Steven Jackson? Maybe?

by The Hill on Oct 16, 2009 6:29 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

Fred Taylor has been fragile this year. LoMo hasn't been showing much improvement. I believe that, on offense, a solid running game will be the answer to all of our problem. We haven't been running the ball like last year and the pressure on the receivers and Brady has been evident. We've been forced into a lot of third and longs- third and longs that Brady can't make every time. I believe that an answer is out there.

Steven Jackson can do the grisly math, and that’s why he wasn’t especially caught off guard Thursday night when I asked him if he thought the St. Louis Rams might deal him to another team before Tuesday’s NFL trading deadline – which, incidentally, is the one-year anniversary of their last victory.

Article Here

What does Steven Jackson offer to the Patriots? A 26-year-old player on his 6th season who is a stud running back, who has somehow managed to gain 1000+ rushing yards and 35+ receptions the past 4 years on a team that can be argued as one of the worst 3 teams in the league over that span of time. Apart from '06-'07, he hasn't had to handle an unreasonable amount of carries. With the average workhorse Running Back lasting until 30, Jackson, on the Patriots rotation, could go even longer. He will no longer have to be the only option and can flourish.

He can be an outlet for Tom Brady in the backfield, can catch the ball, can run in the open field, can keep the defense honest and prevent them from focusing on only the receivers.

What about the Rams? They are in full rebuilding mode. Steven Jackson is only of their only assets so they may not be willing to part with him. However, by the time the Rams have enough quality players from the draft and free agency, Jackson may be past him prime in that environment. What can the Patriots offer that would interest the Rams?

Draft picks.

Coach Billy has been stockpiling picks since forever (I believe that we own every single draft pick in the second and third round?) and he loves trading down and getting similar quality players for cheaper. However, we've kept so many young players these past couple of years that it seems highly unlikely that we will hold onto every pick or player from the 2010 draft (We have 4 picks in the first two rounds of the 2010 Draft). What do the rebuilding Rams need? Picks!

I know that we may have to sacrifice a handful of great picks for this trade to happen, but I believe it could be worth the trade, especially if Jackson brings his productivity to New England. In fact, behind the Patriots O-Line and alongside all of the other Offensive weapons, Jackson should be even more productive here than in New England.

While our Defense is getting younger and meshing together, we need our Offense to stick and keep up its production to create some slack. Getting as many Offensive weapons that we can trust should be a priority, until the Defense is up to par, until we find a true 3rd receiver, and until Brady is back. Steven Jackson could be that weapon and we have the resources to get him.

Do you think we should keep with the weapons we have and keep the draft picks? Should we try and gain a different player? What do you think?

The views expressed in these FanPosts are not necessarily those of the writers or SBNation.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't see it happening

I distinctly remember reading a pre-season writeup about Steven Jackson somewhere, about how he only intends to be a feature running-back in a team that hands the ball to their number one back most of the time. From the sounds of what he said in that article, he’d only be interested in teams that would give him the ball 90% of the time; that’s the polar opposite of the Pats running game.

The problem as I see it is this – if they take him, they can do two things. They can give him the ball 90% of the time, in which case they aren’t going to be using Maroney, Morris, Faulk, Taylor, etc, which is a waste of cap, talent, and all the time spent gameplanning how to use the Pats RBBC. Or they can take him, and sidle him into the RBBC lineup, and underutilise a feature-back-worthy player, and really, really annoy him. Or they can compromise and annoy everyone. He’ll go elsewhere – maybe the Chiefs need a feature back again? Maybe the Chargers want another RB?

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 16, 2009 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My thoughts are that Faulk and Taylor will not be with us 3 years down the road and I would gladly trade LoMo + Sammy Morris for Steven Jackson.

by The Hill on Oct 17, 2009 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm assuming you don't mean trade Maroney and Morris to the Rams for Jackson

After all, this isn’t a video game. That trade will never happen unless the Pats throw in a couple of first round picks, which is a lot to give up even for Steven Jackson, especially when the Pats can use a first rounder to draft a good RB if they think they need to. Or with Taylor out for a while, they can give more of a look to Law Firm and see if he can be a 20 carries a game kind of player.

In the meanwhile, we’re talking about now, not three years from now. Even with a trade like this, Jackson may not be with us three years from now — three years is a lifetime for a running back.

by RSNexile on Oct 17, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Of course I don’t mean an actual trade. No one but Al Davis would accept that. I was saying that I would rather have Steven Jackson than LoMo+SaMo.

by The Hill on Oct 17, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Belichick's RBBC is a realisation

that it’s better to have four guys putting up 1600 yards than one guy putting up 1600 yards. Why? Because it’d take four broken legs to stop the running game, not just one. And Steven Jackson would want to be paid like a stud HB – Morris and Faulk would only be paid like bit-part players, and Taylor’s taking a bit of a discount because he wants a Ring. It’s a lot, lot cheaper to get four so-so guys who put up production than it is to pay one first-tier running back.

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 17, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maroney kinda reminds me of steven jackson.

my opinion on the trade is that we don’t really need jackson. our RB’s are still capable of picking up yards together, making a tandem, and getting the job done. with my opinion on that, why add a draft pick to the trade if we all ready have an average-above average Running game?

by patriotguy on Oct 17, 2009 1:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

how does he remind you of s-jax?

the number? the dreads? i hope those are the only comparisons u have. s-jax is one of the top 5 rbs in the league, talent-wise. he hits the gap with a ferocity thats reminiscent of eric dickerson. he’s tall, he’s an amazing pass-catcher, and is damn-good looking…oops, did that slip out? anyway, i’d much rather have him on my squad than slow-mo. im an eagle fan in love with the pats, n i say if ya’ll go after him i would expect nothing less than a more balanced 2007

When the Mets won the series....

"...and a ground ball, trickling, its a fair ball..gets by Buckner!! Rounding third, Knight! The Mets will win the ball game! The Mets win! They win! Unbelievable, the Red Sox in stunned disbelief!"
—On Buckner's error. Murphy started the call. Thorne then added to it.

1986 World Series, Game 6

Game 7:

"Got 'em!"
—After Jesse Orosco struck out the final batter.

by Wingtip-Cleats on Oct 18, 2009 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

those and the running style.

tough fellas with a little quickness and a great stiff arm. he isn’t steven jackson now, but he has the potential to be one. even a sports announcer made that comparison late in the 07 season.

by patriotguy on Oct 18, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wounder if we get him now

we wont

by Patsfan4life on Oct 18, 2009 8:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Whether they trade or pick up another RB

might depend on how injured Morris is.

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 18, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I kind of hope we don't...

I want to see BJGE emerge.

by The Hill on Oct 18, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't mind BJGE getting more of a run myself

but if Steven Jackson were available, cheaply, and it was a choice of the two…

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 18, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haha of course

But I feel like we’d have to give up an arm and a leg for Jackson. It’s just a matter of if giving up an arm and a leg is worth getting Jackson’s two legs and receiving hands.

by The Hill on Oct 18, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he were unhappy, they might discount him to get rid of the bad blood

but he seems to be a happy camper in the Rams, so he’d definitely cost a lot. That, and the Rams have basically promised to (and because of how bad they are, can afford to) give him all the carries he can ask for. Wouldn’t happen in most places, and I don’t see it happening under Belichick’s reign, who’s shown he’s a pretty solid backfield-by-committee coach.

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 18, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like we’re more a BBC running team by default, not by choice. I have a feeling that BB wouldn’t say no to a feature back, or even a strong tandem, at the correct price. He loved the Corey Dillon backfield and I have a sneaking suspicion that Fred Taylor was supposed to come in and split carries with either LoMo or SaMo, depending on who was going to separate themselves during preseason.

by The Hill on Oct 19, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, I thought about that

And the year after Dillon set the Pats rushing record, he goes out and drafts a HB in the first round, sets up a pretty decent RBBC, and calls it his “best rushing attack ever”. And he needed that committee – both LoMo and Dillon had injury issues at different parts of the season.

I think it mostly comes down to the Pats approach. Belichick wants a strong, playoff contending team every single year. That means consistency, and for consistency, you need to be able to overcome injuries and unexpected events. When you have a stud, premier unstoppable HB like Tomlinson or Peterson, life is good. But you have to pay those guys like they’re made out of platinum. So if and when they break down, you’re screwed – no cap room, no backup plan, your season is a writeoff. That last part is the kicker – it’s fundamentally contrary to the Pats way, of being a perennial playoff team.

The last few franchises who can try to claim status as a dynasty – Steelers, Pats, Colts – none of them have had a top-line HB. They’ve had useful backfields, and often RBBC. Steelers? Mendenhall and Parker (Parker being injured at the moment; Mendenhall having 2008 out). Colts? Addai and Brown (Addai being knocked around in 2008). Pats? Taylor. LoMo. etc. Those really successful teams have good-but-not-LT/AD backs, and a couple of them.

I think it’s a definite choice to move away from a feature back, in the name of making sure you have somebody capable of rushing on the day. Better to have three guys get 1500 yards every year than one guy get 2000, but only every second year.

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 19, 2009 6:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and actually

its better to have 3-4 guys get over 2000, like the Pats did last year.

The Patriots have consistently put up big team rushing totals during the decade. Folks forget that before Moss & Welker came along, they were much more obviously run-oriented. But even in the last two years they’ve put up excellent rushing totals.

by mmmmm on Oct 19, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So if Brady keeps this up...

…this thread will be silly.

The whole idea of trading for a feature back was to get talent to take pressure off Brady. However, if Brady continues his aerial onslaught, the running game will see less pressure and start rearing its head again.

by The Hill on Oct 19, 2009 8:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Even better

He’s done it once, so any defensive co-ordinator from now on in has to assume he’s capable of doing it again – and that means they have to think about what could happen if they stack the safety in the box, etc. Even the mere threat being there ought to help the running game.

by Comedic.Sans on Oct 19, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's what's changed since Sunday

Opposing teams having to assume the Patriots are back with full confidence in their offense as it stands. I don’t know how much value studying that game film will bring, but whatever the Pats wanted to do they did. Huge confidence builder, huge monkey off their backs, and opposing teams have to take notice.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Oct 20, 2009 6:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The recipe for beating the Pats hasn't changed

Intense QB pressure, and blanket Moss and Welker.

If Tom’s got his pinpoint back, and the screens are working (did you see those this week – glorious) that will be difficult to do. The defense (minus some lousy tackling and some pass) is as good or better than it’s been the last couple years. They’ve been able to generate some 3 and outs all year. Actually, it has been good that the offense was struggling, because it gave the defense a chance to establish an identity.

It’s not all on Brady’s shoulders like it was in 2007. This year we have a team. Alot of young guys and hungry veterans. Seau is there to keep everyone focused on the fact that the ultimate prize is won minute by minute, week by week, and win by win. The keys to 2007 was consistency and error free football. This win the can build on, but consistency we’ve yet to see. Somehow, though it feels like they’ve turned the corner.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know.

by SlotMachinePlayer on Oct 20, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs