Dickerson versus Faulk

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Blue and Gold

Blue and Gold

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
1,741
Name
B and G
When you look at it Dickerson was a slightlt better runner, but Faulk was also great runner and did everything. S-Jax is kind of a mix of the two, size and speed, but was with such a poor team so long, we may never know what he was able to do. Dickerson could not block very well (when we did pass) and was not a good receiver after Nolan Cromwell laid him out in camp in 1984. It's not that he couldn't catch, it's just that he wasn't a willing reciever . . . but from 1983-87 we were so run heavy, that it was just better to give him the ball.
 
I made a poll on this topic some months back... it ended up more than a little vitriolic.

Fan is short for fanatic after all...
 
Oh, didn't know it was a big deal . . .yeah, I guess people have their favs
 
Blue and Gold said:
Oh, didn't know it was a big deal . . .yeah, I guess people have their favs
Click to expand...
I didn't guess it would be either.

Of course part of the issue is that Dickerson is a traditional RB and Faulk isn't traditional at all and is almost a hybrid WR.
 
so much changes in the NFL between different era's of football. schemes, players, RULES etc. gets a little apples and oranges sometimes.
 
Blue and Gold said:
When you look at it Dickerson was a slightlt better runner, but Faulk was also great runner and did everything. S-Jax is kind of a mix of the two, size and speed, but was with such a poor team so long, we may never know what he was able to do. Dickerson could not block very well (when we did pass) and was not a good receiver after Nolan Cromwell laid him out in camp in 1984. It's not that he couldn't catch, it's just that he wasn't a willing reciever . . . but from 1983-87 we were so run heavy, that it was just better to give him the ball.
Click to expand...
Dickerson was an exponentially better runner. Receiving wise. Robinson didn't ask much from his RB's. Or even his wideouts in that regard. So really what you are wondering is how would Faulk have fared in the Robinson offense.
 
Dickerson was a better runner, Faulk is more elusive and probably most important he was smarter, understood the game better and could read the defenses as good as any QB out there, he just understood the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveFan'51
But to be fair Dickerson did run behind the greatest run blocking OL possibly of all time. He wasn't asked to do much more than student body right and student body left. He was focused on being just a runner, Faulk was depended on to do much more than that. What did a Martz playbook have 200 plays?

Dickerson was the greatest pure runner IMO. Faulk is the greatest offensive football player. Even though it gets said that Jerry Rice is the greatest player which is just bullshit.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
Reactions: rhinobean, Selassie I and ozarkram
Both were fantastic, HOF RB's. However, the Rams were one-dimensional with Dickerson; with Faulk, we were anything but predictable. Between 1999-2001, Marshall averaged nearly 100 yards rushing & another 60 receiving. He averaged over 5 yards per carry for those 3 years, also. E.D. only had one season with an average carry over 5 yards (1984). Over their careers, Dickerson averaged 4.4 to Faulk's 4.3.

Maybe E.D. was a little better runner, but I'd take the better football player: Faulk. This is not a knock on E.D. Love that guy! But I can't think of any back I'd take over the Great Marshall Faulk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveFan'51 and Blue and Gold
2 things to remember about the Rams during Dickerson's 4-1/2 seasons prior to the trade. They didn't have a QB, unless old Ferragamo, Kemp, Dieter Brock and Steve Dils works for you. Then they traded for Everett, who was a rookie in '86, and injured in '87. Faulk had Warner. If you thought Faulk was all-world with the GSOT, I rather doubt he'd have the same success with Dickerson's Rams.

Secondly, Dickerson was the Rams' offense. (On a side note, he should have been the highest paid RB in the NFL, but Georgia and Shaw were one of the cheapest owners in the NFL.) Faulk was one of many weapons.

Btw, that superior Oline got stuffed more times than you'd think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yamahopper
Ram Quixote said:
Secondly, Dickerson was the Rams' offense. (On a side note, he should have been the highest paid RB in the NFL, but Georgia and Shaw were one of the cheapest owners in the NFL.) Faulk was one of many weapons.
Click to expand...
Georgia had Nothing to do with running the team then, It was Carroll Rosenbloom that ran the team. And I'm not sure if shaw was with the team at that point in time.
 
Marshall is the epitome of an all around back. Was ED better as a pure runner? Maybe. But even that is debatable. Speed is the only aspect of ED's game where he may have a clear advantage. Marshall had just as much power as well as having better vision and agility. Lets not forget ball security too, ED fumbled 78 times in his 12 year career; in comparison Marshall only put the ball on the ground 36 times. Marshall also offered much more as a receiver and pass blocker. Marshall was an all around talent who could have been a Pro Bowl caliber receiver if he wanted to. ED was more of the pure runner.

I'll take Marshall any day of the week. Hell (I know I'm biased as a kid growing up in the 2000s) I'd take Steven over ED just slightly. This isn't a knock on ED, its more of a testament to how truly complete Marshall & Steven were as FEATURE backs. Lets also not forget that the two of them were great leaders on the Rams and had an incredible knowledge of the game (I wasn't alive when ED was playing so I can't speak for him).
 
I have seen them both play, Dickerson is a Great RB, But Faulk is the better all-around Player and has 'Football-Smarts' If I had to pick one for my Team, It would be Faulk. Without him the GSOT would not have been any-were near as good!! IMHO
 
For the era of football they each played in they were IMO the best , which would have adapted to the others era ? I think neither wooud have been as good as the other.
IOW Marshal in a ground and pound offense would have been great but not durable enough to do what Dickerson did
ED in a Martz type offense wouldn't have been the rec. Marshal was nor the coach on the field or even as good a blocker.
So just because they are considered to play the same position they really didn't.
Kinda like comparing an F250's ability to pull your boat to you Lexus ability to impress the babes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LesBaker
Whilst I respect what Dickerson did, Faulk was one if my fav players growing up.

11years old running round with a Faulk jersey on in England in the year 2000 when your average joe had no clue about the NFL will get you some funny looks.

Faulk for me, plus he was a huge part of the GSOT
 
Ram Quixote said:
2 things to remember about the Rams during Dickerson's 4-1/2 seasons prior to the trade. They didn't have a QB, unless old Ferragamo, Kemp, Dieter Brock and Steve Dils works for you. Then they traded for Everett, who was a rookie in '86, and injured in '87. Faulk had Warner. If you thought Faulk was all-world with the GSOT, I rather doubt he'd have the same success with Dickerson's Rams.

Secondly, Dickerson was the Rams' offense. (On a side note, he should have been the highest paid RB in the NFL, but Georgia and Shaw were one of the cheapest owners in the NFL.) Faulk was one of many weapons.

Btw, that superior Oline got stuffed more times than you'd think.
Click to expand...


LIKE
 
This was one of my All Time Fav games. Lots of history and characters are shown in this short vid,,, and of course there is DICKERSON....

 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back