Then you should list the players that are. SJ, Holt, and Bruce don't make it for me.
Neither of those things is true for me. I don't want to start a thing here, but you're being condescending when you say that. Because I believe Kurt has a real good case to be up there, doesn't mean I'm ignorant of LA Ram history.
Take it into account, but don't make it the determining factor.
**********************************************************
It occurs to me I haven't put my Ram Rushmore up yet. I believe the players who best represented what the Rams were about at the most significant points in their history should be up there.
1949-1955(4 NFL championship games) - Norm Van Brocklin
1966-1970 (George Allen era)- Deacon Jones
1973-1979 (seven consecutive division championships)- Jack Youngblood
1999-2003 (Greatest Show On Turf) - Kurt Warner
Was not my intention to be condescending.
But anyone that would put Warner over Bruce, could not be taken seriously.
When doing these rushmores, it's simple for me: the 4 best players that ever played for the team. Kurt isn't even close in this conversation. Mashall made the GSOT tick, not Kurt. This has been talked about several times by players and coaches over the years. Marshall was the best player on those teams.
But all that is just opinion obviously. My criteria that would eliminate Kurt even if he was one of the 4 best are that he only had 3 good seasons, and he played for another team longer than he did the Rams. This same criteria eliminates Dickerson for me, and he was a MUCH better player than Kurt Warner for the Rams.
Deacon Jones is the best DE of all time.
Merlin Olsen is a top 5, maybe top 3 DT all time.
Marshall Faulk is a top 5 RB of all time, could be argued that he's the best all around back to ever play the game.
Bruce is a top 5 WR all time.
Kurt might not even be a top 20 QB all time. I'm not hating on Kurt - he was a great player - but putting him on a Rams rushmore is a disservice to the other Ram greats.