Jump to content

Frank Gore: HOFer?


MightyMouse07

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, CrashMan510 said:

I think the HOF should be for the all time greats, not guys who were very good for a long time...

-> all time great in your prime
-> And your prime has to be a good amount of time(Terrelle Davis/sterling sharpe didn't do it long enough imo)

Gore, Steve Smith, Anquan Boldin, Curtis Martin, Eli Manning, Tony Dungy..... guys like that had great long careers but at their best they were not HOF level players/coaches. They weren't in the same boat as the All Time Greats.

Frank Gore and Curtis Martin had great careers but they were never at the level of guys like Eric Dickerson, Oj, LT, Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders Walter Payton...

Curtis Martin didn't have a long career at all. Jim Brown and Barry Sanders are the only two RBs who had a shorter career than him in the top 20 rushing all time. Outside of last season where he got injured, he was the offense on every team/in every season that he played. All those guys are better, but 95/96/00/04 could stand with a lot of their seasons. He was pretty regularly considered in that top tier of RBs throughout his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ragnarok said:

Gore reminds me of Hines Ward.  Very good, but not HOF.  

Of course, there are two major differences between Gore and Hines Ward. Ward was a superior postseason player for a two time SB champ, and he changed the game with his blocking expertise. Gore didn't do anything different or unique as a RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaserFocus said:

Of course, there are two major differences between Gore and Hines Ward. Ward was a superior postseason player for a two time SB champ, and he changed the game with his blocking expertise. Gore didn't do anything different or unique as a RB.

Wait, what? You know there were quality blockers at the WR position way before Hines Ward was around right? Pretty sure Ward didn't have some secret technique(s) that the zillions of players before 1998 never figured out. Don't let the media propaganda over the years fool you about Ward. Great blocker yes, but not revolutionary. 

Ward played on a better team, but that should be irrelevant as a skill position player. If Gore is on the Steelers, and Ward isn't I don't think it's unfathomable that they don't have at least one Lombardi. 

True Gore didn't change the game as a running back. Neither did a lot of HOF players though. Gore ran, blocked, and was a quality receiver though. He did everything pretty well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaserFocus said:

Of course, there are two major differences between Gore and Hines Ward. Ward was a superior postseason player for a two time SB champ, and he changed the game with his blocking expertise. Gore didn't do anything different or unique as a RB.

Neither did Ward as a wide receiver. And Frank Gore did just fine in his post season career. Ward had some nice games, but nothing he did overall was considerably greater than what Gore did in his post season career. Ward just got more opportunities to play games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Thanks for proving the point. They were pretty good for a long time. They were Iron men. That's why their career stats are similar. Gore and Martin weren't even close to RB's like " Eric Dickerson, Oj, LT, Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders Walter Payton..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

Thanks for proving the point. They were pretty good for a long time. They were Iron men. That's why their career stats are similar. Gore and Martin weren't even close to RB's like " Eric Dickerson, Oj, LT, Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders Walter Payton..."

Meh. I mean if Floyd Little and John Riggins (who was a compiler) are there I could see Gore getting in. At least with the system in place. The HOF has proven time and time again it really makes exceptions for some players, who probably shouldn't be in based on who already is in. The last couple of years Warner and Davis got in, essentially nixing the "shooting star" effect. 

Personally I don't think Gore should be in, but if we were to go down that road then a few folks should be kicked out already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, disaacs said:

If Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis are in the HOF, so will Frank Gore be.  Gore is better than Bettis, and not much worse than Martin.  

Exactly. Longevity matters, folks. Just look at the all-time career rushing stats. If all 6 players (currently) ahead of Gore and all 4 players (currently) after Gore on that list are already in the hall of fame, I have no doubt that Gore makes it in as well. And if he manages to finish in the top 5 all-time in rushing yards, that's just icing on the cake at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore does not have the feel of a HoF player currently.   That may change over the next 10-15 years as we get a chance to see how some of his contemporaries fare and the stats they put up.  Players like Bell, DJ, Elliott, McCoy, etc (there are more from a few years ago for sure) and where they end up on the all-time list.  

Lets say that Gore retires after 2017, in 10-15 years, if he is still 7th on the all time list and no one looking like they will crack the top 10, it probably improves his chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bell, DJ and Elliott would not be considered his contemporaries, as far as I'm concerned.  His contemporaries are Adrian, Steven Jackson, Lynch, CJ2K, Matt Forte, and McCoy.  What happens in 10-15 years is irrelevant IMO. When Franco Harris retired, he was top 5...15 years later, he wasn't even top 10...that doesn't mean that he wasn't unquestionably a HOFer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RavensTillIDie said:

Exactly. Longevity matters, folks. Just look at the all-time career rushing stats. If all 6 players (currently) ahead of Gore and all 4 players (currently) after Gore on that list are already in the hall of fame, I have no doubt that Gore makes it in as well. And if he manages to finish in the top 5 all-time in rushing yards, that's just icing on the cake at this point.

Bingo. If injuries and a short career can derail a players consideration for the HOF than those who remained healthy, dedicated over a decade to the craft, and all the while being top producers, should receive recognition. I don't think some people appreciate or understand what it takes to play that long in the NFL where most careers average just 2.5 - 3 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Bingo. If injuries and a short career can derail a players consideration for the HOF than those who remained healthy, dedicated over a decade to the craft, and all the while being top producers, should receive recognition. I don't think some people appreciate or understand what it takes to play that long in the NFL where most careers average just 2.5 - 3 years. 

But a hall of famer isn't someone who's just consistent and serviceable. They need to be DOMINANT for a solid portion of their career. Gore wasn't a bad running back, but he had 1 season that could qualify as dominant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Danger said:

But a hall of famer isn't someone who's just consistent and serviceable. They need to be DOMINANT for a solid portion of their career. Gore wasn't a bad running back, but he had 1 season that could qualify as dominant.

 

If that's your opinion of the hall of fame, I get that. But the voters have shown that really isn't always the case. Lynn Swann springs immediately to mind. He had never had a dominant season. His 78 season, where he was named first team all pro, he wasn't dominant. 7th in receptions, 7th in yards, 8th in yards per game, and his yards per reception was a measly 14.4, which was very low back then. He was second in touchdowns and that's pretty much it. But even if you want to say that was "Dominant", you have already said yourself that Gore had one dominant season, so that matches that. Art Monk was another guy that wasn't particularly dominant. Dan Hampton? John Riggins is a big one as well. I'm not saying this is right, but it is what it is. 

I get the idea of what we want the hall of fame to be. A very elite group of players who ruled their roost for a period of time . But the fact of the matter is that so far, the hall of fame hasn't been that. They have enshrined a considerable number of players who have not been "dominant" during a length of time in their career and rewarded quite a few who have just compiled stats after a long and fruitful career. There is a "greatness" in longevity, it should be said. So you're argument here doesn't really hold up to what the actual HOF has done so far throughout its history. Will that change? Quite possibly. I'm not going to say yes or no, I can only speak on what has been done thus far. 

So while I acknowledge your point regarding whether or not he should be in the hall of fame, and in fact, even agree with it for the most part (I don't think he was ever average and I'd put him in the hall of "very good who also played a long time"), when I think about whether or not he will get in, based on what the hall of fame voters have done in the past and not based on my own opinions on what I think the hall should be, I think that there's a really decent chance that he gets in. Not immediately, of course, if he does. But I think he may eventually. I think he has a pretty good shot. If he gets into the top 5 all time rushing yards this year, I think I'd probably lean more yes than no as to whether or not he will. And again, this is only my opinion on whether or not he will, not whether or not he should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...