K-9 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Somewhere Bill "Earthquake" Enyart sits and stews. Love TT, but it's Juice and it's not even close IMO. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Jim Braxton was the best. A fullback capable of rushing for over 100 yards and a great blocker. WHOA there....I watched Cookie Gilchrist and I watched Jim Braxton. Jim Braxton wasn't even close to Cookie in either blocking or running. He also played linebacker, punted and kicked field goals. Gilchrist Simpson Thomas were the best running backs and Gilchrist may have been the greatest fullback in the history of the AFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Me too, shouldn't even be a tough choice if you only take his football career into consideration. Something tells me Thomas will come out on top though, even if fans don't vote that way. Not a tough choice? I'm thinking people are on a bit of crack when they compare these two players. I voted for Thurman, and I think he was the best weapon in the NFL for about 5 years in a row. Many coaches thought that way too. Many thought the key to stopping the Bills attack in the 90's was predicated on stopping Thurman. But not even close you say? Ummmmmmmmmmm.... Total Yards Rushing: Thurman 12,074 OJ 11,236 Rushing TD's Thurman 65 OJ 61 YPC Thurman 4.2 OJ 4.7 Receptions Thurman 472 OJ 203 Rec Yards Thurman 4458 OJ 2142 REC TD's Thurman 23 OJ 14 PLAYOFFS (This is in addition to the regular season) Thurman 1442 Yards / 21 TD's / 4.3 YPC / 76 REC - 672 Yards OJ - 49 yards, 1 TD / 3.3 YPC / 3 REC / 37 Yards THen, add that Thurman Thomas may have be the best blocking back in the history of the game. He was fearless picking up the blitz. I have to honestly say I don't know much about OJ in this dept. I'm tending to think OJ was the much more pure runner but Thomas was overall the better player. I had ZERO problem voting Thomas over OJ, and it had nothing to do with off field issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 WHOA there....I watched Cookie Gilchrist and I watched Jim Braxton. Jim Braxton wasn't even close to Cookie in either blocking or running. He also played linebacker, punted and kicked field goals. Gilchrist Simpson Thomas were the best running backs and Gilchrist may have been the greatest fullback in the history of the AFL. Nutshell. Loved Cookie way back when. Saw him stumble out of the Park Meadow when I was a kid. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 from wikipedia Though he was only with the Bills for three years (1962-1964), he remains the team's fifth leading rusher all-time, and led the league in scoring in each of his three years as a Bill. Gilchrist was legendary as a pass defense blocker. Cookies' teamwork and willingness to "step up" and block for quarterbacks was a key part of his Bills contributions, and made the Bills offense of the era a unique challenge to defend. Gilchrist ran for 122 yards in the Bills' 1964 American Football League championship defeat of the San Diego Chargers, 20-7. His 4.5 yd/rush average is second as a Bill only to O.J. Simpson. He is on second team ALL TIME AFL as full back as well, was league MVP...you gotta go with the Cookie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a player to be named later Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I hope that Larry Felser writes an article on this... I would love to see his team and reasoning. On another note, Did Eric Moulds make your top receiver list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 disgrace that there is one spot. OJ, Cookie then Thurman. OJs 4.7ypc was even though his teams were either bad or at best averagely good. OJ and Bruce were the best Bills players ever. OJ was to the offence what was Bruce was to the D and maybe more. About Thurman being better. OJ was the only thing teams had to defend against. Bobby and JD didn't even compare to Lofton and Reed and Pete. Cookie was a bull. Thurman was great but sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Jim Braxton was the best. A fullback capable of rushing for over 100 yards and a great blocker. Braxton was an excellent player but Gilcrest was legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 When comparing Simpson's and Thomas' stats, remember two things: -Receiving stats don't match up because back then, not many teams used the RBs for anything more than a safety valve in the passing game. Check some of the other featured backs from the '70s; not many 60-catch seasons among them. (In fact, not many 60-catch seasons by anyone -- one each by a WR in 1971-73, before backs like Lydell Mitchell and Chuck Foreman helped usher in a new era by leading the league in receptions the next two years.) That said, No. 32 could catch the ball -- when he broke the NFL record by scoring 23 touchdowns in 1975, seven were on pass receptions. -In 1973, Simpson's legendary 2,003-yard season, he was playing with a rookie QB and RG (albeit one who turned out to be pretty darn good), Bubby Braxton only played in six of 14 games due to injury, and starting WRs J.D. Hill and Bobby Chandler combined for a grand total of 59 receptions. The Bills ran 601 times and passed just 213 (including two attempts by Simpson). Defenses knew 32 was getting the ball, and getting it often, but it didn't matter -- he still averaged an astounding 6.0 yards per carry. Thurman was a great player. Simpson was perhaps the best I've ever seen. Absolutely feel free to take his despicable off-the-field actions into account when you vote. I probably will. But if you're basing it solely on their playing careers, in my opinion, the choice is relatively clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 hey thats what I said Lori (of course you said it better) What do you think of Cookie vs Thurman? Both played all around games, in their own way for their eras. Both very feared weapons but very different. Both instramental in Buffalo afl/afc championships........ I pick Cookie because of his smash mouthness (and maybe because his feelings for Ralph). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 When comparing Simpson's and Thomas' stats, remember two things:-Receiving stats don't match up because back then, not many teams used the RBs for anything more than a safety valve in the passing game. Check some of the other featured backs from the '70s; not many 60-catch seasons among them. (In fact, not many 60-catch seasons by anyone -- one each by a WR in 1971-73, before backs like Lydell Mitchell and Chuck Foreman helped usher in a new era by leading the league in receptions the next two years.) That said, No. 32 could catch the ball -- when he broke the NFL record by scoring 23 touchdowns in 1975, seven were on pass receptions. -In 1973, Simpson's legendary 2,003-yard season, he was playing with a rookie QB and RG (albeit one who turned out to be pretty darn good), Bubby Braxton only played in six of 14 games due to injury, and starting WRs J.D. Hill and Bobby Chandler combined for a grand total of 59 receptions. The Bills ran 601 times and passed just 213 (including two attempts by Simpson). Defenses knew 32 was getting the ball, and getting it often, but it didn't matter -- he still averaged an astounding 6.0 yards per carry. Thurman was a great player. Simpson was perhaps the best I've ever seen. Absolutely feel free to take his despicable off-the-field actions into account when you vote. I probably will. But if you're basing it solely on their playing careers, in my opinion, the choice is relatively clear. Great job, as always, Lori. People love to look at stats and think they know the whole story. This isn't fantasy football. If you look at stats, you need to see them in context of the entire situation. Looking things up in an encyclopedia tells you nothing without the proper context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts