[general counsel]

I dont have it in me yet to post all of my feelings on marshall faulks retirement. I have written more about faulk on this board over the last three years than any other poster. I believe that he is a dramatically underated player, even by many in st louis and even by many on this board.

For now, i put forth two thoughts and would love to see anyone debate me on them.

1) Faulk is the greatest player in the history of the franchise because he is the only player ever to play for the rams who was the greatest player in the entire nfl, regardless of position, and i believe that was true for a full three year stretch (99-01). The only other possibilities were bob waterfield in 1945 and possibly johnny drake or parker hall in the late 30's. I dont believe that kurt warner ever reached that level. Warner was the mvp of the league, but not of his team. The bias in favor of white qb's over black running backs is long evident in mvp voting, but lets put it this way. On a crappy team without an offensive line and all of those weapons, warner may still have been effective, but no where near his level during the gsot, whereas faulk was a superstar for some very average/lousy colts teams.

2) If Trent Green doesnt get hurt, the GSOT might not have lost a beat. I am taking nothing away from warner who was the best qb in the nfl for a period of time, but green was poised for a monster season when he got hurt. He had the arm, the accuracy and the leadership. I think you could make the case that green might have won superbowl 34 anyway. I am not saying that he would have, only that it was a distinct possibility. At the minimum, the rams offense would have been very very prolific with green at the helm. However, if the rams dont trade a 2 and a 5 for marshall faulk, there is no way in the world that the rams win one superbowl and come within a play or two of winning another one. Just no way in the world.

ramming speed to all

general counsel