where do you rank marshall faulk among all-time RBs?

nobody ever puts him in their top 10.

this is just his 9th nfl season:



  -- RUSHING -- -- RECEIVING -- -- FUMBLES --
YEAR TEAM G GS ATT YDS AVG LNG TD REC YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST
1994 IND 16 16 314 1282 4.1 52 11 52 522 10.0 85 1 5 3
1995 IND 16 16 289 1078 3.7 40 11 56 475 8.5 34 3 8 5
1996 IND 13 13 198 587 3.0 43 7 56 428 7.6 30 0 2 2
1997 IND 16 16 264 1054 4.0 45 7 47 471 10.0 58 1 5 3
1998 IND 16 15 324 1319 4.1 68 6 86 908 10.6 78 4 3 2
1999 STL 16 16 253 1381 5.5 58 7 87 1048 12.0 57 5 2 2
2000 STL 14 14 253 1359 5.4 36 18 81 830 10.2 72 8 0 0
2001 STL 14 14 260 1382 5.3 71 12 83 765 9.2 65 9 3 3
2002 STL 9 9 164 816 5.0 44 8 60 426 7.1 40 2 4 3
Total 130 129 2319 10258 4.4 71 87 608 5873 9.7 85 33 32 23

 

I wouldn't say top ten yet either... he's one of those edge guys... he catches as much as he runs... and if he put up weekly 100 rush/100recieve games it'd be different, but he's more an extra reciever... hes known to put up a 60 rush/100 recieve game... that's not a top 10 running back... its a big fast reciever that runs on occassion... can't say its all his fault either because of the system he's in, but that's why he doesn't make my list... would I have him on my team?? hell yeah... but I want more of a running game dimension to my team... but when picking top 10 all time I'd rather have a running back pound out 25 or more carries worth while my TRUE recievers are catching the ball to open him more running room

 

here are his per-game averages:

18 carries for 79 yards
5 catches for 45 yards
1 touchdown

the guy has rushed for more than 1,300 yards the past four seasons and was a HELL of a runner at san diego state.

you think that maybe his nfl coordinators saw that he's a mega-talent that needs to get the ball as many ways as possible because he's a game-breaker? i've seen him break tackles. it's not as if he's barry sanders or warrick dunn.

by the way, i never thought about putting him in my top 10 for the same sort of reasons. i'm just wondering if that was unwise, so i went to look at the numbers. they really need to be compared to the other guys.

 

The guy has never had a 2000 yard year? What's up with that?

 

he doesn't get enough running attempts to get 2k yards, but add in his receiving stats, and he gets 2k every year...

he may not be the best RUNNING back ever, but he very well may be the best overall back...

We've seen over the last few games what happens when they actually give him the ball to run..

Against Oakland: 26 attempts for 158 yards... that's 6.1 yards per rush. Insane.

Against Seattle: 32 attempts for 183 yards - 5.7 yards per rushing attempt.

Against Arizona: 27 attempts for 178 yards -
6.6 yards per carry . that's INSANE.

he was also averaging 44 receiving yards those 3 games...

anyway, in my mind, he's best all around back i've ever seen... perhaps ever? for his career, he's averaged 4.4 yards per carry and 9.7 yards per reception. does anybody have stats that good?

 

I agree with Clay. The definition of HB has changed over the past 20 years or so. Well, maybe not changed, but there has been another dimension added. Faulk is at least as good as Roger Craig, and probably better.

Personally, I'd rank him as at least as good as Emmitt Smith. He doesn't have the stats because he doesn't have the carries. But like Emmitt, he can be a slasher, or he can be a power rusher. His speed us underrated, and his field vision is superior.

 

He seems to new. I know he's been in the league for 9 years, but he needs a few more to solidify his spot. And he has a lot of competition to be in my top ten.

 

my opinion wont be any good. cant stand faulk.

priest holmes and michael bennett will be on my list.

 

All-time? I don't know, I usually don't think all time until a guy retires.
Of the active RB's in the league, I'd say he is top three for sure.

Curtis Martin is my #1 active RB, Faulk probably #2, and Emmitt #3...then it gets a little shaky. Guys are either young and unproven or OLD and beat up.

Otherwise, Sweetness is and always will be #1. Anyone else is a distant second!!!

 

Emmitt would struggle to make my top ten. I think when Faulk's done, he should be thought of in similar regard in the grand scheme of things. He's probably a better back than Emmitt, the team relies on him more, he's able to do more (without the detriment of loss of the power Smith had), he does have the vision that hb99 noted (probably one of the best in vision, along with Sanders and Payton), and he hardly ever fumbles. He's that team's MVP and it starts and ends there. TO what Dickerson or Payton was to be the "modern back" in 1980, as much as they changed the game, Faulk is the modern back of now. I'd like to see him take about five, six more years, which should give him around 4000-5000 more yards rushing, and might put him over 10,000 yards receiving at the pace he's gone the last couple of years. I think a 15000-10,000 back who will have scored nearly 150 TDs from scrimmage is a top five back in this league, taking the place Barry Sanders should have taken - say what you will about Barry, he was a better back than Emmitt and would have taken the record much sooner (and doing so at a higher level than Smith the last two years).