K-Gun10 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 These nutjobs debate our thurman vs faulk thought you guys would like this? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2809413 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball'n Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2809413 Joe Theismann: He compares extremely well to Thurman Thomas, but Thomas gets the edge because he went to four Super Bowls and without him that Bills team isn't nearly as good. Not to say that the Rams were a great team without Faulk, but Thomas was more of the engine than Faulk was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Eric Allen obviously has his head up his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Eric Allen obviously has his head up his ass. I don't know, as much as a Bills fan and a Thurman fan as I am, I have to say it probably is a push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know, as much as a Bills fan and a Thurman fan as I am, I have to say it probably is a push. As much as I dislike Theismann for his general "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" general display of obnoxious dumbassness, I think he hits the nail on the head on this one: Thurman was the cog of the whole Bills engine. He was the offense and the main reason we had our SB run and without him we would never been so consistent. Faulk is no doubt a great player but he is the 1b, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 As much as I dislike Theismann for his general "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" general display of obnoxious dumbassness, I think he hits the nail on the head on this one: Thurman was the cog of the whole Bills engine. He was the offense and the main reason we had our SB run and without him we would never been so consistent. Faulk is no doubt a great player but he is the 1b, imo. I don't think he hit the nail on the head at all, living in Saint Louis I am forced to watch a lot of Rams football. As dynamic as that offense was, it wouldn't have been the same without Faulk (who was the league MVP the year they won the SB if I'm not mistaken). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 U guys have no faith in Kenneth Davis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Faulk: +--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | 1994 ind | 16 | 314 1282 4.1 11 | 52 522 10.0 1 | | 1995 ind | 16 | 289 1078 3.7 11 | 56 475 8.5 3 | | 1996 ind | 13 | 198 587 3.0 7 | 56 428 7.6 0 | | 1997 ind | 16 | 264 1054 4.0 7 | 47 471 10.0 1 | | 1998 ind | 16 | 324 1319 4.1 6 | 86 908 10.6 4 | | 1999 stl | 16 | 253 1381 5.5 7 | 87 1048 12.0 5 | | 2000 stl | 14 | 253 1359 5.4 18 | 81 830 10.2 8 | | 2001 stl | 14 | 260 1382 5.3 12 | 83 765 9.2 9 | | 2002 stl | 14 | 212 953 4.5 8 | 80 537 6.7 2 | | 2003 stl | 11 | 209 818 3.9 10 | 45 290 6.4 1 | | 2004 stl | 14 | 195 774 4.0 3 | 50 310 6.2 1 | | 2005 stl | 16 | 65 292 4.5 0 | 44 291 6.6 1 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | TOTAL | 176 | 2836 12279 4.3 100 | 767 6875 9.0 36 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ Thurman: +--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | 1988 buf | 15 | 207 881 4.3 2 | 18 208 11.6 0 | | 1989 buf | 16 | 298 1244 4.2 6 | 60 669 11.2 6 | | 1990 buf | 16 | 271 1297 4.8 11 | 49 532 10.9 2 | | 1991 buf | 15 | 288 1407 4.9 7 | 62 631 10.2 5 | | 1992 buf | 16 | 312 1487 4.8 9 | 58 626 10.8 3 | | 1993 buf | 16 | 355 1315 3.7 6 | 48 387 8.1 0 | | 1994 buf | 15 | 287 1093 3.8 7 | 50 349 7.0 2 | | 1995 buf | 14 | 267 1005 3.8 6 | 26 220 8.5 2 | | 1996 buf | 15 | 281 1033 3.7 8 | 26 254 9.8 0 | | 1997 buf | 16 | 154 643 4.2 1 | 30 208 6.9 0 | | 1998 buf | 14 | 93 381 4.1 2 | 26 220 8.5 1 | | 1999 buf | 5 | 36 152 4.2 0 | 3 37 12.3 1 | | 2000 mia | 9 | 28 136 4.9 0 | 16 117 7.3 1 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | TOTAL | 182 | 2877 12074 4.2 65 | 472 4458 9.4 23 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ I know stats don't always tell the whole story but this one is interesting. Their numbers are remarkably similar. I always felt Faulk was a better athlete than Thurman but both benefitted from bieng in wide open offenses. Faulk was used more in the recieving game, somewhat surprisingly. I think all things being equal, Faulk was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't think he hit the nail on the head at all, living in Saint Louis I am forced to watch a lot of Rams football. As dynamic as that offense was, it wouldn't have been the same without Faulk (who was the league MVP the year they won the SB if I'm not mistaken). NO DAMNIT YOU'RE WRONG!!! j/k no i obviously see your point. it is a tough one. i'm completely biased, i admit, and i'm too lazy at the moment to put more effort into a more in-depth argument. hopefully someone else will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I think all things being equal, Faulk was better. Thurman might be my favorite Bill of all time but I agree with you. Thurman and Faulk were very similar players but Faulk had the speed/big play ability that Thurman didn't have. Imo, that gives Faulk the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 NO DAMNIT YOU'RE WRONG!!! j/k no i obviously see your point. it is a tough one. i'm completely biased, i admit, and i'm too lazy at the moment to put more effort into a more in-depth argument. hopefully someone else will Fair Enough, I know the feeling. I still think its a push. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Thurman might be my favorite Bill of all time but I agree with you. Thurman and Faulk were very similar players but Faulk had the speed/big play ability that Thurman didn't have. Imo, that gives Faulk the edge. IIRC, Marshall had ridiculous speed coming out of college, like 4.2 - 40 yard dash stuff. Not that it's the be all end all, but he had multiple 300 yard rushing games in college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball'n Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 It is pretty much a push. Thurman was more of an engine, as Theismann stated, while Faulk had more of a big play ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I just remembered this, fwiw: The Colts got a 2nd and 5th round draft pick, iirc, for Faulk from the Rams. A 2nd and 5th for a HOF player. Good deal, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Thurman was a much, much better inside runner and better at getting yards on his own while Faulk had better top end speed and more "juke him out of his jock strap" type moves. It's an interesting argument for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 As much as I dislike Theismann for his general "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" general display of obnoxious dumbassness, I think he hits the nail on the head on this one: Thurman was the cog of the whole Bills engine. He was the offense and the main reason we had our SB run and without him we would never been so consistent. Faulk is no doubt a great player but he is the 1b, imo. And it showed on the Superbowl day...When he did not peform, the bills lost....Even the bowl against the Giants, he did not get more touches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 VERY close. Faulk a little more explosive and TT a little more "make something out of nothing". I'm going with TT by a hair ( a red one) for 2 reasons: #1. TT seemingly never took a full-on hit. He got the extra yardor two just by his amazing body control and ability to know when, and where from, the hit was coming. (English The Dean not so syntax good ) #2. NEVER go against the family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Thurman was obviously the better back. Our Defense always contained Faulk. He never did well against our D. Our D never touched Thurman. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts