Had an argument with a friend about Thurman Thomas

[MakeBuffaloGreatAgain]

Emmitt Smith on any other team would have been a fart in the wind. He did nothing exceptional. But running behind the best O-line in NFL history, and now you have clout. The most over rated RB to put pads on. 

[Domdab99]

4 minutes ago, fridge said:

 

Hard to argue this.

 

Who would you rather have in his prime, Thurman with 18 hall of famers around him, or OJ when he was the whole offense and yet he still broke records?

[MakeBuffaloGreatAgain]

8 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

Who would you rather have in his prime, Thurman with 18 hall of famers around him, or OJ when he was the whole offense and yet he still broke records?

OJ... he can cut through a defense like no other. 

[folz]

1 hour 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

 

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

 

 

That stat alone gets overlooked way too often. That is a feat!. And he would have been Super Bowl MVP of SB XXV if Norwood's kick went through.

 

39 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

In his era, thomas was a clear #3 behind Smith and especially Sanders. They were both clearly better. Thomas was a great player, to be sure, but I remember this debate at the time and no one in good conscience was arguing that Thomas was as good as those two. It's not like the Bills didn't have an elite o-line between 1989 and 1992 (his elite years). News flash: Emmitt Smith was really effing good. 

 

Call me a Homer, but I honestly always felt that the RBs from that era stacked up as Barry, Thurman, and then Smith. Smith's stats are amazing, but Emmitt had 1,575 more touches than Thurman and 1,510 more touches than Sanders and ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history. But, even if consensus says Smith was a better back than TT, I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. With Barry it is, he could do things that no other human at that time could do. The Michael Jordan of RBs, if you will.

 

And to No Saint who posted his list of guys that would go in the top 10 ahead of TT, I pretty much agree with your first 7, and might add in Tony Dorsett, but then I think you could debate from there between guys like TT and Smith, Peterson, LT, Faulk, Allen, RIggins, etc. And I don't think any of those guys go in over TT without at least a debate. So, I would put Thurman in the 9-12 range all-time. Just my opinion.

 

I just googled a bunch of Best RBs of all-time lists, just to see what the general thought is, and Thurman landed anywhere from 10 to 17 on the many lists I looked at. One list had him at 10 and another at 11, but most had him in the 12-17 range.

[Dadonkadonk]

Thurman is my favorite Bill of all time. I put him 3rd all time as a Bill behind Bruce and OJ, and ahead of Kelly and Reed.

Thurman is definitely a HOF player but not top 10. Probably 11-15. 

[Chandler#81]

6 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

 

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

 

Interested to know what your friends argument was. I thought about TThomas today as NFLRadio was talking up Barkley. Thurman had deceptive speed for a “Squatty Body” and his uncanny ability to bounce through slivers of openings was a treasure to behold. He may run sideways, bump butts, twist or squirm. Whatever his instinct was at a given time, he did and then seemed to immediately have 15-20 yards of open secondary to burst through. But his unique capability to find a sliver of daylight anywhere on the line and exploit it, tops all his other deserved accolades, IMO.

[george c]

Love Thurman, but for all of his great moments, the one I remember first is his early 2nd half “head hanging” after a fumble against Dallas in the 4th SB.

 

He was defeated, and it spread like a disease which fueled Dallas’s momentum.

 

Is he top ten? Yes. He was an unreal double threat, and his receiving skills were as respected as much as his run skill. Many times he lined up as a wide receiver running a sideline pattern with the ball coming. He would be great in today’s game.

Edited April 14, 2018 by George C

[Victory Formation]

Thurman was a smart RB with great vision, top 5 though? Probably not, maybe top 10-12. 

 

In today's NFL Thurman would still be a star. He was Le'Veon Bell 30 years before his time, definitely a modern RB. He would be the best RB in the NFL if he played today in his prime IMO.

[vincec]

7 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I agree wholeheartedly, but please don't get me started. 15 FN carries for the entire game was a travesty!

 

Just make the kick.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, vincec said:

 

Just make the kick.

 

Shouldn't have come down to a 47 yard FG on grass that was no gimme. 

[vincec]

7 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

 

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

 

Maybe, but top 10 is hard. The top 5 (in your order of preference) have to be Brown, Simpson, Campbell, Sanders and Payton. Then you have guys Smith, Dickerson, Peterson, Faulk, Riggins, Allen, Tomlinson, Sayers. Thomas needs to be ahead of 4 of them to be #10.

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Shouldn't have come down to a 47 yard FG on grass that was no gimme. 

No game should ever come down to the last play, but they frequently do. No one plays a perfect game.

 

I'm just tired hearing about how Thurman should have had more carries, Levy should have run another play, Reich didn't get the laces turned, Talley didn't turn up, etc.

 

Just make the kick.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, vincec said:

Maybe, but top 10 is hard. The top 5 (in your order of preference) have to be Brown, Simpson, Campbell, Sanders and Payton. Then you have guys Smith, Dickerson, Peterson, Faulk, Riggins, Allen, Tomlinson, Sayers. Thomas needs to be ahead of 4 of them to be #10.

No game should ever come down to the last play, but they frequently do. No one plays a perfect game.

 

I'm just tired hearing about how Thurman should have had more carries, Levy should have run another play, Reich didn't get the laces turned, Talley didn't turn up, etc.

 

Just make the kick.

 

Okay if that works for you. 

[JM57]

7 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

 

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

 

I agree with the premise of your argument but I think the way you are framing it hurts it a bit. When you talk about "top X players" you're going to be talking about dominance in their era, etc. 

 

What Thurman really was, was ahead of his time. He was doing what David Johnson or Leveon Bell, or even McCoy do today almost 30 years ago. I was very young during the Bills best days, but as far as I understand it, and looking at the stat lines, that's the best way to frame it. He was cranking out 1000 yards rushing and then adding in 30-50 catches for a couple hundred yards, just like they do now, but in an era where running backs were runners only for the most part

Edited April 14, 2018 by JM57

[The Jokeman]

14 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Shouldn't have come down to a 47 yard FG on grass that was no gimme. 

True. One could argue we left too much time on the clock and run at least one more play.

[Solomon Grundy]

8 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. 

Two thumbs up!! I argue with people about this too. One guy tried to throw out Marshall Faulk. Thurman was one of the most COMPLETE RBs EVER!! I'd rank Thurman behind Marcus Allen only as the most complete.

[Domdab99]

32 minutes ago, vincec said:

 

Just make the kick.

 

Make a kick on grass that he had never made that long before? In the last few seconds of the Super Bowl? A few more yards would've been better. 

 

***

 

You know, it's odd...I think of Bruce, and I can SEE various plays he made. I think of Reed, and I SEE catch after catch and touchdown after touchdown. Hell, I can SEE plays made by Lofton, Tasker,  Odoms...I know Thurman is one of the best ever, and his stats while with this team were incredible. But when I think of him, I don't SEE anything. I just don't remember any one play of his. Well, except for the fumble in the last Super Bowl. That, I remember. 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Domdab99

[Wacka]

Not going to read the whole thread, but Smith's career lasted longer because he ran out of bounds a lot instead of turning it up field and getting hit.

[26CornerBlitz]

7 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Not going to read the whole thread, but Smith's career lasted longer because he ran out of bounds a lot instead of turning it up field and getting hit.

 

Emmitt Smith?  Not true at all.

[DriveFor1Outta5]

53 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

Make a kick on grass that he had never made that long before? In the last few seconds of the Super Bowl? A few more yards would've been better. 

 

***

 

You know, it's odd...I think of Bruce, and I can SEE various plays he made. I think of Reed, and I SEE catch after catch and touchdown after touchdown. Hell, I can SEE plays made by Lofton, Tasker,  Odoms...I know Thurman is one of the best ever, and his stats while with this team were incredible. But when I think of him, I don't SEE anything. I just don't remember any one play of his. Well, except for the fumble in the last Super Bowl. That, I remember. 

Expecting that kick to be made wouldn’t be asking much these days. However,  the kicking game of 2018 is superior to that of the early 90’s. Making a 47 yard field goal was an impressive feat back then. That is no longer the case.

[Steve O]

9 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Since disco? 

 

No...that’s probably not right. 

actually it probably is, or at least close

[Your Brown Eye]

Top 10 All purpose running back easily, top 10 overall running back that's a stretch

[formerlyofCtown]

9 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

 

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

 

Well lets see

B. Sanders-1A

OJ-1B

J.Brown-3

Sweetness-4

ED-5

Marcus Allen-6

Tony Dorsett-7

Marshall Faulk-8

AP-9

Ricky Williams-10

 

 

It's really hard ranking these guys once you get past 4.

 

Most over-rated

Emmit Smith-1-put any one of the ten above players or even Thurman behind his OL

Edgerrin James-2-benefited from Manning Fear

LT-3-only because people talk like he is top 5 all-time, Marshall Faulk and then Thurman are the best of this style of RB.  He is top 15 tho.

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

9 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The difference between these all time great RBs is razor thin. 

 

Agreed.

I think many rankings also are defined by what you are valuing.

 

Longevity?

Emmit.

 

Versatility?

Thurman is pretty high on that list, so is LT and faulk.

 

Power/speed combo style?

Brown, and AP come to mind

 

Agility/moves?

Sweetness, Sanders, Dickerson

 

This is tough with any sport.

As the years go by, more great guys appear.

Some older guys get pushed down the list because young fans can't compare the new guy to a guy they never saw play, while some older fans refuse to move any of the old guys down because "they were the best and you can't change my mind"

Comparing players from different eras is really hard and impossible to do cleanly.

Different training, different rules, different upbringing/college football coaching.

 

It's like trying to compare a 1975 classic muscle car to a sports car today.

Objectively, the modern car decimates the classic in every category.

Speed, efficiency, handling, reliability, everything.

What you can't change is somebody's feelings and nostalgia for that old vehicle, the subjective thoughts on it.

 

Anyway, long post, as always.

 

I think #1-20 is a minute difference in any all time list and any team would be happy with any guy in that ranking.

[Stank_Nasty]

9 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Those were some of my points...

 

emmitt had over 1700 more carries than Thurman... extrapolate Thurman’s 4.2 over 1700 carries and he retires around 18000 and the record

You are totally downplaying smiths durability and productivity through those touches. 

 

Thurmans body was DONE by the time he was in Miami that last season. Transferring Thurman’s 4.2 per carry to another 1700 carries is honestly just foolish. The guys body couldn’t take it. Emmitts did. And tha attribute needs to be equated into the argument. 

[NoSaint]

5 hours ago, folz said:

 

That stat alone gets overlooked way too often. That is a feat!. And he would have been Super Bowl MVP of SB XXV if Norwood's kick went through.

 

 

Call me a Homer, but I honestly always felt that the RBs from that era stacked up as Barry, Thurman, and then Smith. Smith's stats are amazing, but Emmitt had 1,575 more touches than Thurman and 1,510 more touches than Sanders and ran behind one of the best offensive lines in NFL history. But, even if consensus says Smith was a better back than TT, I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out to be. With Barry it is, he could do things that no other human at that time could do. The Michael Jordan of RBs, if you will.

 

And to No Saint who posted his list of guys that would go in the top 10 ahead of TT, I pretty much agree with your first 7, and might add in Tony Dorsett, but then I think you could debate from there between guys like TT and Smith, Peterson, LT, Faulk, Allen, RIggins, etc. And I don't think any of those guys go in over TT without at least a debate. So, I would put Thurman in the 9-12 range all-time. Just my opinion.

 

I just googled a bunch of Best RBs of all-time lists, just to see what the general thought is, and Thurman landed anywhere from 10 to 17 on the many lists I looked at. One list had him at 10 and another at 11, but most had him in the 12-17 range.

That’s about right for me... I wouldn’t cry foul for anything at about 10 down to about 20

 

which is huuuuge praise when you start thinking about how many backs are out there. It’s not a particularly rare body type or skill set - so to really distinguish yourself from the masses takes a lot.

 

the only spot I might push back is that 1500 more touches isn’t just simply an “oh he has more opportunity” but is a real credit to his ability to stay healthy long term with a heavy workload. 

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:

You are totally downplaying smiths durability and productivity through those touches. 

 

Thurmans body was DONE by the time he was in Miami that last season. Transferring Thurman’s 4.2 per carry to another 1700 carries is honestly just foolish. The guys body couldn’t take it. Emmitts did. And tha attribute needs to be equated into the argument. 

That’s a valid argument 

[Stank_Nasty]

Last I knew Thurman was the only guy to ever lead in scrimmage yds 4 years in a row. Is that still the case? 

[NoSaint]

16 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Agreed.

I think many rankings also are defined by what you are valuing.

 

Longevity?

Emmit.

 

Versatility?

Thurman is pretty high on that list, so is LT and faulk.

 

Power/speed combo style?

Brown, and AP come to mind

 

Agility/moves?

Sweetness, Sanders, Dickerson

 

This is tough with any sport.

As the years go by, more great guys appear.

Some older guys get pushed down the list because young fans can't compare the new guy to a guy they never saw play, while some older fans refuse to move any of the old guys down because "they were the best and you can't change my mind"

Comparing players from different eras is really hard and impossible to do cleanly.

Different training, different rules, different upbringing/college football coaching.

 

It's like trying to compare a 1975 classic muscle car to a sports car today.

Objectively, the modern car decimates the classic in every category.

Speed, efficiency, handling, reliability, everything.

What you can't change is somebody's feelings and nostalgia for that old vehicle, the subjective thoughts on it.

 

Anyway, long post, as always.

 

I think #1-20 is a minute difference in any all time list and any team would be happy with any guy in that ranking.

 

All valid- for n addition to style, you’ve got to define whether your looking at careers (longevity) or one game in their prime. 

 

What i find in most of these lists - whether best all time or best of today- there tend to be plateaus and ledges. Small small number at the top(say 2-3), but stretch to about 10 in the first group of elite that can be shuffled around, then about 10 more in a next tier. That’s where Thurman lands for me. There’s a group he’s just not going to be put ahead of, but with just a small dip you find him and some really great other backs that will trade spots in the rankings based on your priorities.

[Buffalo716]

Thurman is the #9 RB on the all time yards from scrimmage list

 

Ahead of Tony Dorsett and others

[Kirby Jackson]

I wouldn’t have Thruman in my top 10 but he would be top 20ish. He was a complete back but didn’t have the game breaking ability of some others. He was a great fit on that Bills team because he could block, catch, run and kept the offense diverse. 

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

All valid- for n addition to style, you’ve got to define whether your looking at careers (longevity) or one game in their prime. 

 

What i find in most of these lists - whether best all time or best of today- there tend to be plateaus and ledges. Small small number at the top(say 2-3), but stretch to about 10 in the first group of elite that can be shuffled around, then about 10 more in a next tier. That’s where Thurman lands for me. There’s a group he’s just not going to be put ahead of, but with just a small dip you find him and some really great other backs that will trade spots in the rankings based on your priorities.

 

Agreed..

I have sweetness, oj, Sanders as my top 3 interchangeable

Then there are about 20 guys I could shuffle into the remaining 7 spots in the top 10 based on how I'm feeling that day.

 

I man look at bo Jackson, imagine if he hadn't been injured?

 

Look at WR: 

 Megatron vs Rice.

Different style of player, Megatron had a better prime, rice the better career

 

Look at MLB pitchers.

Koufax and Pedro had arguably the most dominant 3-4 year stretches of any pitchers ever

Marddux and mussina had longer but less dominant primes.

 

Basketball?

LeBron vs Jordan.

Literally you could argue either way as #1.

[Buffalo716]

16 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

Last I knew Thurman was the only guy to ever lead in scrimmage yds 4 years in a row. Is that still the case? 

 

Yes I put that in my OP

[SouthNYfan]

5 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Thurman is the #9 RB on the all time yards from scrimmage list

 

Ahead of Tony Dorsett and others

 

Frank Gore is #6

Do you think he's better than Thurman?

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

the gold jacket should speak for itself. doesn't mean he was the greatest, but he was great and a buffalo bill so that's all that matters to me.

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[Buffalo716]

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

Frank Gore is #6

Do you think he's better than Thurman?

No but he’s More durable 

 

and he’s going to the HoF so it’s not like he’s a slouch... he’s not better than anyone on that list although he isn’t that far off

 

he had the steadiest career for a modern RB in the last 15 years 

[Lurker]

9 hours ago, whatdrought said:

I wonder how we judge running backs when we get into the conversation about receiving and blocking along with running. Obviously, those are important, but I would bet that a lot of that is going to be scheme related.

 

Thurman was head and shoulders above Saunders and Smith as a receiver, which always seems to be overlooked when taking about RBs.    The total package is how they should be evaluated, but most of the debate always centers on their rushing stats (go figure ).

 

In addition to his rushing, Thurman was a de facto WR in so many games during the glory years.  He averaged a WR-like 11 yards per reception from 1988 to 1992.  His wheel routes were a thing of beauty.

 

If I had to build a team and could pick one RB from that era, Thurman's my guy.    While Saunders was the best pure runner I've ever seen, and Smith was an great combo of power and wiggle, Thurman was the most complete package.   Had he played in a big media market, he would be a household name even today...

[ALLEN1QB]

Thurman Thomas was the man the most complete back I ever seen can you imagine him running behind the line that Emmitt Smith had wow

[SouthNYfan]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

No but he’s More durable 

 

and he’s going to the HoF so it’s not like he’s a slouch... he’s not better than anyone on that list although he isn’t that far off

 

he had the steadiest career for a modern RB in the last 15 years 

 

Agreed.

The dude has been a tank.

I was just saying that taking that single number doesn't tell the whole picture.

I'm a Thurman fan.

I think he gets lost in the shuffle talking about the greats.

He's not top 5 to me, but like I said, 6-20 are splitting hairs

[Gugny]

I tried to go the "all-purpose yards," route to make an argument for Thurman being in the top 10.

 

It's just not there.  At a quick glance, he's 12th all time for All Purpose Yards by a Running Back.

 

I would put him in the top 20 of all time, but I just can't see him in the top 10.

 

I will say that my initial reaction to reading the OP was that he absolutely SHOULD be top 10.  But it didn't take long once I thought about it.

 

Top 20 ain't too bad in my book!

[Buffalo716]

10 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Agreed.

The dude has been a tank.

I was just saying that taking that single number doesn't tell the whole picture.

I'm a Thurman fan.

I think he gets lost in the shuffle talking about the greats.

He's not top 5 to me, but like I said, 6-20 are splitting hairs

 

He isn’t top 5 for me either but after pouring through all the stats it’s not crazy to make the case he is top 10-15 guy

 

his versatility was unmatched... even Faulk couldn’t block like him . He was a modern 3rd down back combined with the speed, power , vision of a workhorse 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Gugny said:

I tried to go the "all-purpose yards," route to make an argument for Thurman being in the top 10.

 

It's just not there.  At a quick glance, he's 12th all time for All Purpose Yards by a Running Back.

 

I would put him in the top 20 of all time, but I just can't see him in the top 10.

 

I will say that my initial reaction to reading the OP was that he absolutely SHOULD be top 10.  But it didn't take long once I thought about it.

 

Top 20 ain't too bad in my book!

 

By my account he is #9 for RB not 12... who are the other 3 you found ahead of him 

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/yds_from_scrimmage_career.htm

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by Buffalo716