Back at it today after being knocked down by a 24-hour illness; if I am even less coherent than normal, please have patience ...

Reading Time 5 Minutes:

We had a little debate on Steven Jackson over at Bernie's Press Box on STLtoday.com the other day. Overall the creator of the thread made a good and valid observation: teams that give big contracts to running backs usually end up regretting it. The investment doesn't pay off as often as we'd assume. And that's true. I had one objection: the poster placed Jackson's name on the list, including SJ39 among the mistakes.

Sorry, but I just can't sign off on that. The Rams' chronic futility isn't Jackson's fault. The Rams haven't won much with Jackson as the lead back, but I'm not sure why that should be held against him. He's doing all that he can, pushing forward and grinding away against those eight-man fronts, with defenses ganging up to stop him.

Jackson has been productive year after year, dedicating his career to a lost cause. The Rams haven't put a good team around Jackson and that's hardly his fault. He's been a strong leader. He's maintained a positive attitude. He hasn't demanded a trade. He hasn't cursed his fate. He's a team player all the way.

And Jackson has rushed for at least 1,000 yards for seven consecutive seasons -- a rarity in NFL history. So why blame him? This is probably even dumber than the people who are turning on Sam Bradford. This is akin to blaming the victim.

Some facts on Jackson:

* Since the start of the 2005 season, he leads the NFL in total rushing yards and is first in total yards from scrimmage. His average of 83.4 yards rushing per game ranks third since 2005.

 * Since signing a big contract extension in the summer of 2008, Jackson ranks fifth in the NFL in total rushing yards, fourth in total yards from scrimmage, and is fifth with an average of 83.6 yards rushing per game. I don't see a guy who has been content to sit on his paycheck.

* Jackson is criticized for his relatively low TD total. Jackson ranks 8th among all RBs with 48 rushing touchdowns since 2005. But he's tied for 21st since 2008 with only 22 rushing TDs.

* A closer look at that TD total is warranted. Jackson isn't a breakaway back. He isn't going to take it to the house from 50 yards out. Not many backs do that. An overwhelming percentage of TDs are scored from inside 10 yards. And as anyone capable of paying attention would know, the Rams have taken a very strange and ineffective approach to red-zone offense in recent seasons. They pass the ball too often. They continue to throw it despite having a severe shortage of playmakers among their receivers. The recent goal-line nonsense at Seattle -- when an ignored Jackson had to basically demand to get a carry near the goal line -- should have provided the necessary education.

* Since the start of the 2008 season Jackson ranks down on the list, 16th, on the number of rushing attempts inside the 10-yard line with only 58. Over the last two seasons he's been given only 28 carries inside the 10, which ranks 22nd among RBs. One of Jackson's critics pointed out that Maurice Jones-Drew plays on a bad team (Jacksonville) but manages to score TDs. True. It probably helps to get the football, too. Over the past two seasons Drew has produced 10 rushing TDs from inside the 10-yard line. But he's done it on 46 carries. Jackson has 7 rushing TDs on 28 carries. Somehow I think Jackson would have managed at least 10 TDs if he'd been given as many close-range carries as Drew over the past two years.

* Ripping Jackson for a low TD total and ignoring his limited opportunities to score would be like criticizing a hitter for having a low RBI total and ignoring his low number of at at-bats with runners in scoring position. You can't score unless you're given chances to score. And the bizarro-world Rams haven't fully utilized Jackson. That's on them.

* Another silly criticism of Jackson is this: well, his 1,000-yard seasons don't mean much because the NFL plays 16 games. Gaining a 1,000 yards doesn't mean what it used to. Oh, really? Is that right? To repeat a stat mentioned earlier: Jackson has averaged 83.4 yards rushing per game over the last seven seasons. In a 12-game NFL schedule, that adds up to a 1,001-yard season. In the old 14-game NFL schedule Jackson's average per game would translate into 1,106 yards per season. So what's the problem? Why would a reasonable person downgrade Jackson's string of 1,000-yard seasons?

* Another off-base criticism concerns Jackson's durability. Has he missed games? Sure, he's missed six of 63 games going back to the start of the 2008 season. But here's a little bulletin: workhorse running backs tend to get beat up, and they miss games. Among the feature RBs who have at least 1,000 carries since the start of the 2008 season, Jackson ranks 7th in games played, and 4th in rushing attempts. Given that the man is gang-tackled on just about every play, he's held up well.

I'm not saying Steven Jackson is Jim Brown or Walter Payton. But he's been a terrific RB stuck on a bad team, toiling in vain for an organization that simply lacks the collective intelligence to build a winning team. As I said earlier, if you want to blame Jackson for the Rams' record and chalk him up as a bad investment, go ahead. And that would be a perfect example of blaming the victim. If Jackson had spent his career with the Pittsburgh Steelers we'd be talking about a lock for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Thanks for reading ...

-Bernie