Dickerson versus Faulk

[PA Ram]

Yeah, Les--it's me.

How's it going?

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

You seem to be more than a little too emotional on this issue.
How many times have you seen Marshall gun it at full speed? I have seen Eric running at top speed much, much more than Faulk.

Eric was the fastest of the top backs of his era---faster than a young Barry Sanders---and he certainly was faster than Marshall. Marshall flashed that 4.4 speed more often in his early RB days with the Colts. I recall he ran for over 180 yards in the Pro Bowl his rookie season. However, Marshall had his knee scoped several times while with the Rams. Besides, his running style where he used his blockers intelligently saw him marshaling his speed until he was in open field. Still, I saw Marshall move to Warp One for short spurts several times even while with the Horns.[

------------------------

Can we assume Marshall was at full gun when he got ran down from behind after starting out with a 6-7 yard headstart in SB34?

 

[LACHAMP46]

ED for running back....Carried a weaker team to the playoffs many times....Marshall played with Kurt, Ike, Torrey...Don't count the lines....You can hardly name a skilled position player ED suited up with(Ellard/Flipper?), much less consider them HOF worthy...ED, don't wanna say landslide, but a huge margin...Different backs in different eras

 

[Boffo97]

One thing that gets me with this comparison... these two are just SO different that if you somehow had both on your team, both would get used. Show me an OC who would keep either on the bench and I'll show you a moron.

It half reminds me of the Madden games after Jackson was drafted. I'd move Faulk to FB just to keep him on the field. He was a matchup nightmare coming out of the backfield for passes. He also made a very decent WR.

 

[Mojo Ram]

This debate has a lot to do with age group.
For example, i started watching the NBA in the early 80's...so i will go to my grave claiming that Michael Jordan is the GOAT regardless of the great players who came before him. Highlights and numbers won't sway me.

I watched both ED & Faulk dominate so those of us who did can be more subjective. Those too young to watch ED run will by default prop up Faulk. It's how we're wired as sports fans

 

[LesBaker]

Yeah, Les--it's me.

How's it going?

I'm doing well thanks.......nice to see you here.

 

[Mike]

To me it's like choosing between Salma Hayek and Sofia Vergara

Salma.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Dickerson had way, way, WAY more speed than Faulk could ever dream of having, had the vision of where to run, anyone here think #29 woulda been ran down in SB 34 like Marshall was? I think not.

I like Faulk but IMO to compare these 2 is ridiculous, no way #28 is even in a conversation of top 10 NFL backs ever if you remove bias from the conversation.

Not true. Faulk was a 4.28, Dickerson, maybe a just under a 4.4 Both very very fast but to say "WAY" more speed. Faulk was a quicker starter, Dickerson had longer strides and once he got going was truly fast . . . but speed is not what separates them as backs. It's completeness. Faulk is most complete back outside Payton. Running, catching, blocking, pass protection.

 

[Blue and Gold]

The fastest ED was ever clocked was a 4.3 - 40.

MF ran the 40 in 4.35.

It's a myth that Dickerson was much faster than MF.

Other than that I don't know what to say to a Rams fan who doesn't even put MF in the top 10.

I guess we all see what we want to see. Personally I felt like I was watching one of the very best players of all time when I watched either.

Faulk's best was 4.28. He could run a 4.35 in his sleep.

http://talkgridiron.com/ramstalk/2013/06/st-louis-rams-player-profile-marshall-faulk/

4.28 at combine. 4.35 at SDSU pro day

 

[ShaneFalco]

I would take Faulk hands down. not even close.

 

[thirteen28]

Athlete: Dickerson
Football Player: Faulk

 

[Blue and Gold]

Athlete: Dickerson
Football Player: Faulk

Well it's true that Faulk was not a workout warrior, didn't have sculpted body . . . But both were just unnaturally gifted

 

[thirteen28]

Well it's true that Faulk was not a workout warrior, didn't have sculpted body . . . But both were just unnaturally gifted

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing Faulk at all here. I'm just saying that in terms of athleticism, Dickerson was superior overall. Bigger, stronger, pretty close in terms of speed.

But if I had to choose one, I definitely take Faulk, given that he was the better football player. The Faulk that came to the Rams was a leader and a coach on the field, and that aspect of his game amplified his already huge contribution.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing Faulk at all here. I'm just saying that in terms of athleticism, Dickerson was superior overall. Bigger, stronger, pretty close in terms of speed.

But if I had to choose one, I definitely take Faulk, given that he was the better football player. The Faulk that came to the Rams was a leader and a coach on the field, and that aspect of his game amplified his already huge contribution.

I understand . . . no disagreement on that.

 

[Ram Quixote]

As far as comparisons go, most of this is off-kilter.

The biggest truth is in the era that each player played. Today, RBs are asked to do so much more than RBs in the '80s; pass catching, pass pro and hitting the hole. That is, RBs like ED weren't asked to do more than be the playmaker.