Started By
Message
1
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:25 pm to Cdawg
Hey do we need to post Bo and Ingrams phone conversation again for proof?
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:25 pm to TxTiger82
I brought it up because a freind of mine is a Aub fan and he was saying Bo was alot better then Faulk but when we looked up the numbers he was in shock. Id take any of them my point was u never hear KF name when people talking bout great RB in the SEC and by the numbers he is 2nd
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:28 pm to lsucub57
quote:
I didnt know Faulks numbers were better
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bo only play three years? If so, his rushing numbers per season dwarf Faulks's.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:29 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
Why does this always have to be an either-or thing?
Faulk was amazing. So was Bo. They were very different backs.
For pure athleticism...speed and power combined...you can't beat Bo Jackson.
However, if you want that all-purpose back who can catch and block, how could you not pick Faulk?
If you wanted more of a pure speedster with QB like smarts, go with D-Mac. If you want a back who will just run over or through everybody, Herschel Walker no debate.
Why are we always comparing these guys? They are all awesome.
I'm not really sure how you can put Faulk in the same league with Bo and Walker. I would put Ingram and Faulk in the same league of runners. Great yards per carry, good receivers, good blockers, etc. They aren't Bo and Hersch though.
Faulk was a very productive back with a good yards per carry but he was a middle of the second round draft pick.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:31 pm to bigpapamac
quote:
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bo only play three years? If so, his rushing numbers per season dwarf Faulks's.
He was out most of his Jr year due to injury...
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:31 pm to bigpapamac
I thimk Bo played all 4 but was hurt alot his jr year. Bo could have played 6 years and not had arse many all purpose yards as Faulk
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:51 pm to lsucub57
Bo was the better True between the tackles running back.
Faulk was the better All-Purpose Back.
Faulk may be the Most UNDERRATED SEC RB of all time.
Faulk was the better All-Purpose Back.
Faulk may be the Most UNDERRATED SEC RB of all time.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 2:55 pm to lsucub57
quote:
I thimk Bo played all 4 but was hurt alot his jr year. Bo could have played 6 years and not had arse many all purpose yards as Faulk
If you had put Bo returning kicks, then it'd be a different story. Faulk's return yards skew the stats. His return yards have nothing to do with him being a better running back.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 3:02 pm to arwicklu
quote:
Faulk may be the Most UNDERRATED SEC RB of all time.
Gospel Truth
Posted on 12/14/09 at 3:04 pm to woopiginaustin
Is Faulk better than McFadden? 
Posted on 12/14/09 at 3:05 pm to lsucub57
I love Kevin Faulk but he couldnt touch Bo Jackson
Posted on 12/14/09 at 3:06 pm to ACL11190
quote:
Is Faulk better than McFadden?
Yes
Posted on 12/14/09 at 3:06 pm to memphisplaya
No doubt, he's WAY better than McFadden.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 4:23 pm to ACL11190
Whoa! You serious, Clark?
Posted on 12/14/09 at 4:26 pm to King
I'm starting to think the average age of posters on TD is much younger than I realized.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 4:35 pm to arwicklu
quote:
I'm not really sure how you can put Faulk in the same league with Bo and Walker.
You said it yourself:
quote:
Faulk was a very productive back
quote:'
he was a middle of the second round draft pick.
Who has the same YPC in the NFL as Herschel Walker, more total yards than Bo Jackson, more receiving yards than any back mentioned, and more Super Bowl rings than any of them, too.
Yeah...he's OK.
Posted on 12/14/09 at 4:38 pm to woopiginaustin
quote:
If Felix Jones gained ZERO YARDS for an additional 14 carries, he would still surpass Bo Jackson's #1 spot by a full yard, at 7.6 YARDS PER CARRY.
sucks for Felix Jones
quote:
Most of the Bo Jackson love comes from a "what might have been" perspective.
well of course. It seemed like the guy was always fighting an injury yet still putting up those numbers.
Posted on 12/15/09 at 10:58 am to Ross
I would take Bo over KF but if u look at it why. Before u look at both there stats u think Bos numbers are way better then Faulks but they arent. Is it because Bo was just a freak? Was it because he won the heisman? Its a great debate but if u just post both there numbers without there names everone would pick Faulk but when u find out you just picked Kevin Faulk over Bo Jack your like WTF!!!
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News