The Eric Dickerson trade turns 27

[DaveFan'51]

Two different eras.

Two different runners.

There is no winner in a debate between those two, IMO.

I wasn't trying to start that debate over again, just stating MY personal preference.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I wasn't trying to start that debate over again, just stating MY personal preference.

No worries!

 

[DaveFan'51]

No worries!

Are we now going back in time to 2001!

 

[Stranger]

Two different eras.

Two different runners.

There is no winner in a debate between those two, IMO.

but it is kinda fun to think what ED might have done in the gsot offense.

 

[CGI_Ram]

but it is kinda fun to think what ED might have done in the gsot offense.

He was such a pure runner, he would have been equally successful rushing the ball.

But; Faulk was the better fit for that Offense. He was almost as good a receiver as runner.

 

[Stranger]

He was such a pure runner, he would have been equally successful rushing the ball.

But; Faulk was the better fit for that Offense. He was almost as good a receiver as runner.

I just don't think they would have needed a pass threat out of the backfield with ED as the RB. Can you imagine 2000-plus yds of run-production in that offense? How would anyone defend that?

 

[Thordaddy]

I just don't think they would have needed a pass threat out of the backfield with ED as the RB. Can you imagine 2000-plus yds of run-production in that offense? How would anyone defend that?

Thing is he wouldn't get that many touches and ED's production was not only him it was the fact the team was polished at getting him to the second level, Martz would not have had as much emphasis on that as Ed's coaches did.
The major reason Martz was fired at Det. and Chi. and SF was because he wouldn't run the ball.

 

[Stranger]

Thing is he wouldn't get that many touches and ED's production was not only him it was the fact the team was polished at getting him to the second level, Martz would not have had as much emphasis on that as Ed's coaches did.

The major reason Martz was fired at Det. and Chi. and SF was because he wouldn't run the ball.

even if he gave ED 15-20 touches a game, it would still have been incredible. From a quick look, it appears ED avg'd approx 25 carries per game during his career.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/6418/eric-dickerson

And having a quick look at 1999-2001, the GSOT ran the ball approx 25-27 times per game.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/statistics?season=2001&team=STL&seasonType=

So, I'd going to conclude that while ED might have not had the yardage he had in Anaheim, he still would have had massive production.

And as far as the reasons for firing Martz, I've never bought the public line. But then, you probably already knew that.

 

[Prime Time]

The major reason Martz was fired at Det. and Chi. and SF was because he wouldn't run the ball.

Add to that his notoriously prickly personality and his feuds with higher-ups. Like Jim Harbaugh, Martz was known not only for his coaching ability but that everywhere he went he wore out his welcome over time. Love the man but that's his rep. I would hire him as OC on a one-year contract and then renew it each season until the inevitable happened.

 

[69superbowl]

Thanks for that great Dickerson video PT. The Rams are timelessly wonderful at shooting themselves in the foot.

Also, the "42" sticker on their helmets that year was for CB Kirk Collins. He died of cancer. RIP Kirk Collins.

 

[Stranger]

Add to that his notoriously prickly personality and his feuds with higher-ups. Like Jim Harbaugh, Martz was known not only for his coaching ability but that everywhere he went he wore out his welcome over time. Love the man but that's his rep. I would hire him as OC on a one-year contract and then renew it each season until the inevitable happened.

I don't buy into the rep, otherwise people like MF would have dropped hints that confirms it. The GSOT players have never said anything that I've heard that confirms the rep.