nOt in the playoffs/superbowl(s)
Marshall Faulk's Standing Amongst the All Time Great RBs
- Thread starter PHamm
- Start date
nOt in the playoffs/superbowl(s)
FreedS[ohh]lave
Banned
Barrys da gawd but hes overrated when people say hes the goat..dude danced around the backfield too much and lost yardage..his ypc was inflated becasue hed have rushes for 1,-4,-6,0,2, 78
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
SO?
Walter Payton had sucky playoff stats. Marshal averaged 3.6 ypc in the playoffs for his career. Had one 100 yard rushing game.
Keep that playoff crap to basketball
FreedS[ohh]lave;1449868 said:
That and he was awful in the playoffs, Especially outside in the cold. His style of play wasn't conducive to winning in January.
He's the greatest pure runner of all time tho
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
This is bs because his style was a byproduct of playing in that gimmick run and shoot offense. That's no fault of his own.
The year they went away from it and had him in the I formation, he ran for 2,000 yards.
Carlos Huerta
Just keep my rep red
FreedS[ohh]lave;1449868 said:
How can YPC be "inflated"?
How is a RB less effective if he gets killed for losses for half the game but then breaks a few big ones? Rushing for over 1,000 yards for 10 straight seasons is beasting, no matter how he got it done.
By far top 10, I`d put him really close to top 5. He was such a complete back and the reason those Rams teams were so good. fukk it, i`ll put him top 5. I am a huge Faulk fan, and that says a lot because he beat my team countless times.
Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith & Marshall Faulk
Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmit Smith & Marshall Faulk
Oh, so nobody ranked lower in all time rushing yards, can be better at running the ball? Well if thats the case, then you've lost the argument, seeing as how LT is #5 all time in rushing yards
He was always a dual threat back, but yeah he ran a lot more in Indy. But he averaged 3.7 YPC in Indy, 4.7 YPC in STL. Did he become a better runner over night, or did he benefit from going to a team with a pass to open the run mentality, where other teams couldnt key on him anymore because of how many other explosive players there were on the field? LT didnt have that luxury.
You would take prime Faulk over prime LT? No problem with that. Faulk was obviously the better threat catching the ball (although that could also be attributed to going to the Rams where his receiving numbers pretty much doubled), and I dont blame anybody who would take one over the other as the better overall player. My whole argument is who's the better runner.
As a flex player, no. As a pure running back? Bettis has more yards, more 1000 yard seasons, and he did that without having a nice spread offense to stretch the field out. I'd say yes.
No point in arguing with dude. He's obviously one of the following
A. Marshall Faulks illegitimate child
B. A crazed Rams fan
C. A crazed San Diego State alum
D. Somebody who started watching football yesterday and never saw any of these guys actually run the ball
Those 4 people listed above, are the only ones that could actually make an argument that Faulk is a better runner than LT
Carlos Huerta
Just keep my rep red
Nobody who ever saw Marshall Faulk run the ball could ever make a statement like there are a "TON" of backs that run better than him. You obviously don't know shyt about football or hate Marshall Faulk to make an absurd statement like that.
There has been a good discussion in here from people who actually know football. Picking between MF/LT is splitting hairs. You're the only one making dumb statements, bringing up dumb analogies to try and make some point that doesn't exist (Jamaal Charles, Carson Palmer, Larry Johnson
). And now Bettis was a better "runner" than Faulk because he ended with more yards?? Did you ever actually watch these two running backs run the ball?? 
Please shut the fukk up and stop ruining the thread.
Great debate, I just got doe watching some YouTube highlights to be reminded but I can't decide who's better.
But i will say this if LT was put in that rams offense his receiving number probably would have been the same as faulks
But i will say this if LT was put in that rams offense his receiving number probably would have been the same as faulks
MustafaSTL
Achievement In Every Field of Human Endeavor
Marshall is without even a legitimate question a top 10 back. The only discussion is whether he's top 5. And yes, I'd take Marshall over LT. Am I from St. Louis? Yes. Am I a big Rams fan? Yes. Does it matter because Marshall was just that damn good? No.
NYC Rebel
...on the otherside of the pond
There isn't anything Marshal did that LT couldn't do and nothing LT could do that Marshal couldn't other than throwing the ball.
Homeboy Runny-Ray
From Around The Way
exactly.
that and the fact that barry danced around in the backfield alot because his o-line was weak.