Falcons: Stephen Jackson is a FA- Bring em home TD?

[Aftermath]

(02-27-2013 12:01 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  We truly don't need him to be like 2006 although it would be a nice surprise. Thats why you see all his supporters point at his ypc stat. He makes the most of the carries he gets.

I think thats where its a disconnection. The people who keep harping on his age are thinking we're looking for a franchise RB or something. We're looking a nice proven complement. So yea we're paying more for not having to worry about a lack of production. Focusing on his imminent decline is not a good argument against a rb who averages 4.1 ypc.

The best argument right now is whatever his contract will be because its an unknown. What is not an unknown is how productive he has CONSISTENTLY been. Can't deny that

True, he has been one of the most consistent RBs in the league but then again so was Turner until he hit a wall. I just think that it is somewhat wishful thinking to suggest that we can replace a declining 30 year old RB with another 30 year old RB that has had over 700 more carries during his career. People talked about the miles we put on turner but the mileage on Jackson is even worse. RBs are consistent and productive until they just aren't anymore, we kept Turner a year too long and it cost us and I don't want the falcons to suffer again because we are relying on another over the hill RB with too much wear and tear. What does work in his favor is that he will likely see around 200 carries or so with us so he won't be required to carry the whole load. It's not a question of when SJ will hit a wall but when, its going to happen sooner rather than later and I don't really want the Falcons to be hitched to his cart when it happens.

As far as the YPC goes, there isn't much difference between the 3.9 that Turner and Quizz put up and the 4.1 that he put up.

[Beef]

(02-26-2013 11:48 PM)Aftermath Wrote:  his production has fallen steadily every year since 2009 and he hasn't come close to replicating his 2006 season (the one that is the root of all the hype).

2005: 4.1 ypc and 7.4 ypr
2006: 4.4 ypc and 9.0 ypr
2007: 4.2 ypc and 7.1 ypr
2008: 4.1 ypc and 9.5 ypr
2009: 4.4 ypc and 6.5 ypr
2010: 3.8 ypc and 8.3 ypr
2011: 4.4 ypc and 7.9 ypr
2012: 4.1 ypc and 8.4 ypr

LOL yeah that's a steady decline there. Or wait, no it's not. Stop looking at total yards like a noob.

Do you think we'd run him 300+ times or something? We don't need 1300 yards rushing and 400 yards receiving from the guy. We need 200 carries and 35 receptions with a 4.0 ypc and 7.0 ypr and we're set. We're unpredictable with 2 RB's for a change and are much better than we were last year where we were 10 yards from going to the SB.

[Aftermath]

(02-27-2013 12:18 AM)Beef Wrote:  2005: 4.1 ypc and 7.4 ypr
2006: 4.4 ypc and 9.0 ypr
2007: 4.2 ypc and 7.1 ypr
2008: 4.1 ypc and 9.5 ypr
2009: 4.4 ypc and 6.5 ypr
2010: 3.8 ypc and 8.3 ypr
2011: 4.4 ypc and 7.9 ypr
2012: 4.1 ypc and 8.4 ypr

LOL yeah that's a steady decline there. Or wait, no it's not. Stop looking at total yards like a noob.

Do you think we'd run him 300+ times or something? We don't need 1300 yards rushing and 400 yards receiving from the guy. We need 200 carries and 35 receptions with a 4.0 ypc and 7.0 ypr and we're set. We're unpredictable with 2 RB's for a change and are much better than we were last year where we were 10 yards from going to the SB.

great! we can get that out of a rookie! glad to see we are finally on the same page.

So which rookie RB do you think will be starting for us next year? are you thinking middle round or late rounds? don't even say first round lol.

[ATLBound]

Well he averaged higher than Turner and Quizz combined. So his 4.1 along with whatever Quizz put out who is only going to improve means much better production from our RB's.

Also there's the benefit of him not being a turnover machine

There's also the benefit of him knowing how to block. (This would be your biggest problem with a rookie)

There's also the benefit of him being of course acclimated to the speed of the game and having experience.

There's also the benefit of understand the intricate parts of the game. The minor details that make the difference.

Getting S Jax is mainly about what he does with the football in his hand but what separates him from a rookie are the many things he excels at without having the football in his hand.

[Beef]

(02-27-2013 12:17 AM)Aftermath Wrote:  True, he has been one of the most consistent RBs in the league but then again so was Turner until he hit a wall. I just think that it is somewhat wishful thinking to suggest that we can replace a declining 30 year old RB with another 30 year old RB that has had over 700 more carries during his career. People talked about the miles we put on turner but the mileage on Jackson is even worse. RBs are consistent and productive until they just aren't anymore, we kept Turner a year too long and it cost us and I don't want the falcons to suffer again because we are relying on another over the hill RB with too much wear and tear. What does work in his favor is that he will likely see around 200 carries or so with us so he won't be required to carry the whole load. It's not a question of when SJ will hit a wall but when, its going to happen sooner rather than later and I don't really want the Falcons to be hitched to his cart when it happens.

As far as the YPC goes, there isn't much difference between the 3.9 that Turner and Quizz put up and the 4.1 that he put up.

Turner averaged 3.6 ypc and 6.7 ypr.
Quizz was 3.9 ypc and 7.6 ypr.
Turner and Quizz were 3.7 ypc and 7.1 ypr.

SJ was 4.1 ypc and 8.4 ypr.
SJ and Quizz would have been 4.0 ypc and 8.0 ypr.

That's a big difference. Over 1.2 yards per touch of the ball on 388 touches. That's +465 yards. 29 more yards a game. That's 3 more first downs a game.

You're just overly obtuse about this. The eye test alone shows a massive difference in SJ vs Turner. We've been talking about Turner slowing down and looking like he tip toes up to the line and falls down anytime someone touches his shoe laces for 3 seasons now. Not to mention complaining about how predictable we are when he's in due to his lack of being a reception threat. I just don't see any of that in SJ's film. Not even close. Dude hits holes fast and hard and is a bona fide home run threat every time he touches the ball. And of course he can catch 100x better than Turner so no more being predictable. Lord knows what additional benefits that would add to the entire offense. How much more would that help spread out defenses and keep them guessing? It would be huge.

[Aftermath]

(02-27-2013 12:33 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  Well he averaged higher than Turner and Quizz combined. So his 4.1 along with whatever Quizz put out who is only going to improve means much better production from our RB's.

Also there's the benefit of him not being a turnover machine

There's also the benefit of him knowing how to block. (This would be your biggest problem with a rookie)

There's also the benefit of him being of course acclimated to the speed of the game and having experience.

There's also the benefit of understand the intricate parts of the game. The minor details that make the difference.

Getting S Jax is mainly about what he does with the football in his hand but what separates him from a rookie are the many things he excels at without having the football in his hand.

huh?

Like I said before, maybe in the other thread, I wouldn't be against getting him for 3.5M or less but I don't think he will take that little to play anywhere.

[Beef]

(02-27-2013 12:23 AM)Aftermath Wrote:  great! we can get that out of a rookie! glad to see we are finally on the same page.

So which rookie RB do you think will be starting for us next year? are you thinking middle round or late rounds? don't even say first round lol.

A rookie is a crap shoot, especially in later rounds. And read ATLBound's post about the other intangibles like blocking and what experience means.

[phocis850]

Just ask who the 49ers would rather face.
Turner or Jackson.

Rookies aren't proven. 4 yards sounds easy to get until its something that you need to get on a consistent basis.

[Beef]

(02-27-2013 12:40 AM)Aftermath Wrote:  huh?

Like I said before, maybe in the other thread, I wouldn't be against getting him for 3.5M or less but I don't think he will take that little to play anywhere.

"Huh?" WTF part can't you understand? There was nothing confusing in what he said.

[Aftermath]

(02-27-2013 12:46 AM)Beef Wrote:  "Huh?" WTF part can't you understand? There was nothing confusing in what he said.

there you go getting pissy again, doesn't take much does it. lol