 |
| Source:NFL Network- Eric Dickerson with the Anaheim Rams (as I called them) at Anaheim Stadium. |
"A Football Life Eric Dickerson. Subscribe to the channel!
I don't own the rights to this content."
From Vanilla Vick
This might sound strange considering that Eric Dickerson, is not just in the NFL Hall of Fame, or that he rushed for 12,000 yards, and is literally one of the greatest runners (not running backs) in NFL history, but he underachieved and could've been so much better.
Outside of John Riggins with the Redskins, the team that I grew up loving, Eric Dickerson was my favorite running back ever growing up in the 1980s. So I don't think I'm bias at all when I'm talking about Dickerson. And other than Jim Brown, I don't think the NFL has ever had a better runner in the backfield, than Eric Dickerson. He was a better runner than Marcus Allen and Walter Payton. Not as big and strong as John Riggins, but faster.
I think (and this is where the underachieving part of his career comes in) had Eric Dickerson stayed in Anaheim with the Rams, instead of going to to the Indianapolis Colts, a franchise that had no history of being competitive, let alone winning, I think Dickerson owns every single major rushing record in the NFL right now. He would've shattered both Jim Brown's and Walter Payton's records and still have time and ability to do so much more. But his main goal was to be a millionaire running back and be paid like Pro Bowl QB, instead of being a champion and the best player at his position.
Imagine Eric Dickerson staying in Anaheim with head coach John Robinson who was essentially running his Southern California power offense, where the offense was built around the tailback and the Rams add QB Jim Everett and WR Flipper Anderson, they already had WR Henry Elliard and TE David Hill, one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, and one of the better defenses in the NFL. I
Imagine the 1989 Rams with Eric Dickerson as their tailback, instead of Greg Bell, who was a good running back, but not even on the same planet as Dickerson, at least as a runner. But we never got to see any of that, because Erick Dickerson was about making as much money as he could, even if it meant playing for losers like the Indianapolis Colts and Atlanta Falcons. And about being the best football player he could be becoming a Super Bowl champion.
7/18/2022 - Ryan Woods: "I understand what your saying to a certain degree. I'm glad you acknowledged he isn't the second greatest RB ever though. Great thought & point."
Erik Schneider: "Thanks. I'm saying he's not the 2nd best all round RB ever, simply because he's not."
From Facebook
Ryan Woods: "he's the smoothest runner ever in my opinion & many other's. Dickerson's biggest knock his running didn't directly lead to a lot of team success like the other All-Time great rb's. Have him #7 on my All-Time rb list."
Erik Schneider: "Or, he was more interested in making money, than winning football games."
From Facebook
7/19/2022 - Britt Prentice: "Jim Brown was bigger than linebackers and even linemen. Average weight and height for a lineman was 6'2" 235lbs in the 50s-60s. Jim was 6'2" 232lbs. Different game. Jim would not be a man among boys today."
Erik Schneider: "Actually, 235 for a RB back then, would not be 235 today. So you could at least argue that JB would be even bigger and stronger today, than he was back then. If you go by the theory that NFL players get bigger and stronger, as the league gets older."
Chris Paez: "I get your point. Dickerson wasn't the best receiver or blocker but his running was so much better I think most people would still take Dickerson over just about anyone. AND HE IS on the 1980's All Decade Team."
Erik Schneider: " If you are simply talking about running the ball out of the backfield. But based on that, Roger Craig was the same size as ED, but not as tall and was about just as fast as ED, and had a lot more skills."
Chris Paez: "I just looked at the All Decade team. It was Dickerson and Payton at RB. Unless there's more than one version ?. And yeah Roger Craig was great but I bet more people would take Dickerson over Roger Craig."
Erik Schneider: "Are we taking polls now? I thought we were talking about the best all around RB, versus the best runners at RB."
Chris Paez: "I'm not arguing with you. I already said Dickerson wasn't the best receiver or blocker. My point is that I'll take Dickerson over any back from the 1980s."
Erik Schneider: "OK, got your point."
Britt Prentice: "Eric was 6'3" 220, Derrick Henry 6'3" 247, Faulk 5'10" 212, LT 5'10" 216, Emmitt 5'9 216. Gurley 6'1" 230, Chubb 5'11 225. Henry is very rare being so big. The backs today are not huge."
Erik Schneider: "None of those players played 60 years ago. Bo Jackson was considered a man among boys in the 1980s. Similar size to Jim Brown."
Britt Prentice: "thank you for making my point. Bo 6'1" 230lbs."
Erik Schneider: "Not only that, but the guys you mentioned who play today, are about the same size as the RB's of the 1980s. So Jim Brown would be a man among boys today as a tailback as well at 6'2 230 pounds, or so, with the great speed."
Britt Prentice: "no he would not. The average LB is 6'3" 240. Average lineman 6'4" 315. Brown would not be a man among boys stomping on Aaron Donald. He would be great, not dominant against far smaller opposition as he was."
Erik Schneider: "Again I could take you back to Bo Jackson from the 1980s and the size he played at and the defenders he went up against or just use the fact that JB would be even bigger and stronger today, with all the access to modern medicine, weight training, personal trainers, that he didn't have in the 1960s. I don't see much point in arguing this."
David Thompson: "people forget how good Dorsett was. I could take or leave Craig. He found the perfect scheme for him offensively. Huge Walter Payton fan though. He’s on my Mt Rushmore along with Brown and Sanders. For that 4th spot on the Mt. I can argue for ED, Emmitt, prime Terrell Davis or Tony Dorsett. Maybe Curtis Martin, who is overlooked but was consistent and durable as they come."
Erik Schneider: "We agree on Dorsett and Payton. It's Roger Craig whose overlooked. Should've been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago."
David Thompson: "He’s got a good argument for the HOF, and I love those 49ers teams, even as a Rams fan, but I wouldn’t put him in the conversation of beat backs ever. At the same time, he only had 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons over an 11 year career, and only one of those was dynamic. His 85 season was amazing, but he never really got close to anything like that again. It’s arguable his best ability was as a receiving back. But if Ricky Watters isn’t in, I don’t know how Craig gets in."
Erik Schneider: "If Roger Craig is not one of the best RB's ever, then how does he have a "good argument" for the HOF?"
David Thompson: "for his era, he was considered one of the best backs. He won multiple Super Bowls. His 1000 yd rushing and receiving season was great. And despite his lack of stellar running stats, he still caught over 500 passes for his career which was almost unheard of. He’s not in the top 20 RBs of all time. But there are other RBs in with similar or even a lesser pedigree. That being said, I’m not gonna lost sleep if he doesn’t make it. That might be the most damning thing about him, you look at his career and it’s something that doesn’t overwhelm you as an omission that he’s not in the HOF."
Erik Schneider: "for his era, he was considered one of the best backs. He won multiple Super Bowls. His 1000 yd rushing and receiving season was great." I could rest my case for Roger Craig with what you said about him. Two standards that HOF voters look at when deciding if someone should be in the HOF: were they one of the best players at their position during their era. Your answer for that is obvious yes. The other standard is would they be a great player in every era. The answer to that is obvious yes as well. Craig has a numbers game working against him since he played on a team with a lot of other HOF players. But just because a team was deep, shouldn't disqualify you for the HOF. He'll get in eventually and hopefully while he's still alive, unlike Ken Stabler."
From Facebook
7/22/2022 - Joseph F Cristarella: "It is harder to have a longer season, but you cannot compare the yardage, playing 17 games gives you a distinct advantage over those in 12 game seasons to gain more yardage, keeping in mind the defense back then may have been smaller than today but there was so much more they could do, a running back today does not have to routinely be clothes lined, helmet to helmet hits with far inferior helmets, etc. So things kind of work out in the end."
Erik Schneider: "You sound like someone who knows his NFL history and not automatically assuming the great players today, are definitely better than the players before them. The only thing that I would add is the rules that Jim Brown played under, clearly favored defenses over offenses. Which is why the average NFL team ran the ball a lot more back then, than they do today. So Jim Brown had to work with smaller holes, fewer games and he still ran for 13,000 yards in 9 seasons, playing 116 games, over 100 TD's."
From Erik Schneider
