively for short stretches while he rests.

                  We are not talking about a 1000 yard rusher here, just a good, solid, dependable guy- and the longevity of Jackson's career depends on it.

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next

                  Related Topics

                  Collapse
                  • RockinRam
                    Pressure Point: Preserving Jackson
                    by RockinRam
                    By Matt Williamson
                    Scouts Inc.





                    St. Louis is counting on Steven Jackson. He is needed. He is needed in many ways for the Rams to approach respectability.
                    Jackson is a great player. He is one of my favorite running backs in this league and is one of the true bell cow runners left. But I also think that a few years from now, Steve Spagnuolo is going to look back at his rookie year as a head coach and regret putting Jackson through the punishment he endured in 2009.


                    I hope Spagnuolo learns from his mistake last season, but something tells me we should expect more of the same in 2010. That puts Jackson under the spotlight, as the short-term fate of the Rams' offense rests firmly on his shoulders -- and on his now surgically repaired back.
                    My fear is that there will not be a long term. Let's face it; the Rams are not going to win the Super Bowl this season. They are rebuilding. And if/when they finally do become a contender, running back may be a major need because Jackson is spending his best days grinding out yardage on a terrible team.
                    With their massive investment in Sam Bradford, the Rams must have a ground game. Their offensive line is young and talented. It should be improved from a year ago.
                    Not only is Jackson the Rams' best player, but a solid running game is a rookie quarterback's best friend, and Jackson's receiving ability out of the backfield should provide Bradford with an exceptional and reliable option when the original play doesn't go according to script. Jackson can do it all well, including running on the perimeter or up the middle.
                    But the Rams, with or without Bradford as the starting quarterback, are not going to frighten many defenses with their passing game. Every defensive coordinator on the schedule is going to key on shutting down Jackson first and foremost. St. Louis lacks dangerous pass-catching weapons and Jackson will face a stacked box far more often than not.
                    That takes a toll on a running back's body. Not only is he going to take a lot of hits, but he is going to get hit often by multiple defenders at once. Obviously this is true for all ball carriers, but more so for Jackson considering his circumstances.
                    Is this offseason surgery the beginning of the end for Jackson? Often when a running back begins to lose a step, the decline is very rapid. Last season, he didn't break long runs like he once did, and if this trend continues, the writing might be on the wall.
                    With the huge number of needs St. Louis has in its rebuilding project, it is understandable why the Rams have gone in other directions instead of acquiring a backup running back for Jackson, but this massive hole on their roster could really hurt the franchise for the long term. The lack of a suitable backup running back might lead to the erosion of the Rams' best asset.
                    That might be jumping the gun -- and some running backs will hit...
                    -05-14-2010, 03:14 PM
                  • r8rh8rmike
                    Round Two: Where Would The Rams Be Without SJ39?
                    by r8rh8rmike
                    05.06.2010 2:12 pm
                    Where would Rams be without SJ39?
                    By Roger Hensley


                    THE WATERCOOLER

                    QUESTION: As Jim Thomas mentioned in his Wednesday story about Steven Jackson’s back surgery, back injuries can be very tricky. Coming off a 1-15 season already, how deep could the Rams fortunes fall if Jackson’s injury becomes something chronic? Would the team likely be looking at the No. 1 pick again in the next draft?

                    JIM THOMAS
                    Well, it’s hard to fall any farther than 1-15, but there really is no current answer on the roster if something should happen to Jackson. And the thought of Sam Bradford trying to operate as an NFL rookie quarterback minus Jackson is scary.

                    BILL COATS
                    The Rams without Jackson would be about as effective as a rifle without ammunition – particularly because they still haven’t found a suitable backup at running back. And, sure, if Jackson isn’t a viable option, the Rams certainly could be looking for a running back in the first round in 2011, if they haven’t addressed that issue before then.

                    JEFF GORDON
                    If Jackson is at all diminished, yes, this team could be right back at the top of the draft. Good teams have at least two quality backs. More teams are using a tag team of some sort. The Rams have no depth there at this point – and this is a run-based offense. Even if Brian Westbrook comes here, the Rams need to find an exciting young RB to groom. Their poor depth at RB last season proved devastating.

                    BRYAN BURWELL
                    The Rams without Steven Jackson are a disaster waiting to happen. That would put this team in a horrible circumstance of basically putting rookie No.1 draft pick Sam Bradford on a high wire with no safety net.
                    -05-07-2010, 06:39 PM
                  • RamsSB99
                    Does Jackson really want to be a Ram long term?
                    by RamsSB99
                    Reasons I believe Jackson may not want to be a Ram.
                    1. Bad mouthed fans - He bad mouthed the fans at a time when they were not criticizing him.
                    2. Money - He might be able to get more from another team.
                    3. Marketing - St. Louis is not a big market for making money off the field. He could probably make more in endorsements and marketing himself elswhere.
                    4. Ego - He is about himself more so then the average athlete. He could probably get more recognition in bigger markets.

                    My concerns about a long term contract for Jackson:
                    1. He's a power back: Some of the hits he takes are more direct and have more potential for causing injury then a non power backs IMO.
                    2. Running backs careers can go south in a hurry. Alexander, Holmes, etc.
                    3. If he is all about the money and gets that big payday will he still perform on the field.
                    4. He might not wind up being happy and may try forcing the team into trading him. He has already shown hes vocal about teammates and fans and he is not afraid of trying to force the teams hand.

                    Reasons I would like to see them sign him:
                    1. He has been a good back.
                    2. He still has some upside potential.
                    3. We have nothing behind him.


                    Ideally I would like to see us have a fall back option. Denver was able to plug several RB's into their system and that helps keep the cost and monetary risk of that position down.

                    I would still like to see a deal done but it would need to be reasonable. I can't say today for sure that he is a top 5 back in the NFL and I sure would not want to wager on him being in the top 5 in two years. Its such a risky position talent and health wise. To me the OL makes a good running game as much as RB's makes a good running game. If we have a good OL then we can get by with an average RB. I remember a lot of the stuffs Jackon was having people would atribute to the OL. I some what agree with that theory. However if we had a good OL opening holes couldn't we also run effectively with an average back.
                    -08-08-2008, 07:16 PM
                  • Trevor
                    Was it the runblocking or SJ?
                    by Trevor
                    Maybe he stutters because there was absolutely no where for him to go. Wherever he went there was a defender there. Darby had a nice hole for the TD but its probably due to the fact that history shows that the Rams like to pass at the goal line so they probably expected a pass.

                    Jackson had 1 bad game today, and now everyone is putting him in the spot light and pointing out the flaws. Its one game. This also isn't the first game for SJ that he didn't do so well and that was when he was healthy... I think a lot of guys have high expectations and are being extremely optimistic about the Rams this year so they want perfection every single play and every single game, its probably because we go from a horrible past 3 seasons to an awesome season. Lighten up, SJ is still a beast and teams still fear him.
                    -11-29-2010, 10:10 AM
                  • Fastcat
                    is it possible rbs may not want to come here?
                    by Fastcat
                    There is no secret that sj wants all of the carries so coming here may not be attractive to quaility rbs. And i dont believe sj would be very welcome to a guy that could take some snaps away and possibly replace him. Could this be a reason we havent landed a quality fa backup in 3+ yrs?
                    -08-01-2011, 04:30 PM
                  Working...
                  X