Poll: Dickerson or Faulk?

[rickrawk]

Marshall was a better football player for sure,but watching Eric run in person was something else. I got the chills every time he touched the football.
Different styles, different eras, impossible to compare. My vote is Either!!

GO RAMS!!!!

 

[RamsAndEwe]

Eric Dickerson is the most underrated running back of all time. Even amongst Rams fans Eric Dickerson is underrated. It's a shame! Wilt Chamberlain is underrated too!

 

[jrry32]

Dickerson. Faulk was great but, people identify him with the GSOT, and he was a huge part of that.
Dickerson would have taken the GSOT to a new level. 9 in the box was a minor inconvenience to him and with Warner, Bruce, Holt and Martz's passing attack etc. no way they could have stacked the box against him. So what you going to try to stop? Stack the box and Warner throws a TD in under 4 plays or cover the WR and Dickerson scores in 5 plays.
This is a generational question.....Who's old enough to have seen Dickerson and Faulk in person? That defines the answer.

Marshall was a major part of what made the GSOT the GSOT. Dickerson was much more 1-Dimensional. And lets be frank, it's not like we had any issues running the ball with Marshall. He led the NFL in yards per carry in 1999, 2000, and 2001. We just didn't make running the ball a priority. And in an offense like that, Faulk is a MUCH bigger threat than Dickerson.

To answer this question, it's Faulk for me. He's a better fit for today's NFL.

 

[Dick84]

They are too close in the total impact they make on a game to pick on that basis alone.
There are too many factors that would play a role in which you choose.

Both are... Amazing.

 

[The Rammer]

Will the next Trung Candidate please stand up?!

 

[WillasDad]

With all due respect, you guys aren't giving enough credit to Eric Dickerson. I'm not saying Eric Dickerson is better than Marshall Faulk, but the most Faulk ever rushed for in any year of his career was 1382 yards. In 3 of 4 full seasons with the Rams, Dickerson rushed for over 2100 yards one season and over 1800 yards in 2 others. Not even in the same zip code. Faulk benefited by playing in a diverse explosive offense with 2 future hall of fame receivers and a future hall of fame qb where defenses couldn't just focus on him. On the other hand, Eric Dickerson WAS the offense. The man gained over 2,000 yards playing against a league expecting the run on every single play.

I know I'll get s*** on for this, but I think receiving yards is one of the most overrated statistics in football. I've no particular stats to back me up on this, but it just seems logical that rushing the ball and having the entire defense zero in on stopping you is harder than gaining yards through the occassional screen pass, where the rb is matched up against either a db who is usually overpowered or a linebacker who is generally too slow. I'm sure you guys will tell me if I'm wrong, but from my recollection, a running back's ability to catch the ball didn't really become a factor in the NFL until the introduction of Bill Walsh's west coast offense. All of a sudden, mediocre talents like Roger Craig was being mentioned in the same breath with Eric Dickerson. I'm like eff that.

Seriously though, I know some of you guys are fans from St. Louis, which means you really didn't become a fan of the team until the team got there, but Eric Dickerson imo was a once in a generation type player.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

I have to say ED. Marshall was a great all around back but if you want to talk RBs? There was no one and still hasn't been anyone like Dickerson. He could run by you, around you, or through you. I believe Marshall had a better head for the game but if you were to team Dickerson with Holt, Bruce, and Warner? There ain't no one stopping that combo. And in those Superbowls, Eric would have run through people all game long and left burger meat in his wake.

Hypothetically yes.
But in actuality no.
Dickerson wanted out and was traded to the Colts. That broke my heart no matter how great he was and no matter how messed up John Shaw and Georgia Frontandreari were. And I love Eric Dickerson

But Marshall Faulk came to the Rams from the Colts and help bring us a Super Bowl Championship - as a Rams fan it's pretty much case closed in my opinion

 

[grease]

You take all around greatness every time and that is Faulk.

 

[grease]

With all due respect, you guys aren't giving enough credit to Eric Dickerson. I'm not saying Eric Dickerson is better than Marshall Faulk, but the most Faulk ever rushed for in any year of his career was 1382 yards. In 3 of 4 full seasons with the Rams, Dickerson rushed for over 2100 yards one season and over 1800 yards in 2 others. Not even in the same zip code. Faulk benefited by playing in a diverse explosive offense with 2 future hall of fame receivers and a future hall of fame qb where defenses couldn't just focus on him. On the other hand, Eric Dickerson WAS the offense. The man gained over 2,000 yards playing against a league expecting the run on every single play.

I know I'll get s*** on for this, but I think receiving yards is one of the most overrated statistics in football. I've no particular stats to back me up on this, but it just seems logical that rushing the ball and having the entire defense zero in on stopping you is harder than gaining yards through the occassional screen pass, where the rb is matched up against either a db who is usually overpowered or a linebacker who is generally too slow. I'm sure you guys will tell me if I'm wrong, but from my recollection, a running back's ability to catch the ball didn't really become a factor in the NFL until the introduction of Bill Walsh's west coast offense. All of a sudden, mediocre talents like Roger Craig was being mentioned in the same breath with Eric Dickerson. I'm like eff that.

Seriously though, I know some of you guys are fans from St. Louis, which means you really didn't become a fan of the team until the team got there, but Eric Dickerson imo was a once in a generation type player.

ED was one dimensional and the Rams were losers. Faulk turned around a 4-12 loser into a powerhouse with or without Warner at QB.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

ED was one dimensional and the Rams were losers. Faulk turned around a 4-12 loser into a powerhouse with or without Warner at QB.

Rams were not losers with Dickerson - clearly you don't remember watching the team play in the 80's

Dickerson drafted - 9-7 - 83

10-6 – 84

11-5 – 85

10-6 – 86

Dickerson traded - 6-9 – 87

 

[RamFan503]

Rams were not losers with Dickerson - clearly you don't remember watching the team play in the 80's

Dickerson drafted - 9-7 - 83

10-6 – 84

11-5 – 85

10-6 – 86

Dickerson traded - 6-9 – 87

Beat me to it Dieter.

But Yeah - I get your other point. It's part of why I view Marshall as having a better football mind. It was all about football for him. ED? Not so much.

I will always remember his holdout and hold that against him as a team player. But when it came to RBs, I can't think of any that were better. And if someone considers the act of running the ball as one dimensional, I don't know what to tell them. One dimensional would be a guy who is a power back or a speed back or one who can stretch the corners. ED could do it all and make the defender pay at the end - ALWAYS. And most people forget that Dickerson caught something like 50 passes in his rookie year in a JOHN ROBINSON offense. Quite shocking really. But of course Robinson returned to being Robinson and stopped that "nonsense".

 

[leoram]

Best Player: Marshall Faulk
Best Runner: Eric Dickerson
Most Powerful: Jerome Bettis
Most Heart: Steven Jackson
Most Overhyped: John Cappelletti
Most Underrated: Cullen Bryant
Flashdancer: Wendell Tyler
Best of yore: Dan Towler
The Future: Zac Stacy
Best impact after retirement: Lawrence McCutcheon
What if.....Amp Lee

 

[NJRamsFan]

I dont understand the "ED is a better RB bc hes a better runner" theory. Part of playing the RB position is rushing attempts but catching the ball out of the backfield and blocking are the two other parts to playing the position. Marshall had an extremely significant advantage in 2 of the 3 categories and isn't too far behind from a pure rushing standpoint. Marshall is the better player.

 

[RamFan503]

I dont understand the "ED is a better RB bc hes a better runner" theory. Part of playing the RB position is rushing attempts but catching the ball out of the backfield and blocking are the two other parts to playing the position. Marshall had an extremely significant advantage in 2 of the 3 categories and isn't too far behind from a pure rushing standpoint. Marshall is the better player.

I looked it up. As a rookie ED caught 51 passes. So it is not like the guy couldn't catch the ball out of the backfield. John Robinson was known as the coach from Running Back U. That was a huge anomaly for any of his teams and he went back to his true form after that. Also - in the NFL back then, RBs ran and WRs caught.

Henry Ellard went to the Probowl with 622 yards the year that ED set the rushing record. ED had more total yards than the entire team did receiving. While Dickerson was with the Rams, they simply didn't pass the ball much to anyone. They averaged something like half the yards passing back then as compared to the GSOT days. You can't really take that offensive philosophy and put it on ED not being able to catch the football. The guy ran the ball more than half the total offensive snaps. Think they are going to add in some passes or bring him in to pass block? IIRR - he was a pretty willing blocker but teams really couldn't blitz those Rams much with ED in the backfield. Dickerson thought nothing of going through a LB or safety to get to the second level.

So my thought is that you can't ignore what was being asked of a player when evaluating him. I love Marshall but ED was unbelievable.

 

[NJRamsFan]

I looked it up. As a rookie ED caught 51 passes. So it is not like the guy couldn't catch the ball out of the backfield. John Robinson was known as the coach from Running Back U. That was a huge anomaly for any of his teams and he went back to his true form after that. Also - in the NFL back then, RBs ran and WRs caught.

Henry Ellard went to the Probowl with 622 yards the year that ED set the rushing record. ED had more total yards than the entire team did receiving. While Dickerson was with the Rams, they simply didn't pass the ball much to anyone. They averaged something like half the yards passing back then as compared to the GSOT days. You can't really take that offensive philosophy and put it on ED not being able to catch the football. The guy ran the ball more than half the total offensive snaps. Think they are going to add in some passes or bring him in to pass block? IIRR - he was a pretty willing blocker but teams really couldn't blitz those Rams much with ED in the backfield. Dickerson thought nothing of going through a LB or safety to get to the second level.

So my thought is that you can't ignore what was being asked of a player when evaluating him. I love Marshall but ED was unbelievable.

I get what youre saying, the game certainly changed and as one would expect, the numbers reflect that. However, I think marshall is hands down the best pass catching RB to ever play the game so he would still maintain that significant advantage over ED regardless of philosophy or time period. IMO of course. I also think Marshall is one of the best blocking RBs to play the game. So i get what youre saying that multiple factors went into the numbers being what they are. And perhaps the numbers wouldnt be as skewed as they are had the two played in similar systems/time periods.

I just think marshalls advantages in those two areas are far more significant than ED's advantage as a pure runner

 

[Memento]

Steven Jackson for me. I know that you guys will call me crazy for this, but can you imagine what Jackson's numbers would've been like in the GSoT? Or if he ran behind Jackie Slater like Dickerson did? Jackson could do it all, and he was our offense for all of the bad times.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to Dickerson or Faulk, who are both two amazing running backs who very much deserve their Hall of Fame plaques. But Jackson is the all-time team leader in rushing yards for a reason, and I don't think he gets nearly as much credit as he should because he played for us in one of the worst stretches of football in history.

 

[RamFan503]

Steven Jackson for me. I know that you guys will call me crazy for this, but can you imagine what Jackson's numbers would've been like in the GSoT? Or if he ran behind Jackie Slater like Dickerson did? Jackson could do it all, and he was our offense for all of the bad times.

I mean absolutely no disrespect to Dickerson or Faulk, who are both two amazing running backs who very much deserve their Hall of Fame plaques. But Jackson is the all-time team leader in rushing yards for a reason, and I don't think he gets nearly as much credit as he should because he played for us in one of the worst stretches of football in history.

While I totally disagree with you that SJ was in the same level as MF and ED, I do loves me some Steven Jackson. I followed him in college and was stoked when we drafted him. I just don't see him touching those two.

 

[Memento]

While I totally disagree with you that SJ was in the same level as MF and ED, I do loves me some Steven Jackson. I followed him in college and was stoked when we drafted him. I just don't see him touching those two.

I respect that you disagree. But I'll reiterate that these kind of subjects are like saying, "Who is the best pure hitter in baseball during this generation: Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera?" There really is no right or wrong answer to that question.

 

[grease]

Rams were not losers with Dickerson - clearly you don't remember watching the team play in the 80's

Dickerson drafted - 9-7 - 83

10-6 – 84

11-5 – 85

10-6 – 86

Dickerson traded - 6-9 – 87

Super Bowl?

 

[grease]

Beat me to it Dieter.

But Yeah - I get your other point. It's part of why I view Marshall as having a better football mind. It was all about football for him. ED? Not so much.

I will always remember his holdout and hold that against him as a team player. But when it came to RBs, I can't think of any that were better. And if someone considers the act of running the ball as one dimensional, I don't know what to tell them. One dimensional would be a guy who is a power back or a speed back or one who can stretch the corners. ED could do it all and make the defender pay at the end - ALWAYS. And most people forget that Dickerson caught something like 50 passes in his rookie year in a JOHN ROBINSON offense. Quite shocking really. But of course Robinson returned to being Robinson and stopped that "nonsense".

Without a doubt one dimensional. Run catch and block. ED ran great. Only that. Woulda coulda doesn't cut it. MF did it all and MF helped win it all.