If you could choose one player from the 99 team

[RamzFanz]

I would actually choose Holt, because then we could have a great WR for the next ten years. Right now we don't even have a good WR.

You don't think TA is a good receiver?

 

[RamzFanz]

Faulk - hands down.

He was a phenom and he was the leader, energy, and spark that ignited TGSOT. Without Faulk, I don't think TGSOT even happens.

 

[Loyal]

Sa many players that I loved, but it's not close as to how a GSOT player could help this team. It HAS to be Marshall Faulk. He was an all around threat, with many experts saying that he could have started on any NFL Team as a WR exclusively. Although I am not as hip to him as a analyst, I do think he was critical to GSOT's success. I love Stacy and the potential of Mason, but man...Faulk is one of the best RB's of all time, which his final numbers don't show how actually valuable he was to the Colts and the Rams.

We would be in the NFC Championship Game THIS year, with Faulk, and Bradford would look like a star.

 

[Angry Ram]

Isaac Bruce.

 

[Irish]

Man, this is tough. On the one hand, Kurt Warner is the greatest QB in Rams history, but on the other, Marshall Faulk is quite possibly the greatest football player in Rams history, and maybe in NFL history (he is at least in the discussion).

I guess Marshall, but Warner would instantly make these receivers better, especially Kenny Brit and Jared Cook. He could get the most out of this group, I am not so sure Sam can.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

You don't think TA is a good receiver?

He's an offensive weapon, dangerous out of the backfield, on reverses, and on punt returns.
As a WR, he hasn't really done much yet.
We don't have a #1 WR type that Holt or Bruce would give us.

 

[Boffo97]

I do have to admit, much as I like Stacy/Mason, an offense with TWO huge mismatch causers in Faulk and Austin would be almost unfair to the competition.

 

[TommerK]

I liked what Holt did as a rookie that year, but without Bruce and Faulk mentoring him, Holt wouldn't have been near as good. Tough decision between Warner and Faulk.

Faulk; His knowledge of the game was a crucial key to our success that year.

Warner; His accuracy, ability to read defenses, and quick decision making was another huge factor.

I think I would have to give the edge to Faulk.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Yeah i'm taking Warner without hesitation...and i'm a bigger fan of Bruce, Faulk and a few other guys before Warner.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Isaq Bruce, we'd be unstoppable.

 

[The Rammer]

Faulk
Any questions ?

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

Lot of great opinions here.

But your opinion is wrong if it's not Faulk.

It's not about position, it's about all the phases of the game he would impact - rushing, receiving, blocking, being an extra coach on the field...the dude just made the whole offense something different than it could be before.

Trading one of the receivers for Bruce is like trading a pawn for a bishop.

Trading Stacy for Faulk is turning your rook to a queen.

 

[Stranger]

no brainer for me... Marshall

 

[Alan]

Warner then Bruce then Pace.

 

[Ozark Ram]

Easy decision for me....Warner !

 

[paceram]

Love Bradford but it will be Warner for me then Faulk

+1

 

[rdlkgliders]

Warner

 

[den-the-coach]

Warner all the way...he would change the way our recievers look instantly!! Hell, he would turn Brian Quick into a beast!!

No contest this^

 

[Greg Stone]

Tempted to go with London Fletcher but I'll take Warner.

 

[NukeRam]

Warner all the way. Watch his story on "America's Game" again. He was better when he retired than he was when we had him. Just awesome. Unstoppable. Against Green Bay's number two defense he had 5 touchdowns and only 4 in-completions! WOW!