Rams' Steven Jackson vs. Chiefs' Larry Johnson

**jAZ** · 11-15-2004, 03:27 PM

I'd like to hear a few comments (from those more knowledgable than me) about why Jackson is considered the future of the Rams after Faulk retires and Johnson is considered a bust.

Based on their build alone, both players seem to Eddie George-type RBs (which isn't in the Faulk/Priest/Blaylock mold). Both were late 1st round draft picks. Both were considered the #1 RB in the draft that season.

Johnson has had fewer opportunities than Jackson, but on the surface the two guys seem to have a LOT in common.

Brock · 11-15-2004, 03:28 PM

Without getting too technical, Steven Jackson is the shit, Larry JOhnson just looks like it.

**Bob Dole** · 11-15-2004, 03:29 PM

As long as Rich Scanlon is not a member of the Kansas City Chiefs active roster on game day, Larry Johnson isn't worth the time it takes to type La

See?

Sure-Oz · 11-15-2004, 03:29 PM

we def. lose another LJ needs to get some carreis in.

jcroft · 11-15-2004, 03:30 PM

In general I agree, but Johnson has done a number of things to not endear himself to fans. Also, i think MOST people around here feel that Priest will still be here another year or two, which means that the Chiefs will have wasted Johnson's youthfull years -- unless they deal him, in which case they're not going to get much, making him a bust. Faulk, on the other hand, is definitely on the down side of his great career and Jackson is getting chances to play NOW. Plus, Faulk probably will retire at the end of this year, making Jackson was more useful.

Redcoats58 · 11-15-2004, 03:30 PM

Johnson is a bust because he gets no playing time it's that simple. How could he ever become a NFL runningback if they don't give him any carries. Sometimes you just have to let a player sink or swim but the Chiefs coaching staff are afraid to let him play. They made him a bust.

kc rush · 11-15-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcoats58

Johnson is a bust because he gets no playing time it's that simple. How could he ever become a NFL runningback if they don't give him any carries. Sometimes you just have to let a player sink or swim but the Chiefs coaching staff are afraid to let him play. They made him a bust.

Given their current standing, I would hope that the Chiefs run LJ a lot to see once and for all what they have.

Redcoats58 · 11-15-2004, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kc rush

Given their current standing, I would hope that the Chiefs run LJ a lot to see once and for all what they have.

I agree. I don't really care for LJ but if you have used a first rounder on a player you better atleast play him.

Demonpenz · 11-15-2004, 03:38 PM

Stephen Jackson is a fast agile and a BIG back. Larry Johnson is just big. Jackson makes one move and he is in the secondary, johnson makes one move and he is running right into the back of Willie roaf

KCTitus · 11-15-2004, 03:42 PM

I'd suggest spending more time in the film room Mister...

HolmeZz · 11-15-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

Johnson has had fewer opportunities than Jackson, but on the surface the two guys seem to have a LOT in common.

Other than the fact that they were both first round picks, they have virtually nothing in common. Jackson's a big bruising back with speed and Johnson's a little bitch with the speed of a DLineman running backwards. Johnson was actually drafted after an injured Willis McGahee, eventhough Willis might've never stepped on an NFL field. That shows you how much the Bills thought of LJ.

Really, I've watched both play in college and in the NFL, and they're not comparable at all.

jcroft · 11-15-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolmeZz

Johnson was actually drafted after an injured Willis McGahee, eventhough Willis might've never stepped on an NFL field. That shows you how much the Bills thought of LJ.

As much as I'd like to use this against Johnson, I think it says more about how strongly the Bills felt about McGahee than about how poorly they felt about LJ. They had a very decent starting RB (Henry) and drafted McGahee anyway because they believed he could be an uber-stud in the future. Very different situation than us, who drafted a RB because Priest was hurt and he may need to be able to step and play right away.

HolmeZz · 11-15-2004, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcroft

As much as I'd like to use this against Johnson, I think it says more about how strongly the Bills felt about McGahee than about how poorly they felt about LJ. They had a very decent starting RB (Henry) and drafted McGahee anyway because they believed he could be an uber-stud in the future. Very different situation than us, who drafted a RB because Priest was hurt and he may need to be able to step and play right away.

There was a very good chance that McGahee would've never even played a down though. If LJ was that good, they would've taken him over a guy who had just tore his ACL.

**jAZ** · 11-15-2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolmeZz

There was a very good chance that McGahee would've never even played a down though. If LJ was that good, they would've taken him over a guy who had just tore his ACL.

Buffalo was in a position to get a #1 overall quality RB at the end of the 1st round. The only risk was that they would have to rely on one of the best RBs in the league if things don't work out.

Solid move on their part, IMO.

Ralphy Boy · 11-15-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolmeZz

There was a very good chance that McGahee would've never even played a down though. If LJ was that good, they would've taken him over a guy who had just tore his ACL.

"a good chance that McGahee would've never played a down.."
That isn't even close to the truth. EVERYTHING I saw prior to the draft was that McGahee had made a very suprising & strong recovery, it was just a matter of WHEN, not IF, he'd be ready to play.

Having said that, most everyone was shocked that Buffalo took him because they did have Henry and needed help in other positions and many fans were unhappy about it at the time.

Like someone else said, it wasn't a dig at LJ that they didn't take him, but rather showed just how highly they thought of McGahee. Everyone thought he'd be the #1 or #2 pick in the draft prior to his injury and he was considered an all world talent. Given that they had Henry, they could afford to give McGahee time to heal and now they are damn glad they did.

11-15-2004, 03:27 PM	Topic Starter
jAZ Supporter Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Tucson, AZ Casino cash: $9817493	Rams' Steven Jackson vs. Chiefs' Larry Johnson I'd like to hear a few comments (from those more knowledgable than me) about why Jackson is considered the future of the Rams after Faulk retires and Johnson is considered a bust. Based on their build alone, both players seem to Eddie George-type RBs (which isn't in the Faulk/Priest/Blaylock mold). Both were late 1st round draft picks. Both were considered the #1 RB in the draft that season. Johnson has had fewer opportunities than Jackson, but on the surface the two guys seem to have a LOT in common.
Posts: 24,800

11-15-2004, 03:29 PM	#3
Bob Dole King Shit of **** Mountain Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Texarkana, Texas Casino cash: $-1274563	As long as Rich Scanlon is not a member of the Kansas City Chiefs active roster on game day, Larry Johnson isn't worth the time it takes to type La See?
Posts: 51,585

11-15-2004, 03:30 PM	#5
jcroft Thread-Stopper Extrodinaire Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Casino cash: $10004900	In general I agree, but Johnson has done a number of things to not endear himself to fans. Also, i think MOST people around here feel that Priest will still be here another year or two, which means that the Chiefs will have wasted Johnson's youthfull years -- unless they deal him, in which case they're not going to get much, making him a bust. Faulk, on the other hand, is definitely on the down side of his great career and Jackson is getting chances to play NOW. Plus, Faulk probably will retire at the end of this year, making Jackson was more useful. __________________ Jeff Croft jeffcroft.com
Posts: 2,150

11-15-2004, 03:30 PM	#6
Redcoats58 MVP Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Kansas City Mo. Casino cash: $10005055	Johnson is a bust because he gets no playing time it's that simple. How could he ever become a NFL runningback if they don't give him any carries. Sometimes you just have to let a player sink or swim but the Chiefs coaching staff are afraid to let him play. They made him a bust.
Posts: 5,234

11-15-2004, 03:38 PM	#9
Demonpenz Woman should only make babies Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Apartment "G UNIT!" Casino cash: $-353864	Stephen Jackson is a fast agile and a BIG back. Larry Johnson is just big. Jackson makes one move and he is in the secondary, johnson makes one move and he is running right into the back of Willie roaf __________________
Posts: 54,952

11-15-2004, 03:28 PM	#2
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	Without getting too technical, Steven Jackson is the shit, Larry JOhnson just looks like it.
Posts: 47,314

11-15-2004, 03:42 PM	#10
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9882732	I'd suggest spending more time in the film room Mister... __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,199