IndyJay1234 Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would the Bills have won 2 if not more SuperBowls? Sorry.. Boring Day.. Crazy right? Well my thought process on this is if the Bills had whiffed on a running back that year 1988. 2 years later in 1990 instead of selecting JD Williams the Bills with a need at RB might have taken Emmitt Smith 1 pick ahead of the Cowboys. 1) Hurting the Dallas Cowboys dynasty 2) Getting the stud RB. I am not saying Emmitt is better than Thurman but the question is do you think selecting Thurman cost us 2 Superbowls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would you have rather I started a Bryant Johnson thread? Or a JP vs Edwards thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would you have rather I started a Bryant Johnson thread? Or a JP vs Edwards thread? Yes, a JP vs Edwards thread would be MUCH better than this. Muuuuuuuuuuuch better. I'll get it started, JP sucks, long live Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 Yes, a JP vs Edwards thread would be MUCH better than this. Muuuuuuuuuuuch better. I'll get it started, JP sucks, long live Edwards. Thats cool. I think we would have won 3 Superbowls personally but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would you have rather I started a Bryant Johnson thread? Or a JP vs Edwards thread? yes..... JP vs Edwards + Bryant Johnson - Thurman/Emmitt = Flutie>RJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Thats cool. I think we would have won 3 Superbowls personally but whatever. I was being sarcastic. As for the actual topic, Thurman was the perfect back for our offense. He could run the ball, catch the ball, block, and whatever else you needed. Having Emmit instead of Thurman wouldn't of helped this team IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 I was being sarcastic. As for the actual topic, Thurman was the perfect back for our offense. He could run the ball, catch the ball, block, and whatever else you needed. Having Emmit instead of Thurman wouldn't of helped this team IMO. You miss part of the point... The Cowboys would not have been as good..... It is not a Thurman vs Smith argument but would it hurt the Cowboys enough to cost them the two Superbowls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would you have rather I started a Bryant Johnson thread? Or a JP vs Edwards thread? I don't think it's the thread people have a problem with. Revisiting past moves and the like is something I think people enjoy discussing/debating - especially during the offseason. I'd imagine the Bills history buffs and/or draftniks could have some fun with it. Where I think you lost people was on the line asking if drafting Thurman cost us 2 Super Bowls. That seems like an incredibly huge leap, even if you are just trying to get people involved in the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would the Bills have won 2 if not more SuperBowls?Sorry.. Boring Day.. Crazy right? Well my thought process on this is if the Bills had whiffed on a running back that year 1988. 2 years later in 1990 instead of selecting JD Williams the Bills with a need at RB might have taken Emmitt Smith 1 pick ahead of the Cowboys. 1) Hurting the Dallas Cowboys dynasty 2) Getting the stud RB. I am not saying Emmitt is better than Thurman but the question is do you think selecting Thurman cost us 2 Superbowls? Om...Om...Om...Om... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You miss part of the point... The Cowboys would not have been as good..... It is not a Thurman vs Smith argument but would it hurt the Cowboys enough to cost them the two Superbowls? Probably not. They would still have had thier QB. I think the biggest reason they killed us is because our defense was next to last both years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Probably not. They would still have had thier QB. I think the biggest reason they killed us is because our defense was next to last both years... And I remember their O-line being absolutely huge - and dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndyJay1234 Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 I don't think it's the thread people have a problem with. Revisiting past moves and the like is something I think people enjoy discussing/debating - especially during the offseason. I'd imagine the Bills history buffs and/or draftniks could have some fun with it. Where I think you lost people was on the line asking if drafting Thurman cost us 2 Super Bowls. That seems like an incredibly huge leap, even if you are just trying to get people involved in the conversation. I guess my point is if the Cowboys do not wind up getting Emmitt Smith they dont Win 3 Superbowls. I could have also started the thread with instead of JD Williams the Bills draft Emmitt Smith and lock him in a basement somewhere do the Bills win 2 more Superbowls because of the impact to the Cowboys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 You miss part of the point... The Cowboys would not have been as good..... It is not a Thurman vs Smith argument but would it hurt the Cowboys enough to cost them the two Superbowls? I hadn't thought about it from that standpoint. The cowboys would have been worse, but i feel we would have been as well. The cowboys might not have been in as many superbowls, but niether would we. And the team that would've gotten Thurman would've become better, possibly hurting our chances in the playoffs/superbowl. Too many variables to know what would have happened, I'm just glad we had TT on our team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I hadn't thought about it from that standpoint. The cowboys would have been worse, but i feel we would have been as well. The cowboys might not have been in as many superbowls, but niether would we. And the team that would've gotten Thurman would've become better, possibly hurting our chances in the playoffs/superbowl. Too many variables to know what would have happened, I'm just glad we had TT on our team. Us having Emmitt and them Thurman? I think things wouldn't have changed much at all. It wouldn't have made Jeff Wright suited to play NT in a 3-4 defense. He could have been great in a 4-3 as an under tackle, but that doesn't matter now. Aside form the First half of the final superbowl, our defense got pushed around by bigger offensive lines. Emmitt couldn't possibly been any better than Thurman in SB XXV, and he wouldn't have done much in the other three either. Both were great backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Paulson Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 And I remember their O-line being absolutely huge - and dominant. exavtly- that line made emmit into the HOF back he wasn't touched till he was into the secondary half the time- any back they would have drafted would be in the HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Us having Emmitt and them Thurman? I think things wouldn't have changed much at all. It wouldn't have made Jeff Wright suited to play NT in a 3-4 defense. He could have been great in a 4-3 as an under tackle, but that doesn't matter now. Aside form the First half of the final superbowl, our defense got pushed around by bigger offensive lines. Emmitt couldn't possibly been any better than Thurman in SB XXV, and he wouldn't have done much in the other three either. Both were great backs. No, I meant we would of had Emmit, and some other team would've gotten thurman (not the cowboys). Emmit was a different type of back, Thurman was a perfect fit for us. Emmit was great, I just don't think we would have been as good with him. And the cowboys definately wouldn't have been as good with whatever scrub they got to play RB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 No, I meant we would of had Emmit, and some other team would've gotten thurman (not the cowboys). Emmit was a different type of back, Thurman was a perfect fit for us. Emmit was great, I just don't think we would have been as good with him. And the cowboys definately wouldn't have been as good with whatever scrub they got to play RB. I asked emmit and here's what he said: Don't try to use thurman as an escape goat, the team who have more points will win a game, the superbowl have no differnt, so if I wasn't in the feel of play in the cowboys, is the game have been play, the winner will be vicarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huuuge Bills Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 I asked emmit and here's what he said: Don't try to use thurman as an escape goat, the team who have more points will win a game, the superbowl have no differnt, so if I wasn't in the feel of play in the cowboys, is the game have been play, the winner will be vicarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Would you have rather I started a Bryant Johnson thread? Or a JP vs Edwards thread? Anything would be better than this one. Just because you are bored does not mean you do something like this. Find something better to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts