- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #21
I think the RAMS need their own mountain....Mount Morerams...
Perhaps an LA Rams Mount Rushmore and a St. Louis Rams Mount Rushmore would be better! Definitely could use the 8 slots haha
I think the RAMS need their own mountain....Mount Morerams...
Steelers and Cowgirls are right there...Is it just me and my homerism, or do the RAMS have several more legendary players than most other teams?
The only other team that comes close (without research) is the Bears.
St. Louis Rams Mount Rushmore: http://lastwordonsports.com/2015/06/25/st-louis-rams-mount-rushmore/
With so many legendary players in franchise history, this should make for a great discussion. Do you agree or disagree with the four players selected? If you disagree, who would you replace?
Warner.... have no place in this type of thing.
Does each Team get Half of 'BRUUUUCE'!?!Perhaps an LA Rams Mount Rushmore and a St. Louis Rams Mount Rushmore would be better! Definitely could use the 8 slots haha
Perhaps an LA Rams Mount Rushmore and a St. Louis Rams Mount Rushmore would be better! Definitely could use the 8 slots haha
Is it just me and my homerism, or do the RAMS have several more legendary players than most other teams?
The only other team that comes close (without research) is the Bears.
What about 49ers, Steeler, Cowboys off the top of my head?
I didn't save it, But not very long ago someone post a pie chart showing the Teams with the MOST Players in the Hall of Fame: * #? - Steelers (16)What about 49ers, Steeler, Cowboys off the top of my head?
A case could actually be made for him to not be on a St. Louis only Rams rushmore: SJ, Marshall, Torry, Ike
He played more games with other teams than he did the Rams. He played more games with a division rival than he did the Rams.
53 of those were for the Rams.
I didn't save it, But not very long ago someone post a pie chart showing the Teams with the MOST Players in the Hall of Fame: * #? - Steelers (16)
* #? - Rams (14)
I don't recall were the 49ers & Cowboys Placed ( Less than the Rams!). But I don't believe they were close!
DOES ANYONE OUT THEIR REMEMBER THIS CHART AND HAVE IT!?!
thanks OldSchool!!! This ^ Is what I was Trying to refer to!! (This Time I'm saving it!!)
If you look closely at our SB Loses, One was against a Really tough ball buster of a Steeler Team! ( should HAVE WON! ) and the other was against a Team that CHEATED! AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT!!:huh:
Looking at this chart I don’t know if I should be impressed or depressed. Look at the teams with multiple Super Bowl victories that the RAMS are ahead of on this list. What does that say? For me it’s sort of depressing to see all that talent and only 1 ring in 3 appearances. You look at teams like the Cowboys 5 rings 8 appearances, the Giants 4 rings 5 appearances, 49ers 5 rings 6 appearances, Packers 4 rings 5 appearances, Patriots 4 rings 8 appearances, I could keep going…dare I say underachievers…
:huh::notsure::seizure:
No one would take that seriously.
For a Rams memorial, those 53 are the only ones that matter.
You seem oddly hung up on longevity. I'm not suggesting Tommy McDonald go up there.
Prior to the AFL-NFL merger, the league was only half as big as it is now. Those 60s and 70s Ram teams didn't have to deal with a salary cap, free agency or 31 other teams raiding the draft pool. If they did, at least a few defensive stars of the past might well have left at age 25, like London Fletcher did.
Kurt would go up on a Rams Mt. Rushmore because his star shone more brightly than most.
I was just making the point that the Rams have had SO many great players, Kurt doesn't make a Rams all time rushmore.
Either people aren't taking all the all time greats into account, or only started watching football when the Rams came to STL.
it should be taken into account