Had an argument with a friend about Thurman Thomas

[atlbillsfan1975]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

 

When you put that much effort into the argument....

 

LT had more rushing yards, more receiving, and like double the TDs in fewer seasons. His efficiency/per game stats beat thurman. Better ypcarry, though Thomas won ypcatch. LT had 20 fewer fumbles despite more touches.

 

he weighed more, put up more reps on the bench but still had a better 40, better in all the explosives (vertical and broad), better in the shuttles. 

 

Make your case for Thomas over LT... 

 

 

I didn’t even say smith in there. Just rattled off some names. I think we can all agree that it’s not a slam dunk to put him top ten - he’s right in that next group that can be debated. If you start that group at 9, or 10 or 11 through 20ish is fine. 

 

Ill buy thomas paved the way for a guy like LT, and did a GREAT job, but there aren’t many spots he was just as good (measurables or stats). 

You did not. Sorry, I just threw Smith in there because that was a debate back in the early 90’s. Who would you want between Smith or Thurman. I think Thurman was a much better back then Smith, and that’s not because I’m a Bill fan. 

[C.Biscuit97]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Wilt Chamberlain played against many good big men

 

when he scored his 100 point game The opposing team had a 7 footer and a few 6’10 guys

 

it wasn’t like he had 7 inches on everybody On the court...

 

he was just stronger and better than everyone 

How many 7’2” guys were there back then? And obviously, he was awesome.  I just think athletes are better now with all of the training.

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

How many 7’2” guys were there back then? And obviously, he was awesome.  I just think athletes are better now with all of the training.

 

Its 110% fair- nutrition, training, schemes advancing.... its hard to say what a great from another era could do today. The flip side is they also would likely benefit from all that too. 

[C.Biscuit97]

5 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

I’ll agree with two points McBride made —

 

our line was also one of the better ones ones out there 

 

in a 5 year run smith had over 8000 rushing yards and 85 rushing tds. Plus some catches not in those numbers. I think by calling him the steady one a lot of fans forget that he was steadily really killing it on the field and not just grinding out numbers just by longevity and volume 

Steady problem wasn’t the best word.  I just meant he was more consistent than flashy. Easily a top 20 of all time but I think he benefited tremendously from the talent around him.  He was on one of the greatest teams ever assembled.  I think a lot of rbs would have been successful on Dallas.  For example, Curtis Martin, who I feel is very underrated.

[reddogblitz]

14 hours ago, NoSaint said:

Top 10 all time? I’ll say no... 

 

Top 20-25? Sure

 

juice, brown, Campbell, Walter, sayers,  Dickerson, sanders, LT, Faulk and Peterson off hand... I’m sure I forget 2-3 that could be in the 10

 

Tony Dorsett

[C.Biscuit97]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

 

Its 110% fair- nutrition, training, schemes advancing.... its hard to say what a great from another era could do today. The flip side is they also would likely benefit from all that too. 

Agree and it makes for a good debate.  Babe Ruth played in a segregated era but he was so much better than his contemporaries.  

[NoSaint]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Tony Dorsett

 

Yup - I left both he and smith off my spitball list. Might have been blocking out a certain team. 

[Buffalo716]

16 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

How many 7’2” guys were there back then? And obviously, he was awesome.  I just think athletes are better now with all of the training.

Probably under 4

 

pro athletes have definitely as a whole gotten better but I think Legends are still legends

 

Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb would be freaks in any era. Babe Ruth could throw around 90-95 they say

 

Walter Johnson was clocked at an Army base  at 92-95 MPH with his fastball.. that was around the 20s. They did it again with a better testing device and he clocked at 99

 

same with OJ, Jim Brown ... beasts in any era 

 

 

The world record for the 400 in 1968 was 43.86... now it’s 43.03

 

50 years and .83 of a second... his time still stands for 10th best all time... Human limits are basically pushed... not done but basically 

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Buffalo716

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Tony Dorsett

 

 

....Dorsett flashback......went out to Notre Dame in '76 for Pitt game.....Montana was on IR (dammit)......I believe it was the first play where TD went 61 yards off tackle "to the house"...guy had some wheels............

23 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I was young at the time but wasn’t the Dallas’ Oline considered one of the greatest of all time?  My memory from that era was that Thurman was the best all around back, Barry was the best pure rb, and Emmitt was the steady workhouse.  All of them were great.

 

...agree that is a pretty fair assessment.......Faulk had similar "all around back" success to Thurmal........I'd add Sweetness and possibly Sayers to Barry's electrifying style......Emmitt's durability, especially at 5'9" and 210 lbs was remarkable......many guys had careers cut short like Sweetness, Sayers, or even workhorses like Dirty Bird or Larry Johnson who fizzled after 400 carries in a season.....

[Fadingpain]

15 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

I argued that Thurman is overlooked in the world of modern running backs and is a top 10 RB in NFL history...

 

sure he didn’t dazzle like Barry or churn out 5 yard runs at a whack like Emmitt... but he was the most complete back of his time... 

 

his running, receiving, blocking and toughness made him the most rounded back of his Era

 

his power / speed ratio was the best in the NFL and he was a violent runner

 

led the NFL in yards from scrimmage an NFL record 4 consecutive seasons... an NFL MVP... a first ballot HoF

 

9th ALL TIME in yards from scrimmage 

 

As a student of the game I don’t find it foolish to say Thurman is a top 10 modern back

 

My position on Thurman has always been that he remains one of the greatest "offensive weapons" the league has ever seen.

 

I think "offensive weapon" is the right term for him, as he transcended merely being a runner in a way Barry Sanders, for example, did not.

 

Put it this way: if you were going to construct an all-time offensive team and trying to find a guy who could help you move the ball downfield and score points (which is pretty much what the offense in football is all about) Thurman would easily be an all-time, Top-5 selection for that job.

 

His only flaw was not having break-away speed, and he would get caught from behind without too much trouble, which is why he probably doesn't have as many TDs or super long runs as he should have, even if he still has a ton! 

 

Kenneth Davis was always a good bit faster, but of course not the total package Thurman was, despite the fact that I love Kenneth Davis and he seems like one of the better backup HBs in NFL history.

 

If you are trying to move the ball and score points, Thurman is your man! 

 

 

[NoSaint]

52 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Steady problem wasn’t the best word.  I just meant he was more consistent than flashy. Easily a top 20 of all time but I think he benefited tremendously from the talent around him.  He was on one of the greatest teams ever assembled.  I think a lot of rbs would have been successful on Dallas.  For example, Curtis Martin, who I feel is very underrated.

 

Honestly, it wasn’t a bad word but I think a lot of folks subconsciously discount him for being reliable when it’s a big plus.

 

not only did he play GREAT but he did it long term and without too many dips. A few here acted like he was just reliably getting 3.8 ypc walking to the sideline untouched behind a great line and able to do it a gazillion times because of everything but his own ability. 

 

Dude ran hard, made big plays, has the rings and records and across his peak had HUGE numbers (averaged 1600 yards and 17 tds a season over 5 years— without including receiving stats)

 

its hard to put him outside the top top ten but Thurman in it

Edited April 14, 2018 by NoSaint

[joevan]

Jim Brown led the league in total yards from scrimmage 6 times,  Thurman 4 times (in a row), Eric Dickerson 4 times, O.J. Simpson 3 times, nobody else since Jim Brown and the aforementioned have done it more than twice.  Everyone is behind these four. IMO.

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

Thurman Thomas was a huge factor in Buffalo's success in the late 80's early 90's. He was the engine that kept the team going. He could take over a game and open up the passing lanes that made Kelly look as good as he did. Without Thurman I don't think we look back at the team the same way. I don't think we go to 4 Super Bowls in a row. That is how important he was.

[Like A Mofo]

16 hours ago, Augie said:

 

I’d support Thurman more in the push up than Andre. Hey, just my opinion. Thurman should have been Super Bowl MVP in a friggin loss. Give him the ball more and we actually WIN! 

 

 

While in part I agree, that loss to me is more on the defense

[Augie]

5 minutes ago, Like A Mofo said:

 

 

While in part I agree, that loss to me is more on the defense

 

Great! Now I’m going to have nightmares about missed tackles!

 

[Murdox]

Thomas had 456 catches to Simpson's 203?  Different eras, of course, but that shows his versatility.  One forgets how much more a player needs to learn to be such a part of the passing offense on passing downs.  Blitz pickups, formation changes, etc.  There's a reason why so few RBs are great 3-down backs.  Adrian Peterson, for example, is only a 2-down back.

[Buffalo716]

3 minutes ago, Murdox said:

Thomas had 456 catches to Simpson's 203?  Different eras, of course, but that shows his versatility.  One forgets how much more a player needs to learn to be such a part of the passing offense on passing downs.  Blitz pickups, formation changes, etc.  There's a reason why so few RBs are great 3-down backs.  Adrian Peterson, for example, is only a 2-down back.

 

I wouldn’t even necessarily say it’s his receptions number which is staggering...

 

but look at his yards per reception his first 5 years and it’s 10-11 yards per catch... that’s WR numbers 

 

He was spectacular 

[Saxum]

16 hours ago, Augie said:

I fully agree. Emmitt is overrated IMO playing as long as he did behind great OLines. He was certainly good, but I’d rather have Thurman. 

 

Emmitt Smith was underrated as an actor.  Many times he had a catastrophic injury on field with an injury timeout and a couple of plays later he'd be back on field with every Dallass fan saying he was a warrior.  He was just a good actor able to get breathers for his team.

 

Without doubt Thurman Thomas was the most complete RB in NFL and definitely a top 10 back. 

[Beast]

16 hours ago, NoSaint said:

Top 10 all time? I’ll say no... 

 

Top 20-25? Sure

 

juice, brown, Campbell, Walter, sayers,  Dickerson, sanders, LT, Faulk and Peterson off hand... I’m sure I forget 2-3 that could be in the 10

 

I’d definitely take Thurman over LT, Dickerson and Faulk.

[NoSaint]

11 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

I’d definitely take Thurman over LT, Dickerson and Faulk.

Ill steer you to my recent LT post and ask you to make your case