[snackdaddy]

Stafford's that big armed quarterback. And he's on a legit contender. But he's the proverbial luxury we can't afford.

[PARAM]

Willingly giving Dickerson away in his prime.

I think his prime was 1983 to 1987 and he spent all but 9 games with the Rams. Sure he had three 1,000 yard seasons in Indy but after that, he was done.

6968 yards in 4 years with the Rams, 55 TDs, plus 277 and 1 TD in 1987 with L.A.
4258 yards, 26 TDs in the 3 years after leaving. ( 2710 more yards and 29 more TDs in 1 more year with L.A?)
729 as a high the 3 years after that.

Personally, I got tired of the "Dickerson signs/Dickerson holds out" bullshit.

You could say "they traded him in his prime" and that may or may not be true. Either way he had 3 'good years' after leaving L.A. and only 1 (1988; 1659 yards) compared to his average (1742) in L.A.. Better to get rid of him a year too early than a year too late.

[/zn/]

I think his prime was 1983 to 1987 and he spent all but 9 games with the Rams. Sure he had three 1,000 yard seasons in Indy but after that, he was done.

6968 yards in 4 years with the Rams, 55 TDs, plus 277 and 1 TD in 1987 with L.A.
4258 yards, 26 TDs in the 3 years after leaving. ( 2710 more yards and 29 more TDs in 1 more year with L.A?)
729 as a high the 3 years after that.

Personally, I got tired of the "Dickerson signs/Dickerson holds out" bullshit.

You could say "they traded him in his prime" and that may or may not be true. Either way he had 3 'good years' after leaving L.A. and only 1 (1988; 1659 yards) compared to his average (1742) in L.A.. Better to get rid of him a year too early than a year too late.

I agree with the idea that the Rams had him in his best years.

But when I got sick of the hold out/signs stuff, I put it on Georgia and Shaw. They underpaid him. I don't blame the player.

...

[moklerman]

I think his prime was 1983 to 1987 and he spent all but 9 games with the Rams. Sure he had three 1,000 yard seasons in Indy but after that, he was done.

6968 yards in 4 years with the Rams, 55 TDs, plus 277 and 1 TD in 1987 with L.A.
4258 yards, 26 TDs in the 3 years after leaving. ( 2710 more yards and 29 more TDs in 1 more year with L.A?)
729 as a high the 3 years after that.

Personally, I got tired of the "Dickerson signs/Dickerson holds out" bullshit.

You could say "they traded him in his prime" and that may or may not be true. Either way he had 3 'good years' after leaving L.A. and only 1 (1988; 1659 yards) compared to his average (1742) in L.A.. Better to get rid of him a year too early than a year too late.

When they traded him, he was in his prime. Had they signed him to a 3-4 year deal when he wanted it, they'd have time it just right. Instead, they gave away 2-3 years of ED in his prime. Led the league in rushing for the Colts. But I get that he was on the back side of his prime. But the Rams didn't make the move because they were weighing the odds of how long ED was going to last. They did it because back then they were notoriously cheap.

Unless they were signing a washed-up QB that Georgia wanted to play grab-ass with.

[PARAM]

When they traded him, he was in his prime. Had they signed him to a 3-4 year deal when he wanted it, they'd have time it just right. Instead, they gave away 2-3 years of ED in his prime. Led the league in rushing for the Colts.

Scrap the 1987 strike season when the trade was made and Ram Charles White led the NFL in rushing. The Rams went 21-11 (.656) without E.D. in 1988 and 1989. After going 40-24 (.625) the 4 years previous to 1987. Less distractions? Or QBs matter more than RBs? Wasn't that about the time the NFL was morphing into a pass heavy league anyway? Hell the present day situation of paying Gurley has come back to bite them in the ass, hasn't it?

But when I got sick of the hold out/signs stuff, I put it on Georgia and Shaw. They underpaid him. I don't blame the player.

I put it on Shaw and GF but ED has to accept some of the blame. He'd sign a deal and then want to renegotiate early. They do that now but back then, it was harder to accept. It seemed like greed and I guess that can be said of both sides.

[moklerman]

Scrap the 1987 strike season when the trade was made and Ram Charles White led the NFL in rushing. The Rams went 21-11 (.656) without E.D. in 1988 and 1989. After going 40-24 (.625) the 4 years previous to 1987. Less distractions? Or QBs matter more than RBs? Wasn't that about the time the NFL was morphing into a pass heavy league anyway? Hell the present day situation of paying Gurley has come back to bite them in the ass, hasn't it?

So, in addition to arguing they should have gotten rid of ED, you think Charles White was equitable?

White and Bell illustrate just how good the offense and OL were, even without a HOF RB. But, they could have (finally) had a QB and ED for those late '80's teams. Each of which would have helped the other. In ED's early years he had guys like Kemp and Brock, in a John Robinson offense, once they got to the playoffs. One dimensional and one and done.

Had the Rams had a more experienced Everett from '87-'89, ED and Zampese calling the plays, I'd bet they would have made at least one SB. White and Bell were barely more than JAG's.

[PARAM]

So, in addition to arguing they should have gotten rid of ED, you think Charles White was equitable?

White and Bell illustrate just how good the offense and OL were, even without a HOF RB. But, they could have (finally) had a QB and ED for those late '80's teams. Each of which would have helped the other. In ED's early years he had guys like Kemp and Brock, in a John Robinson offense, once they got to the playoffs. One dimensional and one and done.

Had the Rams had a more experienced Everett from '87-'89, ED and Zampese calling the plays, I'd bet they would have made at least one SB. White and Bell were barely more than JAG's.

Never said any of that.

I said "I got tired of the Dickerson signs/Dickerson holds out bullshit". So I was ambivalent. What it amounts to is they got better when he left. Their O line was terrific so White and Bell thrived.

We can always say, "I wished this, because of that, then we would have been kings of the NFL at least once", but there's no proof to that. In fact, with the Jupiter sized ego E.D. had he would have been demanding a trade by 1989 anyway. The Rams went from 578 rushing attempts in '86 to 512 to 507 to 472 in '89 with the #1 RB getting 404 in '86, 324, 288 and 272 in '89. In fact, I think that was part of the reason E.D. forced a trade. He didn't want to share the backfield with Everett because he could see he wasn't going to be "the guy". That was Everett.

[moklerman]

Never said any of that.

I said "I got tired of the Dickerson signs/Dickerson holds out bullshit". So I was ambivalent. What it amounts to is they got better when he left. Their O line was terrific so White and Bell thrived.

We can always say, "I wished this, because of that, then we would have been kings of the NFL at least once", but there's no proof to that. In fact, with the Jupiter sized ego E.D. had he would have been demanding a trade by 1989 anyway. The Rams went from 578 rushing attempts in '86 to 512 to 507 to 472 in '89 with the #1 RB getting 404 in '86, 324, 288 and 272 in '89. In fact, I think that was part of the reason E.D. forced a trade. He didn't want to share the backfield with Everett because he could see he wasn't going to be "the guy". That was Everett.

ED had an ego and he wanted to be the highest paid RB in football. Do you blame him? I'd say he earned it. Robinson used the hell out of him and he produced. When he signed with the Colts, they made him the highest paid RB. Did he give them problems or demand more money?

Yes, my thought that ED and Everett and Zampese would have been formidable is pure speculation. But, so is your idea that ED wouldn't have been content if the Rams had paid him.

ED has this bad reputation for being a problem but was that all on him? I didn't like the drama but in hindsight, I think the Rams were the one's who were creating that drama. $5.6M for 4 years is what he took from the Colts. Even in 1986 dollars, that doesn't seem so high that the Rams should have dicked him around.

[Rams1PlateSince1976]

ED could never understand why he made more money at SMU than with the Rams.

[PARAM]

ED had an ego and he wanted to be the highest paid RB in football. Do you blame him? I'd say he earned it. Robinson used the hell out of him and he produced. When he signed with the Colts, they made him the highest paid RB. Did he give them problems or demand more money?

Yes, my thought that ED and Everett and Zampese would have been formidable is pure speculation. But, so is your idea that ED wouldn't have been content if the Rams had paid him

He held out with the Colts too, so there's that. A history of holdouts and contract disputes. Was he the best RB of his time? Sure. Was he a holdout waiting to happen? Absolutely.

As far as wanting to be the highest paid whatever in any sport, I never subscribed to that line of thinking. Some dumb front office pays a lesser talented player the most so my team has to pay for that mistake? He 'earned' being well compensated. Unfortunately with some guys that only means "highest paid".

Walter Payton was earning $685,000 in 1985 and at that time he was one of the greatest of all time. In 1985 Warren Moon was making $1.1 mil in base pay and bonuses. In 1987 E.D. signed a contract for 1.4 mil per year with the Colts. What was he making with the Rams?

LATimesStory

In 1985, after a 46-day holdout, he signed a three-year contract extension with the team, beginning this season and running through the 1989 season.

But Dickerson was unhappy with the extension before he took his first carry under the new agreement.

In 1985 he signed a 3 year extension for 1987, 88 and 89 and forced a trade in 1987. Extension or extortion?