Is Gore the niners best RB EVER??

Hearst's injury (necrosis of the bone), was considerably worse than a knee injury. He lost two years because of it.

Gore's injury affected his college career, not his pro career.

Originally posted by kray28:
Hearst's injury (necrosis of the bone), was considerably worse than a knee injury. He lost two years because of it.

Gore's injury affected his college career, not his pro career.

Definitely a valid point. You might be taking 2 blown out knees just a little lightly, but I see where you're coming from.


But we aren't taking about injuries, here. We're talking about the running ability, and my opinion is Gore takes the cookies. And I love Hearst. I saw almost every home game he ever played live.

Originally posted by kray28:
Hearst was better....by a fair bit. Take away the injury, and Hearst might have been greatest in Niner history. There's a good argument that Hearst really was (if you don't count OJ).

During the 1998 season, Hearst had a stretch of 4 straight games where he had a run of 70 yards or greater.

Anyone remember the OT run (96 yards) against the Jets?

Really think Gore could have pulled off that run? Hearst was just as strong, but quite a bit faster than Gore.

Yes and I'll never forget the look on Parcell's face either as he watched victory slip away.

Hearst was awesome. Little quicker but not more or even as powerful. F0

Originally posted by kray28:
Hearst's injury (necrosis of the bone), was considerably worse than a knee injury. He lost two years because of it.

Gore's injury affected his college career, not his pro career.

He lost some of his straightline speed due to his injuries so yes it has affected his pro career. Just sayin.

Could be; I voted yes. If he is he should end up in the Hall like Perry and McElhenney. Hopefully Craig too soon. I'm afraid Frank won't get the recognition he deserves though because the teams have been so terrible during his career.

Originally posted by bigmike55:
He needs that shiny little piece of jewelry on his finger they call a Superbowl ring, preferably more than one... in order to be in that catagory.

Not necessarily... He needs to have a great team behind him to get that ring. I believe he is the greatest and most polished running back to wear red and gold. It seems like a double standard for QBs I know... but QBs lead the team and we judge how good a QB is at the end by the rings on his fingers. But back when we were a superbowl favorite If we lost Montana/Young or Rice we would've been done. Right now without Frank Gore we are nothing. He is that good and that important to us. If Smith can continue to play like a leader and the accuracy he did tonight from 2nd quarter on Frank Gore will have an even bigger pro bowl year than he did previously.

i live in north dakota i saw a lot more of watters because they were always on the TV back thenvbut he was not the cutback runner that gore is craig was a reggie bush type running back no a pure runner

Originally posted by kray28:
Hearst was better....by a fair bit. Take away the injury, and Hearst might have been greatest in Niner history. There's a good argument that Hearst really was (if you don't count OJ).

During the 1998 season, Hearst had a stretch of 4 straight games where he had a run of 70 yards or greater.

Anyone remember the OT run (96 yards) against the Jets?

Really think Gore could have pulled off that run? Hearst was just as strong, but quite a bit faster than Gore.

good luck getting the massage across to the under 20 crowd.

Originally posted by jed_york:

Originally posted by kray28:
Hearst was better....by a fair bit. Take away the injury, and Hearst might have been greatest in Niner history. There's a good argument that Hearst really was (if you don't count OJ).

During the 1998 season, Hearst had a stretch of 4 straight games where he had a run of 70 yards or greater.

Anyone remember the OT run (96 yards) against the Jets?

Really think Gore could have pulled off that run? Hearst was just as strong, but quite a bit faster than Gore.

good luck getting the massage across to the under 20 crowd.

Hearst was always my favorite too. he would run into a huge pile up and somehow come out the other side everytime lol. Gore is a hell of a runningback and i think he will have better numbers if he doesnt already but hearst when healthy was the best. if he didnt break his leg in the playoffs in 98 i believe? we woulda won another superbowl, no one could stop him that year. Gore can catch, blocks amazingly well and is very shifty but he lacks the high end speed hearst had. two great backs and its nice to be able to have a conversation like this. i love em both and i hope Gore surpasses him but Hearst is still my favorite.

Ask me in 3 years

Garrison Hearst

Originally posted by wysiwyg:

Originally posted by skynet907:
he broke the franchises record of most 100 yd games tonight.

#80 was retired tonight

Ricky Watters could have had the record.

I love me some Frank but he will now be judged according to jewelry

This only applies to QBs.

Gore is a great RB, no doubt. With Gore, I think this team is capable of a 10-6 season and a division title. Without him, probably 7-9 or 8-8 at best (easy schedule). We'd probably be passing a lot more, but that's something we've shown we're capable of doing. We might win some regular season games, but I doubt we'd get to the playoffs without him. Even if we did, we wouldn't get very far.

A lot of people think it's between Gore and Hearst. Hearst was valuable to his team. You take away Hearst and you end up with guys like Terry Kirby. We didn't have any depth back then. You take away Gore and you end up with Dixon and Westbrook. However, our QB at that time was Steve Young and he could probably get by with an average RB. Even with Kirby, we still played Atlanta tough and only lost by 2 points in the playoffs, in Atlanta. Overall, it's a close one, but I think Gore is more valuable to his team than Heart was, just due to the fact that Alex Smith is his QB. That's not a knock on Smith, it's just that Steve Young is legendary. Hearst also benefited by playing with a couple Hall members. Talent wise, the players are very similar, but if you analyze it, I think Gore beats out Hearst. Not only is Gore more valuable to his team, but his stats are superior to Hearst's.

We've had some pretty damn good RBs though. It's hard picking the best one. They all had their strengths and weaknesses. If I absolutely had to pick, I'd probably go with Craig, Gore, and Hearst, in that order. Charlie Garner wasn't too shabby either. He just didn't stick around too for long. Same with Watters. Barlow had only one decent 1,000 yard season. I won't comment on anyone before Craig because I never watched them play.

Final answer: Craig. He could run, catch, and block better than anyone besides possibly Marshall Faulk. However, if Gore ends up this year with 1,000 yards and maybe 700-800 yards recieving (which he's on pace for so far), then I'd probably go with Gore over Craig. For him getting so much attention, he's only had 3 1,000 yard seasons. Gore already has 4 and he's still under 30. Craig has the rings, but you can't fault Gore for that. You put Gore on those old teams, they probably end up with the same number of rings.

Whilst Craig got better support from playing for a better team, the other side of that particular coin is that he had to compete against a lot of other targets. Rice, Taylor, Jones, Rathman. Just the starters!

That's going to remain Roger Craig for me.