Got this from another board

[-X-]

...and the guy got flamed repeatedly for even bringing it up. But.

What if Jackson was on the Rams during the GSOT era instead of Faulk? What do you think happens? Don't win a Superbowl? Win TWO Superbowls instead? Are his numbers ridiculous when playing with that team as opposed to playing with the 15-65 Rams?

Conversely,

What if Faulk wasn't on the GSOT team, and instead was on the broken down version of the Rams from 2007 on? What do HIS numbers look like? Is he on a Barry Sanders level where he still posts great numbers regardless of the situation? Or does he get beaten down and forced into early retirement?

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's interesting.

I think without Faulk there is no GSOT. Jackson is an amazing back, but with how Faulk played, that's what really made the GSOT special. He has a unique ability that you never see in a back. Nothing against Jackson though, but his style is different. That being said, I think the Rams are still able to get a SB with Jackson, it just would have looked different.

However, Faulk in the 2007 years, I don't think looks much different, in terms of the team, but I'm betting he puts up decent numbers. Not as good as the GSOT, but still very good numbers. I'm not sure that Faulk stays like Jackson did though. Nothing against Faulk either, but I'm not sure he has the patience to stick on a team that just can't really win, when he can opt to leave to collect his ring on another team.

 

[-X-]

Yeah, different types of runners for sure. Faulk is elusive, but he's also a pretty powerful runner. Not nearly as dominant as Jackson in that regard, but still pretty strong. I just can't help but picture Jackson getting some of those holes that opened up for Faulk (with defenses keying on the pass). Once that dude breaks through to the second level, there are very few defenders who even want to tackle him. Remember, he had 90 receptions in 2006 too, so he's no slouch when it comes to that part of the game.

Tellin' ya. I'd really be interested in seeing what that looks like. Jackson on the GSOT team with Warner, Bruce, Holt & Hakim drawing attention away from him. Ridiculous.

 

[steferfootball]

GSOT doesn't win a superbowl, Jackson puts up bigger numbers.

Faluk's efficiency numbers take a hit, Rams are better but still suck.

 

[Juice]

Rams still beat the Titans in the Superbowl, but still lose to the Pats because Mike Martz still abandons the run in the second half and loses the game because of it. Faulk's career ends a lot sooner because he is given the same offensive line Jackson has had and he can't take the pounding that Jackson has over these years.

 

[PhxRam]

Jackson shouldnt even be in the same discussion as Faulk.

Jackson is good.

Faulk was GREAT.

 

[Faceplant]

Jackson shouldnt even be in the same discussion as Faulk.

Jackson is good.

Faulk was GREAT.

+1

 

[bwdenverram]

Jackson shouldnt even be in the same discussion as Faulk.

Jackson is good.

Faulk was GREAT.

Not that I disagree, but Faulk also played on GREAT teams. Jackson has played on terrible teams. Let's see what Faulk looks like on the same teams as SJ. But they are two different RB's completely.

 

[PhxRam]

Jackson shouldnt even be in the same discussion as Faulk.

Jackson is good.

Faulk was GREAT.

Not that I disagree, but Faulk also played on GREAT teams. Jackson has played on terrible teams. Let's see what Faulk looks like on the same teams as SJ. But they are two different RB's completely.

And yet Faulk still was the best player on great teams. Sometimes I question if Jackson is the best player on some shitty teams.

Dont get me wrong, I like Jackson, but he will never be close to Faulk in skillset.

I will always remember that TD run Faulk had and you hear Vermeil tell Hannifan "we didnt block anyone". Vintage Faulk. Jackson tries that stuff and gets stuffed everytime.

4th and 1 on the goal line?? Forget about it. I would take Faulk everytime.

 

[PhxRam]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5hsrYqsS8w[/youtube]

 

[Faceplant]

Jackson shouldnt even be in the same discussion as Faulk.

Jackson is good.

Faulk was GREAT.

Not that I disagree, but Faulk also played on GREAT teams. Jackson has played on terrible teams. Let's see what Faulk looks like on the same teams as SJ. But they are two different RB's completely.

And yet Faulk still was the best player on great teams. Sometimes I question if Jackson is the best player on some cruddy teams.

Dont get me wrong, I like Jackson, but he will never be close to Faulk in skillset.

I will always remember that TD run Faulk had and you hear Vermeil tell Hannifan "we didnt block anyone". Vintage Faulk. Jackson tries that stuff and gets stuffed everytime.

4th and 1 on the goal line?? Forget about it. I would take Faulk everytime.

+1 again. I remember that game (against the Browns) like it was yesterday. Faulk also had another gear once he hit open field. I remember our first game against the Titans in 1999 when he caught a swing pass, made one cut and just exloded to the end zone. Ahh memories...

EDIT: Just watched the highlight vid, haha. The Titan game clip I mentioned is at 1:17....

 

[Username]

It's impossible to say. There's way too many variables. Marshall had Martz for 6-7 years. Jacksons had like 5 different coaches (and OCs) the past 6-7 years.

A lot of Marshalls success was from his football "smarts." He had a coach like Martz to be able to see that and bring out his full potential. He also had Vermeil who had the balls to be able to build/coach the team the way he did.

Faulk was a field general in the running back position. He could read and diagnose any defense pre snap. Plus he could tell you what everyones assignment was on offense and what the play in general was trying to accomplish position by position. He was also able to catch and play receiver better than half the league at any given moment. The true definition to a complete back.


In the end, I think Jackson is a great back, but Faulk was better. Hard to say what Jackson could have accomplished on those teams. Would Martz be able to use him the same as he used Marshall? I mean, look at what Faulk accomplished with the Colts even. No one can argue that Stevens been screwed though. Steven has accomplished a RIDICULOUS amount on a franchise that's been rock bottom. No one can argue that, and that it takes some pretty damn good talent to do so.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, you can run an offense a lot of different ways, and Vermeil and Martz would have had to have been really dumb if they couldn't find a way to use Jackson in 99.

Actually, when Martz first came to the Rams, before he had to integrate Faulk into the offense (which didn't happen overnight btw), he was talking about how his offense depended on a power back.

That's because he had just come from being Norv Turner's qb coach in Washington, and in 99 Turner was planning on building his running game around Stephen Davis. In fact, when Martz talked about power running when he was first hired, he directly mentioned Davis--so he must have been in on Turner's thinking.

Plus of course while he couldn't do it like Faulk, as others point out, Jackson can catch out of the backfield.

Bear in mind of course that 2/3rds of the GSOT years--2000 and 2001--Martz was the head coach. And Martz drafted Jackson.

The combination of Vermeil, Martz, that OL, Warner, Bruce, Holt, Proehl, and Hakim was just going to win games.

It did it one way with Faulk.

It would have just done it another way with Jackson.

 

[Ram Quixote]

What if Jackson was on the Rams during the GSOT era instead of Faulk? What do you think happens? Don't win a Superbowl? Win TWO Superbowls instead? Are his numbers ridiculous when playing with that team as opposed to playing with the 15-65 Rams?

Conversely,

What if Faulk wasn't on the GSOT team, and instead was on the broken down version of the Rams from 2007 on? What do HIS numbers look like? Is he on a Barry Sanders level where he still posts great numbers regardless of the situation? Or does he get beaten down and forced into early retirement?

I don't see this question as Faulk vs. Jackson. This is more about the GSOT and Martz.

Faulk was a very good back and the GSOT made him great. Opponents made Faulk the focus. In both SBs, the Titans and Patriots tried to remove Faulk from the offense.

The question here is would the GSOT have made Jackson great? I think that's a resounding Yes. Think about it. Faulk came to the Rams in his prime, so with the question Jackson does too. We already have a partial answer from the results of 2006.

While certainly the execution of 99 would have been different (Faulk and Jackson aren't cookie cutter backs), the results wouldn't have been. Think Dallas of Aikman, E. Smith and the multiple receiver targets of Holt, Bruce, Hakim and Proehl.

The biggest complaint most of us had with Martz in the early (and later) years was that he went pass-happy. With Jackson he wouldn't have. Perhaps Warner would have survived longer, too. We look back on the Martz years and think we know what he would do. The truth is, the passing game was the Rams' strength, so he went to it often. Too often.

But if the 99 team under Vermeil had used Jackson as he was intended, do we really believe Martz would have gone away from that?

 

[steferfootball]

And yet Faulk still was the best player on great teams. Sometimes I question if Jackson is the best player on some cruddy teams.

Faulk was the best player on a great team where his teammates supported him and made him better.

Jackson was/is the best player on terrible teams where his teammates have done nothing but make his job harder.

That's the difference. Jackson hasn't played for bad teams, he has played for absolutely terrible teams.

Think our record sucks over the past 5 years? Take Jackson away and compare. There is at least one 0-16 year in there. St. Louis owe the fact that that 09 team isn't in the annals of history as a complete laughing stock due exclusively to him.

 

[Lesson]

And yet Faulk still was the best player on great teams. Sometimes I question if Jackson is the best player on some cruddy teams.

Faulk was the best player on a great team where his teammates supported him and made him better.

Jackson was/is the best player on terrible teams where his teammates have done nothing but make his job harder.

That's the difference. Jackson hasn't played for bad teams, he has played for absolutely terrible teams.

Think our record sucks over the past 5 years? Take Jackson away and compare. There is at least one 0-16 year in there. St. Louis owe the fact that that 09 team isn't in the annals of history as a complete laughing stock due exclusively to him.

And Josh Brown.

 

[Lesson]

Also, Faulk was a great, great, great RB.

However, look at what he did after 2001. No 1,000+ yards seasons.

Faulk was a bigger weapon in the passing game, no doubt, compared to Jackson, however, as his 2006 season shows, he can be a weapon in the passing game if utilized properly.

 

[Yamahopper]

When it comes to running the ball it's Dickerson. Not even close. The numbers he put up in such a short time with the Rams is astounding. He was also underrated as a pass catcher. To the fans that never saw him play you missed something wonderful. Put him on the GSOT and I don't think they could have been stopped, ever.

Faulk was a little more well rounded as a player, but not the runner ED was. It's close but still give the edge to E.D.

Jackson is great and has been the heart of the team but he lacks the take it to the house burst the other had. He's great at grinding it out and getting the tough yards, but to me he's 3rd in this group.

 

[Thordaddy]

Marshall was a great back when he got here .So much of what he did came because he set tacklers up to fail and not get some of the clean hits Jackson gets.
To me that ability to keep defenders off balance ,afraid to take the shot was a lot of the magic of the GSOT.
In the end though I think Martz would have used Jackson a lot the way Gibbs used Riggins and we'd have been as successful.

But to answer the question of how would Faulk have effected the bad Rams teams, IMO he'd have been more productive on a bad team than Jackson,just do,I think the ability to make defenders apprehensive is more vital to a weaker team and his elusiveness would have helped the passing game more,i.e. how many monster gainers would Faulk have had in 2010 with the "outlet game" Shurmer played where he'd have made the first guy miss consistently?

Bottom line if they switched positions IMO the Rams would have a better overall record for their entire tenure in St.L.

 

[Warner4Prez]

A question I always had was what would Faulk's career look like if he didn't have to play like 5 or 6 years on shitty astro-turf. I know the dude had more than a couple knee scopes and fluid drains, if he had the luxury of playing on nicer field turf his whole career...it may have been a boost to his longevity. It is true that the old turf helped the Rams play quicker, but I think it took an unfortunate toll on Faulk.