Dick Vermeil: Trading for Faulk Would Cost a Lot More Today

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Dick Vermeil recalls his time with the Rams, including major decisions to play Kurt Warner and trade for Marshall Faulk. Vermeil also weighs in on the current state of coach, GM relationships. He talks with PFT’s Mike Florio.

Watch Vermeil Talk Rams
 

Rambitious1

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
4,446
Name
Tom
I love Coach Vermeil, but I disagree with him.
IMHO - With the RB position less valued today, I think that trade is actually cheaper than it was then.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
I love Coach Vermeil, but I disagree with him.
IMHO - With the RB position less valued today, I think that trade is actually cheaper than it was then.

Oh hell no it wouldn't be.........Faulk wasn't just a guy who carried the ball, he was way more than that.

Ask any team what they would give up to get Faulk right now, any GM would give up WAY more than the Rams did to get a player like that. He was rare. He is in the HOF.

He was special before the Rams got him.

Today if a Faulk was on the market he'd get a first rounder IMO.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,765
I'm with you on that @Rambitious1 . Faulk was just a very good player before he came to the Rams and only became a great player after becoming a Ram. That's one of the reasons we got him. Knowing how Faulk turned out he'd be more expensive but not without hindsight IMO. On the other hand, some crappy team traded a first round pick for a RB who couldn't make it with the original team that drafted him in the first just last year. So...
 

Selassie I

H. I. M.
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
17,621
Name
Haole
mail-2.jpg
 

HE WITH HORNS

Hall of Fame
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
3,828
Teams sometimes want to get rid of certain players, and sometimes you get a deal for them.
 

tempests

Hall of Fame
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
2,814
If teams saw only the position he played, strictly a running back, I don't know if it would've been more expensive, less, or the same.

If they saw him as the best player in the NFL, regardless of position, Marshall was worth his weight in gold.
 

Rambitious1

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
4,446
Name
Tom
Oh hell no it wouldn't be.........Faulk wasn't just a guy who carried the ball, he was way more than that.

Ask any team what they would give up to get Faulk right now, any GM would give up WAY more than the Rams did to get a player like that. He was rare. He is in the HOF.

He was special before the Rams got him.

Today if a Faulk was on the market he'd get a first rounder IMO.

You don't know that.
It's just your opinion, just as it is mine.
 

Blue and Gold

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
1,741
Name
B and G
Part of the Faulk story is not told by Polian. The Colts were going to keep Faulk and draft Chris Claiborne, who they thought was going to be the next Cornelius Bennett, who they just acquired in free agency. The wanted to have Bennett groom Claiborne, though they expected Caliborne to play right away. So, Mora and Polian are meeting with their scouting service and Moro goes to the bathroom. The scout asks Polian who they are drafting and Polian said "Claiborne". So the scout said (who was an NFL, not a college scout) is he a rush backer? No, Polian said, more of a every down backer. Then the scout asked what the 4th pick was going to cost, and Polian told him. Then he said what are you paying Bennett? And Polian told him. And he said, so you will have Bennett be a rusher? And Polian said, "No, that part of his career is over, we expect him to be a two-down player now". So the scout said, you you will have x million dollars on two linebackers that cannot contribute on thrid down, the most important down in football? Polian sat there, quitely, then here comes Mora and he sits down and Polian says "We're not drafting Claiborne" and then he looked at the scout and said, "Fuck you".

So, the colts reworked things and decided to take James over Ricky Willians, but James and their certainty that he'd be there when he was drafted allowed Colts to part with Faulk.
 

BatteringRambo

Inked Gym Rat Stoner
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
3,893
Name
J.Fo
Oh hell no it wouldn't be.........Faulk wasn't just a guy who carried the ball, he was way more than that.

Ask any team what they would give up to get Faulk right now, any GM would give up WAY more than the Rams did to get a player like that. He was rare. He is in the HOF.

He was special before the Rams got him.

Today if a Faulk was on the market he'd get a first rounder IMO.

After Faulk I'd say Lynch is unanimous while he displayed some character concerns and off the field flirts... for a 4th round pick Seacocks got a steal! I'm worn on hearing this is an elite passing game now. Hmmm...what do the Cheatriots and Seacocks have in common? Strong and efficient running game. Blount is a playoff beast. ..what happened to Vereen, James White or even that Gray kid? Blount happened. Lynch is what Steven Jackson was we just didn't have the elite D, or even above avg WR's to put it together.

1st and 10 and Lynch gets them 6 yards all game long. That's huge and he's a mid season steal easily.