Tavon is like a scorer on a bad NBA team. Someone has to score, and on a bad team, there's a lot of slack in non-competitive games. Guys put up numbers on dead teams, then fail to replicate that scoring when the competition heats up. They know how to score by themselves in space but they can't contribute to a well integrated offense.
Tavon is a gadget player. On a horrific offense with nothing else going and a coaching staff oriented to gadgets, he was able to make a few plays here or there. He actually scored some TDs now and then, which was nice on a scoring starved unit.
But Tavon never raised the offense by stressing defenses so they had to respect him, thereby opening space for others. He never pushed secondaries off the LOS or established a consistent threat in the medium passing game that we have so catastrophically lacked. As a RB, he occasionally found some creases to squirrel through, but he cannot carry a substantial load and teams quickly adjusted to his jet reverses and other trickery.
The unhappy fact about Tavon is that he is not that quick or fast. He cannot CREATE space with quickness in the way you expect from a very small player. I have many times seen Tavon fail to escape from NFL LBs or DBs in those moments that great, quick ball carriers do. Marshall could freeze defenders' feet and pull away. Tavon doesn't do this.
Which means he needs SPACE to thrive. IF Tavon played underneath a well-established downfield passing game--any good one, not necessarily the best in the league--then he would be able to make more plays. But that's the point--his playmaking is DEPENDENT on a sound passing or running game. Thinking again of the NBA, he cannot as it were "create his own shot."
This is why Tavon has never worked out as a foundational piece. You can't build offense on him. You have to build sound offense first, and then you can occasionally make use of him. Every year, Ram fans hope that the coaching staff will somehow figure out how to use Tavon. They completely miss the point: you have to BUILD THE OFFENSE FIRST. And THEN maybe you can use him here and there.
Which is why FIsher & Co. never figured out how to use him. They were so busy devising gadgets for Tavon that they didn't recognize their core task: to build a sound offense that could pass downfield, move the chains, score in the RZ, and run the ball effectively. Obviously, scheming for Tavon wasn't the only reason they didn't build a sound offense. But I am convinced that their general ineptitude was made worse by the distraction of trying to scheme for Tavon. Think of the contract they signed him to. Instead of prioritizing capable downfield WRs, they committed themselves to more dithering with gadgets.
Tavon Austin could, I think, play a role on a really good offense. That role would be limited, less than what, say, Amendola does. But it could be significant. But only BECAUSE a generally sound offense opened up space for him.
However, that role probably would be spectacular, as in "a spectacle." When Tavon gets the space to make a play, it generally looks great, and often scores. Which brings us back to the question I'm responding to:
how can you argue against the value of a guy who scored 10 TDs?My answer is that TD's are nice, especially on a team which can't score any other way. But the kind of production Tavon offers is fool's gold. It's erratic and you can't rely on it. He doesn't offer a building block for sound offense, and he tempts a staff to waste time, energy, and cap space on him when what is needed are honest-to-God WRs and OL,
You want to get value from Tavon? Build a good offense that can function without him. Then ask yourself whether he's worth the $, scheme, and touches, when grown up WRs will do more for you more often.
We have to stop thinking like fans of a losing franchise starved for offensive options. We need our staff to be seeking more and better weapons and looking for ways to use them to build an authentic NFL offense.
If they do that, Tavon can slip away and you'll never miss him.
