Is Dickerson trade REALLY to blame for Rams' downfall?
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 5:22 pm
In regards to the comment of "the Rams were never the same again" (after the trade) on Eric Dickerson 'A Football Life', would it really have made that much of a difference? I mean, the Rams did have consecutive playoff runs in '88 & '89 making it to the NFCC (arguably the league's "2nd best team") latter of the two. If Rams have Dickerson in '88, yes, they're certainly better; better enough to win the NFC West over 10-6 SF in all likelihood - as well as making it to the NFCC. Maybe they even earn top-seed over paper-tiger Bears, but even as a wildcard, I think the Niners do it the hard way (3 NFC playoff wins instead of 2) ultimately punching their SB-ticket in Anaheim. Dickerson a Ram in '89? They still make the NFCC as they actually did (maybe even win an extra game or so during regular season), but Niners still prevail without much trouble. So, anyway, what then happens in '90 & '91? Does Eric still being around avert those losing seasons? I think not. And if Bettis having that amazing rookie year that he had in '93 wasn't enough to bring Rams back to relevance, what would 30-something Eric have been able to do? Dickerson still around in '94 & '95? Not sure he'd be able to escape being under-utilized by Brooks as Bettis was. Rams, to me, were going to suffer anyway up until the 'Greatest Show' era. Thoughts?