Thurman Thomas didnt even win a super bowl. He put up okay numbers but art monk should have been in instead of Thomas. I think Michael Irvin deserved it because of who he was. I'm a dallsa fan though but stop talking about him. Thomas didnt deserve it.
2007-02-04 06:19:40 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Thomas was the star running back on one of the best teams of all times. Just because they didn't win a superbowl doesn't mean much, because they still went to 4, which is huge. I do agree that Art should've been in first, but disagree with your Irvin comment. I think Irvin is deserving of the HOF nod, but not because of "who he was," as you put it, because he was a crackhead. There are so many players that have been kept out of the Hall because of their off the field problems and Irvin should still be sweating it out. I think Monk should've been in over Irvin this year and Irvin should've had to wait a little while longer.
2007-02-04 06:28:30 · answer #1 · answered by Phat Kidd 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think Irvin was all that great. He may have benefitted from the players around him and that may have made him better than he was. Don't forget who Irvin had on that team with him (on offense) - Aikman as QB, Emmitt Smith as RB, Novachek at TE, Alvin Harper was the WR on the other side, and the offensive line was very solid. If the line wasn't as good, if he didn't have Aikman at QB, Smith at RB, and another receiver and TE to take the coverage pressure off of him, I don't see him as great at all.
Thomas, on the other hand, had a good offensive line, but the passing game in Buffalo had no TE that was reliable to the point Novachek was, and had his numbers on a team that was set up for a passing attack for a few years. That, in itself, is an accomplishment when a player can run for over 1,000 yards a season when his team is using 3 and 4 receiver sets.
But, that also proves my point for Emmitt Smith when he becomes eligible, becuase he was capable of the same, when not many backs are.
2007-02-04 14:38:56 · answer #2 · answered by Kaotik29 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thomas deserved it. Monk was getting in when another WR went in. Let alone when a coke head gets in. Thomas deserves it more then Irvin, rings aren't everything in a TEAM sport.
2007-02-04 14:27:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
thomas was so consistent that he deserved to be in. he put up good numbers year in year out. i think monk deserved to be in also but he didn't have any huge years. I mean he just hung around forever and he was good but not a lot of big catches.
2007-02-04 14:29:26 · answer #4 · answered by big stan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Should Dan Fouts and Dan Marino be excluded from the HOF as well since they didn't win the Super Bowl either?
On the flip side, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson won the Super Bowl- Should they be in the HOF? By your reasoning, yes they should.
2007-02-04 14:24:13 · answer #5 · answered by brian2412 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, i think he does deserve to be in the HOF ´cause no other team has reached 4 straight superbowls and he was fundamental for Bills in those days, if that weren´t true neither JIM KELLY were reached the hall of fame.
2007-02-04 14:24:09 · answer #6 · answered by oso 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋