Marshall Faulk's career appears over Marshall Faulk, RB STL News: The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports the Rams are expected to place Marshall Faulk (knees) on the injured reserve, which means the end of Faulk's pro football career. Once the best back in fantasy football, Faulk's knees have been a real problem in recent seasons. Analysis: The Post-Dispatch also reports that the Rams will acquire Michael Bennett from New Orleans at some point before camp to serve as the No. 2 back behind Steven Jackson. Faulk now warrants no consideration in drafts.
What a great player he was. I have to think he would have had a longer career if he didn't play so many games on the turf in Indy and St. Louis...
It's not even debatable. He'll be inducted in his first year of eligibility. Not only was he a great runner, but he was an exceptional pass receiver and was a good blocker. One of the smartest running backs, too. He was like a coach on the field. High football IQ. As for playing on turf- the guy played from 1994-2005. That's not a short career for a running back. He was the best college back I've seen. I didn't see Bo Jackson and Herschel Walker play in college. Walker would be #1 in the college ranks. Maybe Jackson or Archie Griffin two or some other people, I don't know. But Faulk was the best I saw in college.
Well, since I have him on my team and since I can pull out the numbers, I might as well go for it. By your comment there is a chance you'll downgrade my team, so I should do it. Sometime tonight I may post Faulk's numbers on grass vs on turf. If not tonight, then Wednesday or Thursday.
He's not a shoo-in first ballot guy. His high character might help him, BUT... -He was spotty in the playoffs save for one game. -He never rushed for more than 1500 yards in a season -No rushing titles That one season where he had 1000 receiving yards was incredible, I have to admit, but the fact of the matter is that Faulk has played in some very back friendly systems. He's definitely going in, just not right away. -X-
Rushing yards are overrated for a running back. I know that sounds backwards and convoluted, but you have to take into account receiving yards too. They are the only people on the team that get both. For instance, people sleep on Dom. Davis cause he only gets 1100 yards rushing a year. Well who the F cares? He gets 600 yards receiving. Is it that much worse than a RB who gets 1500 yards rushing but can't catch out of the backfield and only gets 200 yards receiving? Now I'm not going to say either situation is better, they are each unique in their own ways and realistically depend on the team. The Rams when Faulk was dominant were a passing team and perhaps part of the reason he wasn't getting 1500 yards was because they weren't handing it off to him every play. Instead they were splitting him out wide and matching him up with slow LBs. And in my opinion, that isn't a "back friendly system"
Yeah he had a fairly long career for a back. Cakes already spelled it out, he played 11-12 seasons and how old is he? 34? It's certainly a sad day for the NFL though. He was a phenom.
Some Faulk notes: AP MVP, 2000 The Sporting News Player of the Year, 2000 and 2001 Seven Pro Bowls Once held single season touchdown record 19,154 yards from scrimmage (12,279 rushing; 6,875 receiving) First in scrimmage yards, 1998 First in scrimmage yards, 1999 Second in scrimmage yards, 2000 Second in scrimmage yards, 2001
He also scored 136 touchdowns. Here's where he ranks in yards per game in comparison to the other feature backs in the all time fantasy draft tournament: Scrimmage yards per game: Jim Brown- 125.5 Barry Sanders- 118.9 Walter Payton- 111.9 Marshall Faulk- 108.8 Eric Dickerson- 105.5 O.J. Simpson- 99.1 Emmitt Smith- 95.5 Gale Sayers- 92.1 Bo Jackson- 82.5 Marcus Allen- 79.9
True, true. But the way he dropped off the map fairly quickly towards the end is pretty characteristic of other turf guys I've seen such as Tony Dorsett, etc. I would also agree with those who consider him a first ballot guy. Forget rushing yards for a minute, even though he has plenty of yards. Think of him as a football player. He was a unique talent and certainly the most feared back in the league in his prime.
Dorsett was very good for 9 years and then was just okay his final three years. I see him as overrated because I think he came into a great situation as a rookie. The Cowboys were at their peak when he came into the picture. I don't consider him a truly unique talent like Simpson, Sanders, J. Brown, Dickerson, Faulk, Sayers, or Campbell. Nine very good years for Dorsett is pretty good, though. Just to present a counter argument to your turf claim, here are some good grass backs who didn't last very long: Gale Sayers Larry Brown Chuck Foreman Terrell Davis William Andrews Steve Van Buren Some turf backs who lasted a long time: Walter Payton James Brooks Freeman McNeil O.J. Anderson Tony Dorsett (we'll agree to disagree on him, I guess) Franco Harris and for your cause, some turf backs who didn't last a long time: Billy Sims Curt Warner Earl Campbell Christian Okoye Joe Morris
Yeah he did tail off, but I think that is at least partially attributed to the fact that he didn't make a fuss about them drafting a young back. I'm glad for him to be able to do that and not have to pull like an Emmitt Smith and go play a few mediocre years somewhere else.
I hate the Cowboys and almost everybody who ever played for them, but Dorsett was a special talent in my opinion. You make some good points about turf vs. grass, although Payton is the only guy who strikes me as having had an exceptionally long career playing at a high level on turf. Don't forget Emmit Smith too. O.J. Anderson played a long time, but he was a plodder at the end. Payton seemed to keep that spring in his step practically until the end, he was a freak. I still think that running backs might take the biggest pounding on the football field, it has to make it that much harder to recover when you played on astroturf instead of grass. Good point from Rambo 13 too. Faulk is a class act.
The numbers don't support what you wrote. Faulk actually put up better numbers when playing games on grass. RUSHING 44 grass games- 719 rushes, 3217 yards, 4.5 avg, 21 TDs, 73.1 yards per game 132 turf games- 2117 rushes, 9062 yards, 4.3 avg, 79 TDs, 68.7 yards per game RECEIVING 44 grass games- 198 receptions, 1748 yards, 8.8 avg, 7 TDs, 39.7 yards per game 132 turf games- 569 receptions, 5127 yards, 9.0 avg, 29 TDs, 38.8 yards per game
How did we forget to mention Barry Sanders? He played ten years on turf at a high level before retiring. He had not really shown any signs of erosion of skills. In general, I would tend to think that runners take more of a pounding on turf, but I don't see enough evidence to say it is a fact. I also do not think that playing on turf vs playing on grass is going to make a big difference on the stat sheet. A great back would succeed on grass and on turf, as I pointed out with the Faulk stats.
I hate Faulk, and I hate the Rams. That superbowl between the Rams and the Titans was fixed. I hate the Rams, there organization, there players, even there fans.
