Post by Guvmintcheeze on Oct 8, 2014 18:38:58 GMT
Is Steven Jackson holding the Falcons' offense back?
By Stephen White on Oct 8 2014,
I have always been a fan of the "big" running backs in the NFL. As a former defensive player, one thing I can attest to is nobody likes to tackle those big guys for four quarters if they're getting up a full head of steam and running north and south. Teams pound that guy at a defense all game, and by the end there might be a few guys who start making what we like to call "business decisions" and stop trying to tackle him. That is taking a team's will right on the field.
Using a big back like that usually only works if you have a certain type of offense. If a team is going to line up with a tight end and fullback and run power O and ISO all day, then a big back is just what the doctor ordered. If a team is trying to have a fast-paced, high-power offense, having a big back might be a detriment. There are a few big cats who can be a factor in the passing game and are nimble enough to run the zone type plays, but those dudes don't grow on trees. Those that can do both have a short shelf life because once they get older, their weight catches up to their speed and they get a little slower. All they're good for is downhill runs through big holes. Otherwise they're a tackle-for-loss waiting to happen.
I'm afraid the Atlanta Falcons are at that point with Steven Jackson.
I don't feel good saying that. I have always been a fan of Jackson's from when he was pretty much the only thing the St. Louis Rams had on offense and he was wrecking shop. I was also a big fan of the move by the Falcons to bring him in to replace Michael Turner, another big back who faded quickly. Atlanta signed Jackson to replace Turner, but the experiment hasn't really worked. Jackson was banged up most of last season and is now looking a full step slower than he used to. Every time I watch that team, I get the impression that he's holding the Falcons back.
The Falcons have a bunch of talent at wide receiver with Julio Jones, Roddy White, Harry Douglas and Devin Hester. They also have three scat type running backs behind Jackson in Jacquizz Rodgers, Antone Smith and rookie Devonta Freeman. Those guys are all short and quick, but they also all have sturdy builds to take big hits and even hand out some big hits of their own.
With Matt Ryan running the show, the Falcons could really put opposing defenses under pressure if they could run a hurry-up shotgun offense. They use hurry-up at times every game, and it almost always works. However, I don't think they have ever done it for a whole game. That's probably because with them continuing to start Jackson at running back it would be hard to do with him in there.
It also seems like they go out of their way to make sure he gets a few carries a game even if it disrupts their flow on offense. I'm not saying he can't still be productive; I am sure he can. He has made some pretty good runs so far this year, and he is averaging slightly less than 4 yards a carry. The question is at what expense?
I would much rather see Rodgers, Smith or Freeman in there full-time. The Falcons can run the ball or pass it without giving away what they are trying to do. Those backs have home run ability, especially Smith who seems to score a long touchdown every week. Defenses have a hard enough time trying to deal with the Falcons' wideouts in the passing game; having to pay attention to the running backs might drive them completely nuts. It would also allow an offensive line that is, let's face it, pretty damn soft to do more position blocks on running plays rather than trying to get push on defensive linemen to make room for Jackson.
They could still use Jackson in short yardage situations to get some value out of him, but I just don't see how they can justify continuing to start him. It's like driving a sports car with the emergency brake on. Once they make this move -- and they'll have to at some point -- the Georgia Dome better stock up on light bulbs for their scoreboard. Until then, the Falcons will continue to kind of muddle along, never being as formidable on offense as they should be.
By Stephen White on Oct 8 2014,
I have always been a fan of the "big" running backs in the NFL. As a former defensive player, one thing I can attest to is nobody likes to tackle those big guys for four quarters if they're getting up a full head of steam and running north and south. Teams pound that guy at a defense all game, and by the end there might be a few guys who start making what we like to call "business decisions" and stop trying to tackle him. That is taking a team's will right on the field.
Using a big back like that usually only works if you have a certain type of offense. If a team is going to line up with a tight end and fullback and run power O and ISO all day, then a big back is just what the doctor ordered. If a team is trying to have a fast-paced, high-power offense, having a big back might be a detriment. There are a few big cats who can be a factor in the passing game and are nimble enough to run the zone type plays, but those dudes don't grow on trees. Those that can do both have a short shelf life because once they get older, their weight catches up to their speed and they get a little slower. All they're good for is downhill runs through big holes. Otherwise they're a tackle-for-loss waiting to happen.
I'm afraid the Atlanta Falcons are at that point with Steven Jackson.
I don't feel good saying that. I have always been a fan of Jackson's from when he was pretty much the only thing the St. Louis Rams had on offense and he was wrecking shop. I was also a big fan of the move by the Falcons to bring him in to replace Michael Turner, another big back who faded quickly. Atlanta signed Jackson to replace Turner, but the experiment hasn't really worked. Jackson was banged up most of last season and is now looking a full step slower than he used to. Every time I watch that team, I get the impression that he's holding the Falcons back.
The Falcons have a bunch of talent at wide receiver with Julio Jones, Roddy White, Harry Douglas and Devin Hester. They also have three scat type running backs behind Jackson in Jacquizz Rodgers, Antone Smith and rookie Devonta Freeman. Those guys are all short and quick, but they also all have sturdy builds to take big hits and even hand out some big hits of their own.
With Matt Ryan running the show, the Falcons could really put opposing defenses under pressure if they could run a hurry-up shotgun offense. They use hurry-up at times every game, and it almost always works. However, I don't think they have ever done it for a whole game. That's probably because with them continuing to start Jackson at running back it would be hard to do with him in there.
It also seems like they go out of their way to make sure he gets a few carries a game even if it disrupts their flow on offense. I'm not saying he can't still be productive; I am sure he can. He has made some pretty good runs so far this year, and he is averaging slightly less than 4 yards a carry. The question is at what expense?
I would much rather see Rodgers, Smith or Freeman in there full-time. The Falcons can run the ball or pass it without giving away what they are trying to do. Those backs have home run ability, especially Smith who seems to score a long touchdown every week. Defenses have a hard enough time trying to deal with the Falcons' wideouts in the passing game; having to pay attention to the running backs might drive them completely nuts. It would also allow an offensive line that is, let's face it, pretty damn soft to do more position blocks on running plays rather than trying to get push on defensive linemen to make room for Jackson.
They could still use Jackson in short yardage situations to get some value out of him, but I just don't see how they can justify continuing to start him. It's like driving a sports car with the emergency brake on. Once they make this move -- and they'll have to at some point -- the Georgia Dome better stock up on light bulbs for their scoreboard. Until then, the Falcons will continue to kind of muddle along, never being as formidable on offense as they should be.
