There are 73 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Is Gore HOF bound if we win some bowches?

Is Gore HOF bound if we win some bowches?

Originally posted by 5280High:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
RB's who aren't in the hall and have had better overall careers than Frank Gore thus far...

Fred Taylor
Edgerrin James
Ricky Waters
Warrick Dunn
Jamal Lewis
Corey Dillon
Eddie George
Shaun Alexander (sadly)
Tiki Barber (arguably)
Priest Holmes
Jerome Bettis
Terrell Davis (debatable)
Roger Craig

What Frank needs is more years, yards, TD's, and a ring. Otherwise, he'll be chllin' with these guys waiting to get in.

Yep, even with a ring or two I dont think he would get in. The RB standards for the hall need refinement, right now its more about luck and longevity. Take Terrell Davis, an injury shortened career but when his first 4 seasons were debatably the best ever by a running back.
"Through his first four seasons, Davis rushed for 6,413 yards (4.8 yards per carry) and 56 touchdowns. Among the 24 modern-era Hall of Fame halfbacks and fullbacks, only Earl Campbell (6,457, 4.6 yards per carry) and Eric Dickerson (6,968, 4.8 yards per carry) had more rushing yards during their first four seasons; no member of the Hall of Fame matched Davis' first-four-season 56 rushing touchdowns."

Then he got injured and was forced to retire a couple seasons after. With all the younger guys coming through the pipeline too, the hall needs to adjust their standards so guys who have injury shortened careers stand a chance. Would anyone take Curtis Martin in his prime over TD in his? probably not, but based on longevity Martin stands a much better chance of getting in.

Curtis Matin got in last year!
Originally posted by VDpwndMjenkins:
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
I love me some Bowches

Where my bowches at ??

Bowches ain't s**t but hos and tricks.
nope
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Curtis Matin got in last year!

Yeah I wasnt really paying attention to what I was typing... the point I was trying to make was more that if either player were healthy, 10 out of 10 teams would chose TD as their starter over CM, but TD's chances of getting in the hall are slim, where as CM's chances were very good (obviously).
10k yards and 2 rings gets you in, don't know why so many people think otherwise. How many running backs have even accomplished that in the history of the league?
[ Edited by DirtyP on Jun 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM ]
  • luv49rs
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 51,555
I would say so, if he broke 10K yards and got a ring I'd say theres a good chance. 2 rings, for sure
I got 99 problems, but a bowch ain't one.
Originally posted by eamjr10:
Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
Your thread title is invalrod...and no, Frank is good, but not transcendent, I understand that some of you in the "every one gets pizza" generation will say I'm a "hater", but screw it, Frank never lifted this team to the play offs, and when this team finally lifted him to the play offs...he came up small. When we old timers talk about hall of famers, we talk about titans, men who stood above all others, men who stood above the game itself, men who transcend the game, and become a part of the games history so large you can't tell the story without including them. When people, not just Ninner fans look back at the last decade of football, Frank Gore is a foot note, not a chapter in the stories they will tell.

This. The perfect description of what a Hall of Famer should be
Thanks!
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:
Originally posted by drunk49er:
eddie george was a horse, if you didn't know much about him then you probably weren't following football that closely.

Ok hot shot, get off your high horse. I was 11 when he came into the league. I knew he was solid, just didnt realize he was that good as a pro. Recalled him being more dominant in college at Ohio State, that's all I was saying. Guess his last yr in Dallas skewed my view of his overall career.

why are you getting all defensive? it seems like my observation was pretty spot on. anyone who watched him play most of his career knows he was a badass. he wasn't flashy, he was pretty ugly, but he got key yards and was money.
Originally posted by KowboyKiller:
I got 99 problems, but a bowch ain't one.

Lol!!
sure if HOF stand for Happily Out of Frisco.
Originally posted by drunk49er:
yep, those guys are largely in the second tier of backs behind the faulks and tomlinsons, although i might put alexander (one of the best rb seasons of all time) and bettis (mr. consistency) into the hall from that group. the rest were either not consistent enough, didn't do it long enough or fall just short of really being a hof caliber back.

my number one reason i'd say no is that even in gore's best season he wasn't the best back in the league that year. there is no single year where you can even argue that he was the best back in the league that year.

All good points above - there is just a big difference between a very good workhorse back (with occassional big gains) and WOW backs that are unstoppable and offenses revolve around their multi-threat dynamic play. Our offense revolves around Gore, yes because he is an excellent back, but also because the balance of the offense (besides VD) is average at best. (That may finally change this year). But the above list is full of "Oh yeah.." guys, guys that were very good, and had some big games or evey 1-2 seasons, but otherwise you have to be reminded of them. IF Gore had kept running like that one year he had all the big break away runs - well then he'd be memorable and HOF likely.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by NinerPrideinNJ:
Originally posted by drunk49er:
eddie george was a horse, if you didn't know much about him then you probably weren't following football that closely.

Ok hot shot, get off your high horse. I was 11 when he came into the league. I knew he was solid, just didnt realize he was that good as a pro. Recalled him being more dominant in college at Ohio State, that's all I was saying. Guess his last yr in Dallas skewed my view of his overall career.

you dont get on the cover of madden back then for being decent..guy was a beast till the madden curse

this
Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
Originally posted by eamjr10:
Originally posted by GolittaCamper:
Your thread title is invalrod...and no, Frank is good, but not transcendent, I understand that some of you in the "every one gets pizza" generation will say I'm a "hater", but screw it, Frank never lifted this team to the play offs, and when this team finally lifted him to the play offs...he came up small. When we old timers talk about hall of famers, we talk about titans, men who stood above all others, men who stood above the game itself, men who transcend the game, and become a part of the games history so large you can't tell the story without including them. When people, not just Ninner fans look back at the last decade of football, Frank Gore is a foot note, not a chapter in the stories they will tell.

This. The perfect description of what a Hall of Famer should be
Thanks!


It's very poetic, but most players in the Hall of Fame don't fit that romantic description. In fact, there are many players who are NOT in the Hall-of-Fame who DO fit that description; a couple of running backs come to mind: Terrell Davis, Bo Jackson, Roger Craig, Herschel Walker etc.
[ Edited by BrianGO on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:20 AM ]