The St. Louis Rams got good news today. RB Steven Jackson, who left the game late in the first half with a groin injury, had an MRI today, the results of which should be pleasing to all but the Rams future opponents: It's only a strain.
No word yet on his status for this week. Spagnuolo has a presser coming up at 2 p.m.
With that, I want to raise a point of conversation slash discussion. Without the Jackson, the Rams really stepped up, the line played better, Bradford shouldered much of the offensive burden and the play calling looked much better than it had been.
A few questions popped into my brain during the second half. The rational side is taking over again, so I though I'd share these questions to generate some discussion.
Questions about Jackson and the offense around him after the jump.
- Were the Rams not creative enough with Jackson? It seems (emphasis on seems) that they just hand Jackson the ball and expect him to break through 8-defenders on his own. We talked about this issue on TSR last week also, the needs for more carries on the edges, etc. With backs other than SJ in there, the coaches have to get a little more creative since few players have Jackson's ability.
- Did the offense, especially the other backs and the OL, just dial it up a notch?
- Did the play calling as a whole get better as a reaction to losing their best player? Second half calls included much more of what fans and pundits wanted to see, 4 WR sets, etc. Did Jackson's absence for their hand on that? Or was there more of that happening this week in general, in the first and second half? It didn't look like the Rams offense was spreading out the opposing defense with 3 and 4 WR sets in the first half, using those to break out a run.
- I like the two-headed approach of Keith Toston, the between the tackles guy, and Kenneth Darby, as more of an outside/pass threat guy, but how long can the Rams carry on without Jackson?