Your Brown Eye Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Top 10 All purpose running back easily, top 10 overall running back that's a stretch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerlyofCtown Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Nasty Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo716 Posted April 14, 2018 Author Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Nasty Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Last I knew Thurman was the only guy to ever lead in scrimmage yds 4 years in a row. Is that still the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo716 Posted April 14, 2018 Author Share Posted April 14, 2018 Thurman is the #9 RB on the all time yards from scrimmage list Ahead of Tony Dorsett and others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo716 Posted April 14, 2018 Author Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 (edited) 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo716 Posted April 14, 2018 Author Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo716 Posted April 14, 2018 Author Share Posted April 14, 2018 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts