[HRS1H7gO]

There was one game i watched where Faulk ran the ball 7 straight times in the first possession of the game...ended up with a TD.

LDT couldn't ever get away with that...even against the worst D in the NFL in any year.

[Xzmwskxn]

People seem to be underestimating lt's pass catching ability he had a season with over 100 catches and I think his first 8 or something had more than 50 each year

[Alex]

This is sooooo close....but...

I went with LT. In 3 less seasons played, LT has more overall TD's and more rushing yards. Faulk played his prime years with Manning (albeit his rookie year, where he still threw 26 td's) and Warner...those Warner years he played some of the best QB on one of the best O's in NFL all-time history.

LT played with Brees and Rivers, no slouches at QB, but not close to Warner for those prime Faulk years.

Initially I was gonna go Faulk, remembering what a fantasy beast he was. But LT put up similar numbers on an offense that was really good, but still a few notches below the Rams back then.

[DesautocaD]

I say Faulk, co-worker says LdT.

[Wr8dIAUk]

Boy...that's a tough one. I'd say LT is the best in terms of a pure RB, but Faulk is much better as a versatile offensive weapon.

I think I'd go Faulk, but it is very close.

[bataovady]

Boy...that's a tough one. I'd say LT is the best in terms of a pure RB, but Faulk is much better as a versatile offensive weapon.

I think I'd go Faulk, but it is very close.

Agreed. That was my deciding factor. Faulk could beat you in so many ways. He was more of a complete offensive player. In their prime I would not complain about having either one on my team though.

[ViagraFeller]

I went with lt because while sd has had a good passing game, they were never greatest show on turf type quality. Faulk had his biggest years in that offense which certainly helps him generate more numbers.

[QWNPdpr5]

I went with lt because while sd has had a good passing game, they were never greatest show on turf type quality. Faulk had his biggest years in that offense which certainly helps him generate more numbers.

Cause Mike Martz looooovvvvvess running the ball.

[Golotop]

I went with Marshall Faulk.

[Gudronich]

Ryan Grant

[EvaQWmrm]

Ryan Grant

That's a given. That's why he wasn't included in the poll.

[NanoKakadze]

I say Faulk, co-worker says LdT.

Faulk. LDT is a better RB, Faulk was the better player.

[connandoilee]

Tomlinson was a better rusher. Their blocking and recieving skills were pretty equal.

[Cheaperisdeeper]

Tomlinson was a great player, but Faulk was a great RB AND a great WR too. Yes, I know he didn't play WR, but he could've with his amazing receiving skills and great vision.

He also was smart as hell, and often placed other players in the formation when they were lined up wrong, which was a bit unusual for anyone to do other than the QB. Players often know where they're supposed to be, but not the other 10 guys on the field.

He wasn't a pure RB by any means, yet I consider him one of the best to ever play the game at the position.

[jenilopaz]

Faulk was the greatest offensive weapon of his era. LT was great, and probably the better pure RB, but not quite on Faulk's level overall.

[ENCOSEARRALIA]

Tiki.

[ambiddetcat]

Faulk put up probably the best receiving numbers ever by a RB, as well as being a perennial 1,000 yard rusher.

Faulk could be split out wide, line up in the slot, just about anywhere on the field. Defense had to account for where he was at all times.

[plalleste]

Tiki.

This

[Lotyqnag]

Tiki.

There's people who will be able to help you with your crack addiction.