Hearst or Watters?

i remember one year we had derek lovile as our starting back. :p

Ricky rocked the flat top better.

Ricky Watters.... Truly he should be in the HOF. Little known fact: He has 3 TD's in our last SB win! Of coarse Young got MVP.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history/boxscore/sbxxix

What does it matter now?

Originally posted by RDB4216:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
No kidding. IIRC he short armed a pass in a critical situation then basically said he didn't care.

No, he short armed a poorly thrown pass - in garbage time.

The worst part was that it happened during his first game as an Eagle.

We won a superbowl with Watters

I really enjoyed watching Watters run. His long stride and high knees reminded me of Roger Craig or Eric Dickerson. Not as good as either of them but their styles were similar. What made Watters even more fun to watch was he receiving ability out of the back field. His over the shoulder catches were better than any WR we currently have on the team. Part of that was who was throwing him the ball :)

Gore

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
The worst part was that it happened during his first game as an Eagle.

That's kind of my point. He had a great attitude while he was a 49er, but that changed after he left. This was a kid who loved to play football! Go back and look at his early games - watch him get tackled and flip back to his feet, or do a spin move out of the huddle - in preseason games. He was pure energy all the time. He got asked in his second season (he missed his rookie year with an injury) if the way he was used at Notre Dame cost him a shot at the Heisman. All he talked about was how Lou Holtz made him a multi-dimensional players - able to play running back, flanker, and able to return kicks and punts. He said that lead to him being a 49er, and he wouldn't go back and change anything.

Then his contract came up. The best RB we had since Roger Craig. THREE TD's in the Super Bowl. And it "earned" him a low contract offer from the 49ers. That's what changed it from a "game" to a "business" for him. "For what, for who?" says it all - why should I get killed in garbage time of a game we've already lost, when nobody is going to appreciate it later? Was it the right thing to say? Of course not. If he felt that way or not, saying it simply put a black mark on his career that he will never be able to wipe away. But he was a passionate and emotional kid, and he said what he thought.

The way the 49ers treated him, caused a situation where both sides lost. Watters developed the selfish attitude, and the 49ers were left with a pathetic run game. I think it was of the worst personnel decisions the team had made since leaving Ronnie Lott unprotected in Plan B.

Amp Lee

Derek Loville

Terrance Flagler.

In all seriousness, Hearst was a great runner. But Watters was so dangerous as a receiver. If Hearst was playing now we would look at him like Frank Gore. Watters would be considered one of the superstars of the league right now. He gets overlooked because of the players around him but the guy was a difference maker.

Originally posted by jones49:

Amp Lee

Originally posted by RDB4216:

That's kind of my point. He had a great attitude while he was a 49er, but that changed after he left. This was a kid who loved to play football! Go back and look at his early games - watch him get tackled and flip back to his feet, or do a spin move out of the huddle - in preseason games. He was pure energy all the time. He got asked in his second season (he missed his rookie year with an injury) if the way he was used at Notre Dame cost him a shot at the Heisman. All he talked about was how Lou Holtz made him a multi-dimensional players - able to play running back, flanker, and able to return kicks and punts. He said that lead to him being a 49er, and he wouldn't go back and change anything.

Then his contract came up. The best RB we had since Roger Craig. THREE TD's in the Super Bowl. And it "earned" him a low contract offer from the 49ers. That's what changed it from a "game" to a "business" for him. "For what, for who?" says it all - why should I get killed in garbage time of a game we've already lost, when nobody is going to appreciate it later? Was it the right thing to say? Of course not. If he felt that way or not, saying it simply put a black mark on his career that he will never be able to wipe away. But he was a passionate and emotional kid, and he said what he thought.

The way the 49ers treated him, caused a situation where both sides lost. Watters developed the selfish attitude, and the 49ers were left with a pathetic run game. I think it was of the worst personnel decisions the team had made since leaving Ronnie Lott unprotected in Plan B.

Originally posted by RDB4216:

That's kind of my point. He had a great attitude while he was a 49er, but that changed after he left. This was a kid who loved to play football! Go back and look at his early games - watch him get tackled and flip back to his feet, or do a spin move out of the huddle - in preseason games. He was pure energy all the time. He got asked in his second season (he missed his rookie year with an injury) if the way he was used at Notre Dame cost him a shot at the Heisman. All he talked about was how Lou Holtz made him a multi-dimensional players - able to play running back, flanker, and able to return kicks and punts. He said that lead to him being a 49er, and he wouldn't go back and change anything.

Then his contract came up. The best RB we had since Roger Craig. THREE TD's in the Super Bowl. And it "earned" him a low contract offer from the 49ers. That's what changed it from a "game" to a "business" for him. "For what, for who?" says it all - why should I get killed in garbage time of a game we've already lost, when nobody is going to appreciate it later? Was it the right thing to say? Of course not. If he felt that way or not, saying it simply put a black mark on his career that he will never be able to wipe away. But he was a passionate and emotional kid, and he said what he thought.

The way the 49ers treated him, caused a situation where both sides lost. Watters developed the selfish attitude, and the 49ers were left with a pathetic run game. I think it was of the worst personnel decisions the team had made since leaving Ronnie Lott unprotected in Plan B.

This!

I think Garrison was better at everything but catching the football.

Garrison was a better runner, had more speed, was a better blocker and was a better teammate.

Ricky could have been a WR and was a great weapon out of the backfield, but Garrison had him beat everwhere else.

Originally posted by RDB4216:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
The worst part was that it happened during his first game as an Eagle.

That's kind of my point. He had a great attitude while he was a 49er, but that changed after he left. This was a kid who loved to play football! Go back and look at his early games - watch him get tackled and flip back to his feet, or do a spin move out of the huddle - in preseason games. He was pure energy all the time. He got asked in his second season (he missed his rookie year with an injury) if the way he was used at Notre Dame cost him a shot at the Heisman. All he talked about was how Lou Holtz made him a multi-dimensional players - able to play running back, flanker, and able to return kicks and punts. He said that lead to him being a 49er, and he wouldn't go back and change anything.

Then his contract came up. The best RB we had since Roger Craig. THREE TD's in the Super Bowl. And it "earned" him a low contract offer from the 49ers. That's what changed it from a "game" to a "business" for him. "For what, for who?" says it all - why should I get killed in garbage time of a game we've already lost, when nobody is going to appreciate it later? Was it the right thing to say? Of course not. If he felt that way or not, saying it simply put a black mark on his career that he will never be able to wipe away. But he was a passionate and emotional kid, and he said what he thought.

The way the 49ers treated him, caused a situation where both sides lost. Watters developed the selfish attitude, and the 49ers were left with a pathetic run game. I think it was of the worst personnel decisions the team had made since leaving Ronnie Lott unprotected in Plan B.

I think letting Ricky go was a mistake, but I call BS on the other stuff. Ricky got a reality check when he realized that not every other team is SF. He had more yards but his YPC dropped and he was never as dangerous a threat as he was in SF.

Ricky was sometimes misunderstood...but there was WAY to much "me" in his game.

I'm also not hating on the guy. He was my fav player at the time. I still have his jersey sitting in my closet next to my Garrison jersey.