Best of the best: RB edition

[Retroram52]

This Vita. "I mean his QB as a Ram, for the most part was Kemp/Brock for goodness sakes,"...

 

[shopson67]

You make a good point about the different systems, they both worked effectively in their both respective systems.

Again, Charles White led the NFL in rushing the season ED left. You are talking about a journeyman backup leading the NFL in rushing. It validates the superior play of the offensive line and the system.

Faulk had 40 more TDs, don't blame Faulk for his post season rushing yards. That is on Martz! Let's also not ignore Faulk has more postseason tds, doubling ED's. Not to mention receiving stats he averaged 10 a catch and over 500 receiving yards in the postseason, more then five times as much as ED

ED also had 78 fumbles to Faulk's 36.

Let's not overstate White's numbers; he put up 1300+, but Dickerson put up 1800+ in his last full year. They were FAR apart.

 

[Battlelyon]

Let's not overstate White's numbers; he put up 1300+, but Dickerson put up 1800+ in his last full year. They were FAR apart.

I'll give you that.

 

[Vitamike]

You make a good point about the different systems, they both worked effectively in their both respective systems.

Again, Charles White led the NFL in rushing the season ED left. You are talking about a journeyman backup leading the NFL in rushing. It validates the superior play of the offensive line and the system.

Faulk had 40 more TDs, don't blame Faulk for his post season rushing yards. That is on Martz! Let's also not ignore Faulk has more postseason tds, doubling ED's. Not to mention receiving stats he averaged 10 a catch and over 500 receiving yards in the postseason, more then five times as much as ED

ED also had 78 fumbles to Faulk's 36.

White's rushing title in total yards that year is the lowest rushing total (1387) for a rushing title, in nearly 45 seasons!
(Excludes the 1982 strike season)

Eric had 3 rushing titles with the Rams with totals of 1808, 2105, 1821. Those are huge total yards differences to point out since you cited the system as the benefactor.

Besides that, Dickerson also won a rushing title with the Colts too! How many titles did Marshall win?

Anyway, Charles White was a very, very talented running back who played for then HC John Robinson at USC. White had a huge substance abuse problem but was clean the year he won the rushing title after rejoining forces with his old college coach John Robinson once again.

Now on to the the TD's...

Faulk had just 3 more rushing TD's than Dickerson even though he played 3 more full season with the Rams. That means per season as a Ram, Dickerson had more total TD's than Faulk.

As a matter of fact Eric averaged higher in all purpose TD's per season played as a Ram at 14.25 than M.F. did at 12.14 over their careers as Rams.

As far as post season TD's go, their per game TD's were identical because Faulk played (10 post season games as a Ram) Double than amount of games Dickerson played (5 post season games as a Ram) so of course Marshall doubled the amount of TD's but per post season on average, they both had a half TD per game played as a Ram.

Last onto the fumbles, lets just count the fumbles lost. Besides fumbles lost are the ones that matter, right?

I'm not sure where you found your number but I go mine here...
Eric Dickerson: Career Stats at NFL.com
Marshall Faulk, RB at NFL.com

Eric had one fumble lost in 4 full seasons.

Marshall had 10 fumbles lost in 7 full seasons (Excludes 2006 season)

 

[Vitamike]

This Vita. "I mean his QB as a Ram, for the most part was Kemp/Brock for goodness sakes,"...

This is about as negative a saying +2 is greater than -2.

Facts are fact Retro, I don't know how you get around that.

Again, it's the same as saying Manning/Warner/Bulger is greater than Kemp/Brock/George.

It's not negative, it's merely a fact because two of the three in the former are probable HOF'ers whereas none of the three will ever be in the latter.

Do you disagree?

Now with the 'for goodness sakes' part, it was included because it must be considered when comparing these two and it wasn't.

 

[Battlelyon]

I get my stats from pro football reference, anyway I always maintained and said that ED was a better running back, and thought Faulk was the better football player because of all the reasons I listed. Both guys were elite players at their positions and in the league. You talk as if Faulk wasn't elite, but clearly he was the best player in football from 1999-2001. We were arguably the worst team in football, until Faulk came and turned us around. Kurt Warner himself would claim Faulk was the undisputed leader, the vocal point of the offense. One of my favorite stories is the one about Faulk at the teams first classroom training session as a Ram, he was taking notes listening to the coaches and seeing some of the other players not paying attention and he calls the other players out on it, I came to win, is what he said.

Over 7,000 yards from scrimmage 60+ TDs in those three years, now that is stats and of course an MVP and Lombardi trophy.

Bottom line is we can talk semantics, stats or anything else. I like both guys and both were special players and luckily we had the privilege of watch playing, hell ED was one of the reasons I became a Rams fan. Different coaches, different systems, different players, but both elite.

 

[Battlelyon]

Man, the next round should be even better for arguments sake. The best Rams WR, we've been spoiled by a lot of good ones.

 

[Vitamike]

I get my stats from pro football reference, anyway I always maintained and said that ED was a better running back, and thought Faulk was the better football player because of all the reasons I listed. Both guys were elite players at their positions and in the league. You talk as if Faulk wasn't elite, but clearly he was the best player in football from 1999-2001. We were arguably the worst team in football, until Faulk came and turned us around. Kurt Warner himself would claim Faulk was the undisputed leader, the vocal point of the offense. One of my favorite stories is the one about Faulk at the teams first classroom training session as a Ram, he was taking notes listening to the coaches and seeing some of the other players not paying attention and he calls the other players out on it, I came to win, is what he said.

Over 7,000 yards from scrimmage 60+ TDs in those three years, now that is stats and of course an MVP and Lombardi trophy.

Bottom line is we can talk semantics, stats or anything else. I like both guys and both were special players and luckily we had the privilege of watch playing, hell ED was one of the reasons I became a Rams fan. Different coaches, different systems, different players, but both elite.

We were comparing two all time greats my friend!

I love me some Marshall!

Make no mistake!

 

[Vitamike]

I get my stats from pro football reference, anyway I always maintained and said that ED was a better running back, and thought Faulk was the better football player because of all the reasons I listed. Both guys were elite players at their positions and in the league. You talk as if Faulk wasn't elite, but clearly he was the best player in football from 1999-2001. We were arguably the worst team in football, until Faulk came and turned us around. Kurt Warner himself would claim Faulk was the undisputed leader, the vocal point of the offense. One of my favorite stories is the one about Faulk at the teams first classroom training session as a Ram, he was taking notes listening to the coaches and seeing some of the other players not paying attention and he calls the other players out on it, I came to win, is what he said.

Over 7,000 yards from scrimmage 60+ TDs in those three years, now that is stats and of course an MVP and Lombardi trophy.

Bottom line is we can talk semantics, stats or anything else. I like both guys and both were special players and luckily we had the privilege of watch playing, hell ED was one of the reasons I became a Rams fan. Different coaches, different systems, different players, but both elite.

I get a lot of stats there too however PFR only shows fumbles and not fumbles lost as far as I know.

 

[LongtimeRamsFan42]

White's rushing title in total yards that year is the lowest rushing total (1387) for a rushing title, in nearly 45 seasons!
(Excludes the 1982 strike season)

Eric had 3 rushing titles with the Rams with totals of 1808, 2105, 1821. Those are huge total yards differences to point out since you cited the system as the benefactor.

Besides that, Dickerson also won a rushing title with the Colts too! How many titles did Marshall win?

Anyway, Charles White was a very, very talented running back who played for then HC John Robinson at USC. White had a huge substance abuse problem but was clean the year he won the rushing title after rejoining forces with his old college coach John Robinson once again.

Now on to the the TD's...

Faulk had just 3 more rushing TD's than Dickerson even though he played 3 more full season with the Rams. That means per season as a Ram, Dickerson had more total TD's than Faulk.

As a matter of fact Eric averaged higher in all purpose TD's per season played as a Ram at 14.25 than M.F. did at 12.14 over their careers as Rams.

As far as post season TD's go, their per game TD's were identical because Faulk played (10 post season games as a Ram) Double than amount of games Dickerson played (5 post season games as a Ram) so of course Marshall doubled the amount of TD's but per post season on average, they both had a half TD per game played as a Ram.

Last onto the fumbles, lets just count the fumbles lost. Besides fumbles lost are the ones that matter, right?

I'm not sure where you found your number but I go mine here...
Eric Dickerson: Career Stats at NFL.com
Marshall Faulk, RB at NFL.com

Eric had one fumble lost in 4 full seasons.

Marshall had 10 fumbles lost in 7 full seasons (Excludes 2006 season)

I don't think that's correct Vita(about the fumbles), I remember Dickerson fumbling twice in the '85 Championship game alone, losing at least one of them, possibly both(can't quite remember)

 

[Vitamike]

I don't think that's correct Vita(about the fumbles), I remember Dickerson fumbling twice in the '85 Championship game alone, losing at least one of them, possibly both(can't quite remember)

I put this link

Eric Dickerson: Career Stats at NFL.com as a point of reference to check it out.

Did you click out the link?

Do you have another link that refutes this?

 

[LongtimeRamsFan42]

I put this link as a point of reference to check it out. Did you click on the link? Do you have another link that refutes this?

I have a DVD of the game. I've watched it a few times. I remember him fumbling twice. But since you mention it, here you go. Eric Dickerson NFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com more I think about it, pretty sure we did get one back

If you look under playoff rushing and receiving and the Bears game...2 fumbles. The rest of his stats are on there as well. You really think in those years with the Rams he lost ONE fumble? That would be an NFL record, one he does not own. In fact I think BenJarvis Green-Ellis holds the record at over 500 carries(of all people, go figure lol)

 

[LongtimeRamsFan42]

23:30 Dickerson fumbles, Rams get it back
1:21.15 Dickerson Fumbles, Rams lose the Ball

 

[Vitamike]

I have a DVD of the game. I've watched it a few times. I remember him fumbling twice. But since you mention it, here you go. Eric Dickerson NFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com more I think about it, pretty sure we did get one back

If you look under playoff rushing and receiving and the Bears game...2 fumbles. The rest of his stats are on there as well. You really think in those years with the Rams he lost ONE fumble? That would be an NFL record, one he does not own. In fact I think BenJarvis Green-Ellis holds the record at over 500 carries(of all people, go figure lol)

I think the reference you provide does not show fumbles lost, does it?

NFL.com (The official link) does show one fumble lost.

Prove it otherwise, because speculation at this point holds no weight compared to the official link.

 

[LongtimeRamsFan42]

I think the reference you provide does not show fumbles lost, does it?

NFL.com (The official link) does show one fumble lost.

Prove it otherwise, because speculation at this point holds no weight compared to the official link.

The "official" link shows he fumbled once in 1992, I just proved he fumbled twice in one game in 85, losing one.

Your link is 100% wrong...How do I know? look up any other RB from the 80's on that site, apparently none of them ever fumbled in their careers. The stats only go back to about 1991. Now its up to YOU to provide the proper link if you're going to try to prove your argument here...
Here's Walter Payton:Walter Payton, RB at NFL.com
Here's Roger Craig: Roger Craig, RB at NFL.com
Here's Freeman McNeil: Freeman McNeil, RB at NFL.com
See?

 

[Vitamike]

The "official" link shows he fumbled once in 1992, I just proved he fumbled twice in one game in 85, losing one.

Your link is 100% wrong...How do I know? look up any other RB from the 80's on that site, apparently none of them ever fumbled in their careers. The stats only go back to about 1991. Now its up to YOU to provide the proper link if you're going to try to prove your argument here...

Fumble lost is not the same as fumble. I said he had 'one fumble lost' not 'one fumble', right?

If this ain't right, I'd like to know.

Do you have a link?>

 

[LongtimeRamsFan42]

Fumble lost is not the same as fumble. I said he had 'one fumble lost' not 'one fumble', right?

If this ain't right, I'd like to know.

Do you have a link?>

It's not right, his stats are incomplete on there...Look at the links I added to my last post. Apparently no one ever fumbled in the 80's. I think you'll get the picture after looking at the links. All from the same site...

 

[Retroram52]

This is about as negative a saying +2 is greater than -2.

Facts are fact Retro, I don't know how you get around that.

Again, it's the same as saying Manning/Warner/Bulger is greater than Kemp/Brock/George.

It's not negative, it's merely a fact because two of the three in the former are probable HOF'ers whereas none of the three will ever be in the latter.

Do you disagree?

Now with the 'for goodness sakes' part, it was included because it must be considered when comparing these two and it wasn't.

The tone you create is still a negative one in that sentence as you are making a comparison which can have a negative and positive bent even though the facts you present are indeed facts. I can quote facts along with you but they can all be read as negative if I state something like: "The previous female owner was one of the worst compared to many other owners because under the majority of her ownership, we racked up some of the worst statistics in the league in a number of categories over the period in which she was the majority owner." These are all facts but it is still using negativity to get my point across. Granted your infraction was minor, but since I have been called out for showing favoritism and being too picky and even wrong, I decided to call everyone out when the infraction occurs.

 

[Vitamike]

The tone you create is still a negative one in that sentence as you are making a comparison which can have a negative and positive bent even though the facts you present are indeed facts. I can quote facts along with you but they can all be read as negative if I state something like: "The previous female owner was one of the worst compared to many other owners because under the majority of her ownership, we racked up some of the worst statistics in the league in a number of categories over the period in which she was the majority owner." These are all facts but it is still using negativity to get my point across. Granted your infraction was minor, but since I have been called out for showing favoritism and being too picky and even wrong, I decided to call everyone out when the infraction occurs.

First, if this is your case, then I had no infraction. The tone you are speaking of was set by the OP & not by myself, I created nothing. When the OP asks us to vote for one on a list, we are in fact voting against all the others on the list at the same time and thus the tone was set and created prior to my involvement.

So if this is your case, then your objection is not with me rather the OP.

IMO, fairness has little to do with the voices that cry foul as you've indicated.

Fairness requires objectivity & always has the spirit of the rule in mind. If my post was unfair or negative then the entire thread is unfair and negative. And if that is the case lock the thread down before anyone of us can fall prey to the voices that cry foul.

As a matter of fact, any and every thought we communicate has a some scalable value from neg to pos and every discussion and opposing viewpoint will fall on one side of the scale or the other. This is called a discussion and is what forums like these were created for.

I truly am sorry you are getting grief from some but if you must reach like this at some perceived minor infraction and call someone out publicly in a show of fairness then once again your actual battle is not with minor infractions as you put it but with those crying foul and I'd bet both you and they actually know this.

 

[ozarkram]

Threads with the best ever and greatest of all time lend themselves to negativity and arguments. I believe the OP even stated the next thread would cause even more such arguments. So there is that. And its why I don't go for them because every one has their favorite. Just another opinion.