Current 49ers most likely to make Hall of Fame

Originally posted by mustangmele:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.

Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.

I totally get what your saying. However, Super Bowls do play a factor. For example, if Joe Montana never won 4 super bowls his stats wouldn't make him a first ballot necessarily. Same goes for Troy Aikman. Getting your team to the Super Bowl says you have a certain element to your game that can be seen on a stat sheet. On the other hand, we can let guys in like Tedy Bruschi either just because they've won 3.

Totally hear what you are saying as well. Rings should be used in combination with personal achievements.

Lets play a game with Joe Montana for a second (and I think this will help illustrate my point). Lets hypothetically say that Joe Montana never once got to the Superbowl (deep breath...I know its a tough thing to imagine). Is this list right here enough to make Joe a Hall of Famer:

6x All Pro
8x Pro Bowler
2x MVP
2x Comeback Player of the Year
6x MVP/Sportsman of the Year/Player of the Year type awards (various publications)
0 Super Bowl appearances

So do you think thats a Hall of Fame resume? I do.

Originally posted by Garcia:

Originally posted by GuessWhosOn3rd:

Andy Lee

correct me if im wrong, no punter or kicker have made the HOF


I would say Willis, J. Smith ... Aldon Smith (assuming consistant Production)

Vernon Davis could do it if he start putting up numbers he did 2 years ago consistantly.

Frank Gore if he plays 2-3 more years and maybe wins a ring or two.

Bowman (same as Aldon)


Mike Iupati too... if he continues growth and stays healthy

I think is extended by another 3 years, sharing time with Hunter and James.

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Lock: Moss
Probable: Willis, Lee
On The Right Track: J.Smith, V.Davis
Outside Chance: Gore
Way To Early, But Looks Good So Far: Ald.Smith, Bowman, Iupati

gonna have to add lee

Originally posted by Garcia:
correct me if im wrong, no punter or kicker have made the HOF

I think this is correct. Which is why I didnt say Andy Lee when I answered the question. I know Andy Lee is a stud and all, but I cant honestly believe that he is the best punter to ever play the game.....which is what he would need to be considered to make the HOF.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:

Originally posted by mustangmele:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.

Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.

I totally get what your saying. However, Super Bowls do play a factor. For example, if Joe Montana never won 4 super bowls his stats wouldn't make him a first ballot necessarily. Same goes for Troy Aikman. Getting your team to the Super Bowl says you have a certain element to your game that can be seen on a stat sheet. On the other hand, we can let guys in like Tedy Bruschi either just because they've won 3.

Totally hear what you are saying as well. Rings should be used in combination with personal achievements.

Lets play a game with Joe Montana for a second (and I think this will help illustrate my point). Lets hypothetically say that Joe Montana never once got to the Superbowl (deep breath...I know its a tough thing to imagine). Is this list right here enough to make Joe a Hall of Famer:

6x All Pro
8x Pro Bowler
2x MVP
2x Comeback Player of the Year
6x MVP/Sportsman of the Year/Player of the Year type awards (various publications)
0 Super Bowl appearances

So do you think thats a Hall of Fame resume? I do.

You make a good point. I think with those accomplishments -- yes without a doubt. First ballot? Most likely.

What's an interesting question to ask is: Would Montana have acquired all those accomplishments if it were not for winning 4 super bowls? We all know Pro Bowls and MVP's are popularity contests. If not, would he then make the Hall of Fame? I guess we could go on and on with this. I know I'm sure over thinking it. I say who cares! Joe is in and the best QB ever.

Tolzien

Originally posted by mustangmele:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:

Originally posted by mustangmele:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.

Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.

I totally get what your saying. However, Super Bowls do play a factor. For example, if Joe Montana never won 4 super bowls his stats wouldn't make him a first ballot necessarily. Same goes for Troy Aikman. Getting your team to the Super Bowl says you have a certain element to your game that can be seen on a stat sheet. On the other hand, we can let guys in like Tedy Bruschi either just because they've won 3.

Totally hear what you are saying as well. Rings should be used in combination with personal achievements.

Lets play a game with Joe Montana for a second (and I think this will help illustrate my point). Lets hypothetically say that Joe Montana never once got to the Superbowl (deep breath...I know its a tough thing to imagine). Is this list right here enough to make Joe a Hall of Famer:

6x All Pro
8x Pro Bowler
2x MVP
2x Comeback Player of the Year
6x MVP/Sportsman of the Year/Player of the Year type awards (various publications)
0 Super Bowl appearances

So do you think thats a Hall of Fame resume? I do.

You make a good point. I think with those accomplishments -- yes without a doubt. First ballot? Most likely.

What's an interesting question to ask is: Would Montana have acquired all those accomplishments if it were not for winning 4 super bowls? We all know Pro Bowls and MVP's are popularity contests. If not, would he then make the Hall of Fame? I guess we could go on and on with this. I know I'm sure over thinking it. I say who cares! Joe is in and the best QB ever.

Best QB ever is right!!

I think ProBowls and MVPs werent necessarily popularity contests back then though. Also, I agree with you questioning the awards without the Superbowls. I would say no SBs would affect the Sportsman of the Year and Player of the Year awards, and they might not have been awarded to Joe. But All Pros, MVPs and Pro Bowls wouldnt be impacted by playoffs anyways.

And IMO, its not just that Joe won 4 rings. Its that he basically carried us to said rings, and won three SB MVPs in the process.

But we digress from the original thread. (but Joe was the freakin man wasnt he?)

Originally posted by DaFaro49ers:

Originally posted by Garcia:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
VD will break every TE record there is by the time hes done so i think he'll be in there. gore is great but there are just way too many backs who have done more. j Smith will make it if he plays a couple more years. Willis is the most sure fire one. moss was kind of a douche so maybe he gets the charles haley treatment.

thats a little much considering Gronk has already done that and hes only 23....

Gronk nearly had more TDs last year than Vernon Davis in his career :////

ITT 17 is nearly more than 35.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.

Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.

The SB is the only reason that Namath is in the HOF. The Jets winning the SB in 69, directly led to the AFL NFL merger.
Namaths career stats are not very impressive, Brodie has comparable if not better stats.

No way Gore makes it, none... Running backs need 15K yds

Justin Smith, as good as he has been for the 49ers will likely fall short.... see BY.

Willis is on track, needs 5 more years like the first 5.

Originally posted by Garcia:
Lock for sure.

If gore has 3 more 1000 yard seasons that would give him 8 / 11 1000 Yard seasons.

I think he needs to get more TDs... but I don't think its out of the question

needs a dash of 1-2 super bowl winning healthy seasons and ya! It could happen!

Originally posted by Ether:

Originally posted by DaFaro49ers:

Originally posted by Garcia:

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
VD will break every TE record there is by the time hes done so i think he'll be in there. gore is great but there are just way too many backs who have done more. j Smith will make it if he plays a couple more years. Willis is the most sure fire one. moss was kind of a douche so maybe he gets the charles haley treatment.

thats a little much considering Gronk has already done that and hes only 23....

Gronk nearly had more TDs last year than Vernon Davis in his career :////

ITT 17 is nearly more than 35.

Plus it should be factored in that Gronk play with Brady. Vernon had 13 one year, not only with an unsettled situation at QB, but with Jimmy Raye and Mike Singletary's offense Imagine if Vern got to play with Brady...

Originally posted by DaveWilcox:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.

Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.

The SB is the only reason that Namath is in the HOF. The Jets winning the SB in 69, directly led to the AFL NFL merger.
Namaths career stats are not very impressive, Brodie has comparable if not better stats.

Again, I strongly disagree that the SB is the only reason that Namath is in the Hall of Fame. When you look at his individual accomplishments from both the AFL and NFL (which according to the agreement of the merger say that stats, history, records and awards would be included in the "new" NFL), they are more than enough to merit HOF consideration and induction.

Take a look:

6x All Star/Probowler
5x All Pro/All AFL
2x MVP
2x Player of the Year

I know that Joe's one Superbowl is often what people remember over anything else, but I cant even come close to cosigning your opinion that the Superbowl is the only reason Namath is in the HOF. His list of personal achievements and accolades are more than enough to put him in the HOF.

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:

Originally posted by DaveWilcox:

Originally posted by 80sbaby24:
Honestly, I am so sick of the SB argument for Hall of Famers. I am being 100% honest that this has NOTHING to do with it being Alex Smith. Its just that for Hall of Famers, you need to have an impressive list of INDIVIDUAL accomplishments to be considered a Hall of Famer.

Like when people bring up Ben Roethlisberger as a future Hall of Famer, I find that absurd. Just because he has two rings, doesnt outweigh the fact that aside from ONE Pro Bowl appearance, Ben's resume of personal accomplishments is a blank piece of paper.

The SB is the only reason that Namath is in the HOF. The Jets winning the SB in 69, directly led to the AFL NFL merger.
Namaths career stats are not very impressive, Brodie has comparable if not better stats.

Again, I strongly disagree that the SB is the only reason that Namath is in the Hall of Fame. When you look at his individual accomplishments from both the AFL and NFL (which according to the agreement of the merger say that stats, history, records and awards would be included in the "new" NFL), they are more than enough to merit HOF consideration and induction.

Take a look:

6x All Star/Probowler
5x All Pro/All AFL
2x MVP
2x Player of the Year

I know that Joe's one Superbowl is often what people remember over anything else, but I cant even come close to cosigning your opinion that the Superbowl is the only reason Namath is in the HOF. His list of personal achievements and accolades are more than enough to put him in the HOF.

He dragged the AFL on his back to the merger... he was almost the face of the league. That's why..

Namath Stats:

173 TDs
220 Ints
27K yards
65 rating

Hardly HOF credentials..

John Brodie Stats:

214 TDs
224 Ints
31K Yds
72.3 rating

I wish long snappers could get into the HOF cause Brian Jennings is the MAN!!!!

Originally posted by zomg_its_ryan:
I wish long snappers could get into the HOF cause Brian Jennings is the MAN!!!!

David Binn > Brian Jennings (just because I know him...haha)