5 Questions for the St. Louis Rams

by Chris on Aug 27, 2008 10:47 AM CDT

That time of the week. Let us know in the comment section your questions for VanRam at Turf Show Times.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

6 recs | Comment 45 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re-signing Steven Jackson

Was this a good move or bad move? Many would argue he’s about to hit his decline.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 10:59 AM CDT 0 recs

Decline?

The guy’s 25. His numbers have been constant for three years and 25-30 is usually a running back’s prime. He hasn’t been seriously overused and aside from a freak injury (torn groin) and an even more freakish string of injuries on his offensive line the guy was solid last year.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up 0 recs

The Only Knock To Be Made Against Him

Is that he seems somewhat injury-prone…but missing 2 games a year isn’t out of the ordinary for a running back (and the games missed his rookie year were more about him playing behind Marshall Faulk). None of his injuries appear to be of the lingering sort and he was fine at the end of last season after the groin injury so I’ve no idea where you’re getting the idea he’s about to decline.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 11:12 AM CDT up 0 recs

I disagree

Jackson’s got another 1, maybe 2, years left of high productivity. He is hovering around 300-400 touches in a season which past history says won’t keep him productive for a long stretch of time.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 11:23 AM CDT up 0 recs

I disagree, I think he still has many years left.

Everyone has this idea that if you run the ball a lot, you won’t be productive very long, and that honestly makes no sense. Wouldn’t that give you better season endurance and experience? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that when a RB has a good year, the offensive linemen are worth more on the market, the team can’t hold onto them, and then the RB can’t do anything behind the patched line. There are many RBs that have run for a lot of yards and a lot of carries and still been productive, so I don’t see where that logic comes from.

by Vince D on Aug 27, 2008 12:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

I disagree

There are many RBs that have run for a lot of yards and a lot of carries and still been productive, so I don’t see where that logic comes from.

It comes from statistical history. If Jackson continues to succeed with a high amount of carries then he would be the exception, not the rule.

Most backs can’t handle more than just a few years with a high amount of carries.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up 0 recs

Interesting

And it would be relevant if Steven Jackson had ever had 370 carries in a single season, which he hasn’t. He’s had one season with 300 carries. This is probably why the article didn’t discuss Steven Jackson as a candidate for a decline.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 12:28 PM CDT up 0 recs

Out of curiosity

What would you do? Would you have signed him to a big deal?

I’m not sure which side had more leverage in the negotiating process, but if I were the Rams I wouldn’t have committed to him for more than two years.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

Jackson?

Yes, I would have signed him to a big contract. He’s just entering his prime and he’s going to be the focal point of that offense. I griped about LJ’s contract earlier because they signed him to a deal that will take him well into his decline years.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up 0 recs

Emmitt Smith

Hits the list twice… and didn’t “decline” until after 95 (I would say he didn’t really decline until 2001)… but still played almost 9 more full seasons. He missed the most games in ’03, one year before retiring at the end of ’04.

So yeah, 370 seems like a “redline” for RB’s, but I would argue that as with most things in football… it depends on the player more than anything. You need to be an exceptional RB to even be allowed to carry that many times in the first place… and apparently even more exceptional to push through it and still be productive in the future.

by Ochophosphate on Aug 27, 2008 1:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

What Are You Talking About?

Steven Jackson’s had over 300 carries once in his career. LaDainian Tomlinson’s had 330 or more carries five of the seven years he’s played (and he’s hit 300 carries every single year) and he’s still at a very high level. Like I said, the only legitimate knock on Jackson is that he’s slightly injury-prone, but there’s no indication that he’s headed for a decline…either by historical trends of running backs or his performance level. If anything, his numbers should improve this season.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up 0 recs

I said touches

B/c he is pretty active in the receiving game.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

The Article You Cited Said "Carries"

Not “touches”. Carries are more damaging than receptions because with a carry the entire defense is charging up to pound a player as soon as he gets the ball. With receptions, receivers can dictate the amount of contact they take.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 12:30 PM CDT up 0 recs

And I Do Agree With The 370 Carries Rule

Because players who get that many carries are being overused and their careers suffer afterwards. Happened to Jamal Anderson, Terrell Davis, and Larry Johnson. LJ might pull out of it, of course, or he may not…this season will tell.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up 0 recs

He got 370 carries last season he was healthy

My point is that he will approach that number, if he can stay healthy, within the next two seasons.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

He Got 346 Carries In 2006

Which was a career high.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/stats?playerId=5549

Seriously, Primetime, you’re going to argue with me about stats without bothering to check your numbers first? :)

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up 0 recs

Whoa

I was referencing LT – my bad.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up 0 recs

No, I wasn't

Wrong thread. :)

I must have meant 350. I went to his stat page and I know it was 346.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

Ah

But the articles was clear about the “370 carry” rule…and Jackson hasn’t hit that, nor has he come close in any other season but 2006.

Now you could certainly make the argument that he’s an injury risk…it’s something I definitely noticed when I traded for the guy for my fantasy team…but there’s not really an argument to be made at this point that he’s declining. The numbers don’t show it and his age would seem to preclude that.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up 0 recs

And him and LT

Are two completely different backs. A player like LT is the exception, anyway. He’s bucked all historical trends that say he should decline.

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up 0 recs

No, He Hasn't

The historical trends say he should start his decline in another year or two, no later than age 31, at his current level of usage. The only running back who’s bucked that trend was Walter Payton (who performed at a superstar level with over 300 carries at age 32).

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up 0 recs

How many backs have averaged 340 touches/year

For that many years?

I don’t know the answer, but I would imagine it’s extremely low (like the exception).

by primetime 07 on Aug 27, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up 0 recs

Walter Payton Came Closest

That guy was just a hoss. Barry Sanders had 2 seasons over 340 (and four over 330) with no apparent dropoff in skill. Both elusive backs like Tomlinson.

Now, Jackson’s not an elusive back, so it’s possible his declining years will come a little sooner (age 29 or 30 instead of 30 or 31) but this contract takes that into account and makes him a free agent at 28 (which isn’t a good year to be a free agent running back regardless of your style unless you only want a two, maybe three, year deal afterwards). But the Rams signed him to a good contract…a deal that pays on a projection of future performance but doesn’t ignore the trends.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 1:26 PM CDT up 0 recs

The only thing that makes LT different

is he typically knows how to avoid the bone crushing hit… he’s elusive and small’ish. He doesn’t power over guys, he goes around or through. Barry Sanders was like that. He’s not a guy that is going to get to the sideline and turn it back inside to try to power for extra yards… he’s going to step out of bounds and live to carry another play. Not to mention that he has managed to avoid typical nagging injuries that other RB’s face – groin, ankle, hamstring, whatever.

by Ochophosphate on Aug 27, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

"and he’s still at a very high level"

That remains to be seen – the last non-preseason game LT played was the one where he sat out for 3 quarters…

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 28, 2008 7:33 AM CDT up 0 recs

He Was Injured That Game And Apparently He's Fully Recovered

So I’m giving him a pass and considering him an elite back until he shows otherwise with his performance.

Of course, that still didn’t stop me from trading him off my fantasy team this offseason so I could get Marshawn Lynch. Better to trade away a player a year too early rather than a year too late in my opinion :)

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 28, 2008 4:10 PM CDT up 0 recs

Do you have a league

where you keep none, one, or more than one?

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 28, 2008 5:52 PM CDT up 0 recs

We Kept Two From Last Year

We’re upping it to five next season, but we had to do two this year because we’ve got two expansion teams (now a 10 team league) so we couldn’t deplete the draft pool too much or the new guys wouldn’t be competitive. My keepers from last year were going to be Steven Jackson and LaDainian Tomlinson, but I traded Tomlinson for Marshawn Lynch right before the keeper deadline because I have a feeling Tomlinson is going to decline either this year or next and I didn’t think I could get a good deal for him in trade next year when he’s 30.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 28, 2008 10:17 PM CDT up 0 recs

You got a steal on that trade

I think the Bills are ascending and the Chargers are descending…I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Chargers lose the division to the Raiders this season (I threw up in my mouth a little as I typed that)

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 29, 2008 7:28 AM CDT up 0 recs

I Would Be Shocked If The Raiders Won The AFC West

Mainly because the Javon Walker signing was beyond terrible, because JaMarcus Russell is a huge “if”, and because Al Davis is completely insane. I think San Diego wins the division easily this year and the Raiders finish third. I could see them being as bad as us, though, if Davis fires Kiffin (who is actually a pretty decent young coach).

For the trade, I think I did pretty well. Marshawn’s going to be used on third downs a lot this year and his reception numbers should go up dramatically. I’m a bit worried about the Jason Peters holdout, but apparently they’ve been doing fine without him so his line should be okay.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 29, 2008 9:13 AM CDT up 0 recs

Trent Green Starting

i like the guy, but this is a weird choice by STL. He has been anemic thus far this season, completing 33.3% and 40% of his passes against Tennessee and San Diego, respectively, and he didn’t play against Baltimore. At least he hasn’t thrown an interception yet.

Doesn’t Bulger need more reps?

by KS on Aug 27, 2008 12:29 PM CDT 0 recs

Apparently...

The Rams have gotten to the point where Bulger seems to be okay with the offense (at least to start the season) and they got a good enough look at the 2 guys battling for #2 on the depth chart…they just wanted Green to get his reps in with it being the last game before the regular season.

Linehan’s quote:

“This gives him a chance in a game to go out and find his rhythm,” Linehan said. "So he’s not going in the season cold without reps if we ever called upon him.

“You can’t assume that just because he’s a vet that knows the system, that he can just go out there and turn it on. Although I would bet on him more than a lot of guys.”

by stlfan on Aug 27, 2008 9:01 PM CDT up 0 recs

How is Chris Long coming along?

I haven’t heard much about him. Last I saw was him getting blown off the line in the Tennessee game when Chris Johnson broke a 66 yd. TD run up the gut. But that was week 1. How has he looked since then, and is he going to live up to that #2 pick?

by Ochophosphate on Aug 27, 2008 12:38 PM CDT 0 recs

Good question.

I’m a draftnik, so I’m curious about Chris Long as well. How has he looked rushing the passer? I have literally not seen a down of his play yet with the Rams.

Not that I know much

But looking at their depth chart, Vobora looks like he’s the #2 OLB behind Quentin Culberson – opposite Pisa Tinoisamoa. The fact that he’s made it that far must say something about him.

Greco looks like #3 at RT behind Barron and Goldberg… so that doesn’t sound promising as a future Pace replacement.

Avery is sitting at #5 or 6 on the charts.. it’s tough to read but I think it goes:
Holt
Bennett
Looker
Hall
Caldwell
Avery
Haggans
Burton

I used this chart from NFL.com to make these wacky judgments.

Anyway, based on the depth chart, it seems like Vobora is coming along better than some of the others… strange eh? Maybe he’s not so irrelevant after all?

by Ochophosphate on Aug 27, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up 0 recs

I always root for Mr. Irrelevant.

But I’d love to see the TST’s opinions on all this depth chart mess.

If somebody looked at our depth chart they’d be like “who’s this Jackie Battle kid the Chiefs must love!?!?”

by Direckshun on Aug 27, 2008 1:24 PM CDT up 0 recs

exzachary

I’m with you… can’t wait to hear an informed person’s take… mine was wacktastic. :D

by Ochophosphate on Aug 27, 2008 1:50 PM CDT up 0 recs

By the by.

That’s pathetic if they drafted two wide receivers in rounds 2 and 5 and they occupy two of the three lowest positions on the depth chart.

by Direckshun on Aug 27, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up 0 recs

Pretty Decent Article on Avery/Burton

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/around-the-horns/around-the-horns/2008/08/avery-burton-provide-glimpse-into-future/

by stlfan on Aug 27, 2008 9:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

Derrrr....

meant to write “blurb” not “article.” It’s more of a short blog, if I remember correctly.

by stlfan on Aug 27, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up 0 recs

"Rape Of A Steal"?

Dude…aside from being a pretty disgusting turn of phrasing, what in the hell does that even mean?

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up 0 recs

lol

Fair point.

by Direckshun on Aug 27, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

Receiving Corps

With Torry Holt growing long in the tooth and Drew Bennett struggling to adjust last year in St. Louis, who do you see as a prime candidate to step up in this year’s offense at wide receiver?

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 27, 2008 1:41 PM CDT 0 recs