All-Time 49ers Team Anybody?

by David Fucillo on Apr 20, 2008 10:23 PM PDT in San Francisco 49ers News

So, lately I haven't had a whole ton of time to check out the many SB Nation sites as often as I'd like. This evening I was poking around and noticed over at Big Blue View and I noticed they are in the midst of voting on the All-Time Giants squad. So, I thought, why not work on coming up with an All-Time San Francisco 49ers team? Things will be busy over the next few weeks with the draft and plenty of reviews. However, there will be plenty of summer time to fill up and this is a perfect opportunity.

So how are we going to do this? Here's the plan (with requests for suggestions on certain issues):

We'll do a different post for each position. For positions with multiple starters (WR, DEs, OTs, Gs, etc...), we'll do an initial vote for the first starter, then follow with a second vote for the next starter removing the first winner.
I plan on coming up with lists at each position and hopefully we'll have four or more to vote on.
I'm trying to decide between posting the poll on the front page or within the story itself. More than likely we'll go with a front page poll, although I've noticed there are some polling sites that will let me set up a separate polling option on the sidebar.
The most important part: Coming up with the lists of players. The 49ers website has a database of All Time Rosters which I will be using to compile 4 or 5 players at each position. However, any help all of y'all can provide would be appreciated. So, there are a couple of options. You can post in here or you can email me. If you post in this thread, state the position you're mentioning and then your list of players. If somebody lists a certain position and you want to make suggestions for it, reply to their comment. Also, when we move to the new site, FanShots will be perfect for listing your positions, instead of taking up an entire diary. I'll explain that more on Wednesday when we switch over. The other option is emailing me your suggestions at the email listed on the sidebar.
Once we get the lists together, I'll post a different position on different days. They won't necessarily be every day, but I'll definitely work at getting them done as close to every day as possible.
It's easy to think this All-Time Team will be heavily favored to the 80s and 90s, so I'll do my best to provide links and info on each player to get a more well-rounded picture. For now, check out the 49ers All-Time Stat Leaders if you wanna check out some of the older team leaders. Additionally, I'm still not 100% sure how a guy like Patrick Willis will factor into this, but we'll deal with that as it comes up.

As always, I appreciate any suggestions to improve the process. I think this will give us something for entertainment value and also help us learn a little more about 49ers history.

Tweet Comment 108 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

sounds cool

plus, our all-time team could totally kick the crap out of any other franchise's all-time team. Are you going to keep track of the all-franchise 2nd teamers as well? I think you should just for Young's sake.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 20, 2008 10:45 PM PDT reply actions

backups

I would like to do something like that. Maybe have QB1 and QB2? I figure we'll have 2 wide receivers, but maybe it's a good idea to go with 3 receivers. Of course if we were going with a normal 11-man starting lineup would mean no fullback if we went with 3 wide receivers. Plenty of options.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 20, 2008 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Polls:

Way cooler in the upgraded SB.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 12:29 AM PDT reply actions

TOM RATHMAN

No way you can go sin fullback Tom Rathman was a STUD. I am very anxious to see who is rated the # 2 receiver. My vote only consists of two letters.

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 3:00 AM PDT reply actions

re:

"My vote only consists of two letters."
as in RC "Alley oop" Owens and JT was a stud also.

by RJ49erFan on Apr 21, 2008 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah

I just have such a hard time thinking T.O. as the Niners 2nd best receiver of all time... and not because I'm denying his talent, but just because I have a fairly difficult time thinking of him as a 49er. Before he turned into the T.O. we know and love today, he was all cool and good - except he wasn't that good yet. Once his talent turned that corner, he never acted like a part of the team. He didn't like it here, and he made it abundantly clear. He was eager, and happy to get out.

And finally, now he does seem to have matured - well, not quite matured - into a role where he is a comfortable member of a team....

And that team is the COWBOYS!

It's just... how do I reconcile T.O. as a great 49er receiver when he took every opportunity to dismiss this team and its players and coaches, and then went on to find comfort in Dallas?

Then again, he was involved in probably the greatest 49er play I've ever personally seen. So maybe I shouldn't be so troubled about all this. Without T.O., the Niners wouldn't have gotten that Green Bay monkey off their backs.

Then again, without Deion Sanders, the Niners might not have won that Super Bowl, and I can't consider Deion a great 49er... even though he was a great player and he was a 49er (that's a huge stretch to make my conflicted point, I realize... that was a DAMN good team even without Deion).

Then again, how much of this just has to do with me not liking T.O. He did spend more years in red and gold than he's spent with any other team. He was a 49er first and longest, even if he was ridiculously maddening.

Then again, I've never been more frustrated with any other player's total inability to make easy catches.

T.O. HAS TINY HANDS!

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

I have a hard time...

... with thinking of T.O. as the 49ers #2 all-time because John Taylor was such a great #2. It'd just be kind of odd to me to have Jerry Rice as the #1 in the lineup and not have his best wingman there alongside him.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions

The whole concept of an All-Time Team is odd.

TO was/is better than Taylor, bottom line.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions

NO DOUBT

If any one says Taylor was better then T.O. they are being completely biased and unrealistic. I loved John Taylor he was a great role player and complimentary player. But there is no way that a complimentary player can be considered the second best receiver in the history of the franchise especially when he is directly competing against a receiver who was the hands down focal point of our offense for several years.

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess

thats why we'll vote on it. lol

by good as gold on Apr 21, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes we will

there is an excellent chance that T.O. will not be rated as the number 2 receiver but it will not be because of his stats and his impact on the field. In my opinion an "ALL TIME" team is not your favorite but it is the BEST!!! It would be like leaving Bonds off the all time Giants.

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Bonds

Please don't compare T.O. to Bonds.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Apr 21, 2008 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions

It would be a huge disservice to TO.

But his point is still valid.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed

I don't think T.O. would want credit for something he knows he doesn't deserve.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Apr 21, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions

nobody

is going to confuse TO with one of the best players to play the game either...steroids or not.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Difference is...

... there are plenty of Giants fans that like/love Bonds. Moreso than Giants fans that absolutely loathed the guy. The same can't be said for Owens.

Heck, most 49ers fans won't even touch Owens with a 10 foot pole, but I think a lot of Giants fans would welcome Bonds back in a heartbeat.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions

What exactly has TO done?

Call Jeff Garcia gay?

If those Giants fans, that still love Bonds, are the same 49er fans, that loathe TO, then they seriously need to re-evaluate their fan hood [priorities].

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Come on Neck

You know your argument isn't going to hold a lot of water this time. Barry Bonds was always good to the fans, and he singlehandedly made baseball worthwhile in San Francisco for upwards of 15 years, including a World Series appearance.

Terrell Owens made no friends with the fans or his teammates, got out at the first possible chance, contributed to less then 5 years of winning 49er football and never got us close to a championship.

T.O. can kiss Barry Bonds's ass. He's a great player, but in terms of SF fandom he doesn't hold the burned out wick of a freaking discount candle to Bonds. And you know it.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Less than 5 years is wrong

If I'm arguing, I should argue with truth. I think Owens was around for 6 years of winning 49er football.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions

TO, be careful what you kiss.

We wouldn't want you to get stuck.

It just doesn't make sense to me why someone would hold possibly the greatest "cheat" in all of sports on a pedistal and then loathe TO. I get that some people don't like TO but to "not touch [him] with a 10 foot pole" seems a bit extreme if at the same time they're going to hold Bonds in such a high regard. Bonds was an ass and a cheat; TO was just an ass.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Uh-huh

And nobody else in baseball was actually doing what Bonds was doing?

Lest we forget that if Bonds had retired in 2000, he still would have been in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. He was a great player, and trying to reconcile cheating in baseball over the last 20 years is a very, very difficult process. If you're going to condemn Bonds, you have to realistically condemn pretty much the entire sport for the last two plus decades.

Unwilling to do that, I have to live with what's there.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions

Also

He was only a media ass. He was never anything but great to the fans.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Bonds and cheating

No getting around the fact that Bonds was the greatest player of our generation, and if you missed it because you read too much of the MSM, you missed one helluva show. Did he cheat? Maybe. He hasn't officially been caught in the eyes of the law. Is he a jerk? Maybe. He was never, however, a jerk to me. So to want to classify him an ass because the media didn't like him is pretty low. Owens never did anything to hurt me either, except race for the door (and stumble over the paperwork on the way out, haha!), badmouth his quarterbacks (I'm not leaving Donovan McNabb out of this one), badmouth his coaches, voice every displeasure he's ever had to anyone with a microphone, and show a complete lack of understand as to what a team is.

Time heals all wounds, braek. I'm not particularly PO'd at TO anymore. He's behaved himself in recent years, and his transgressions aren't particularly fresh to me now. I'd say he's the second best receiver in Niners history, but Bonds is one of the top three players in the history of baseball, and arguably the best. If you missed it, I don't envy you.

But to be perfectly honest, I'm just excited to see how skinny this really long post looks!

Thinking of giving up sports and taking up heavy drinking.

by Drunken Miller on Apr 21, 2008 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions

I could care less.

I don't give two shits about what Bonds stuck in his ass or not. I never liked the guy. And me personally I'm more of a TO fan than a Bonds fan but that's probably because I think the Giants are one of the worst run organizations in all of baseball. Never been a Giants fan, never will be and that's why I prefer me some TO.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Those are reasons I can accept

If you just don't like Bonds and you never have, that's the most valid reason you could possibly give, and a reason that I would never dare argue. There's no reason to cover that up with half assed ESPN arguments about steroids and cheating. If you don't like him, that's all there is to it.

And for what it's worth, I'm a lifetime Giants fan and I agree that they are one of the worst run organizations in baseball and have been for the better part of a decade. Won't stop me rooting for the team, but it will be a constant thorn in my heart until the issue is resolved.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 7:34 PM PDT up reply actions

A hearty Harumph of agreement

Thinking of giving up sports and taking up heavy drinking.

by Drunken Miller on Apr 21, 2008 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions

+1

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions

That goes back to the Deion question, though

Do you count Deion Sanders because he probably the single best corner to ever play for the Niners? Which he probably was.

I mean, he played for the Niners, and he was the best. Does he make the list?

Or say the Cheifs are making their list. Do they include Montana in their voting?

The T. O. question is more complicated because he was here a lot longer, but the distinction between GOOD and FORTY NINER isn't so cut an dry.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions

rathman

william floyd-also an absolute stud. FB should be one of the better battles. Also, Fooch, is this team playing a 3-4 or a 4-3? I'm assuming 4-3.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions

4-3

Although the 3-4 has been mixed in prior to this year, I'd say 4-3 is the best bet...

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Two letters

Absolutely, JJ Stokes should DEFINITELY be considered one of the top receivers!

Thinking of giving up sports and taking up heavy drinking.

by Drunken Miller on Apr 21, 2008 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions

T.O.

TOO BIG TOO STRONG TOO FAST

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 7:20 AM PDT reply actions

T.O.

And now, making cameos in porn. This really has nothing to do with anything, but I thought it was funny. The following link isn't bad, everyone is clothed and actually out in the middle of the street, but I still wouldn't open it at work:

http://www.withleather.com/photo.phtml?post_key=5558&photo_key=1513

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Apr 22, 2008 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions

One suggestion

Is that we could skip a couple of obvious votes, unless people still really wanted to do them.

QB1: Montana
WR1: Rice
DT/DE (are we going 4-3 or 3-4?): BY
FS: Lott

There are probably a few others I am forgetting. Or, maybe I'm assuming too much with some of those names, let me know.

Out of curiosity, what are peoples policies on newer 49ers? Like, would Willis be eligible?

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Apr 21, 2008 10:36 AM PDT reply actions

QB

I want to do QB so we can get a QB2 between young, Brodie and YA Tittle.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions

no Frankie Albert?

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Apr 21, 2008 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Understandable

That's why I listed Montana as QB1. I figured QB2 would be interesting.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Apr 21, 2008 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Drunken Miller says:

Where the hell is the love for Jimmy D??? He pulled a station wagon, for criminy's sake!!! What's a guy got to do???

Thinking of giving up sports and taking up heavy drinking.

by Drunken Miller on Apr 21, 2008 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Is Montana really a given?

I'd say he's the favorite, but there are a lot of Young supporters out there, including myself. I'm not 100% sure who I'd vote for at this point, but QB1 may be a closer battle than some may think.

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree.

It'll all come down to, probably, what particular part of the QB's game the voter likes more. Both QBs were extremely intelligent and ran the WCO extremely well. Both were ad-lib masters. Both had accurate and sufficient arms. Montana was just a lot more efficient and polished. Young was mobile and tended to be involved in a lot more exciting plays.

It'll really be a close vote, I think.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions

i also agree

there are reasons to take young

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Montana vs. Young

I realize some people would feel this way, and it's understandable, but if I remember back when there was a poll on the front page about this, Montana won handily.

We are not who I thought we were.

by marcello on Apr 21, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

my run down....

QB MONTANA, YOUNG

RB CRAIG, HEARST

FB PERRY, RATHMAN

WR RICE, TAYLOR

TE JONES, JOHNSON

C SAPOLU, DALMAN

G MCINTYRE, GOGAN

LT ST. CLAIR, BARTON

LB WILCOX, NORTON, WILLIS, PETERSON

DT YOUNG, NOMELLINI

DE HALEY, DEAN

CB WRIGHT, JOHNSON

FS LOTT, HANKS

SS MCDONALD, HICKS

Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.

by bayboy on Apr 21, 2008 11:33 AM PDT reply actions

Free Newberry!

I think Newberry would be my #2 center. Other than that, it's a very solid roster proposal.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Willis

Already giving Willis a spot? After one season? I love him, but that's a bit much.

by spenczar on Apr 21, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions

Curious

Who would you plug in inside, then? I can't really think of anyone other than Derek Smith, Gary Plummer, Romanowski, or someone like Millen.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Depending on service time

I agree with what I think Sam23 said about one year of service time. Willis is pretty awesome, so if we're figuring one year is enough, Willis is about as good a choice as you can make. If you want to look at multiple years, I'd probably go with Gary Plummer. Homeboy was pretty darn good, and I remember what a step back this defense took after he left.

Thinking of giving up sports and taking up heavy drinking.

by Drunken Miller on Apr 21, 2008 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions

RE: Willis

i think Willis is the next Urlacher/Ray Lewis type backer. With the potential to be one of the all-time greats. I know it’s one season but if he isn’t on there in retrospect I think we will feel pretty stupid for ever doubting his talent.

If LA fell into the sea would anyone Really miss it??

by Cowbell Addict on Apr 24, 2008 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions

NEON?!

you gave Willis a spot, so obviously 1 year is enough....so how do you justify no Deion? Both were dominant in their one year, but Deion was the best defensive player on a Super Bowl winning team, while Willis was the best defensive player on one of the most disappointing years ever. Deion had possibly his best season ever as a corner here. (the stats wont show that but he shut down half the field, the number of balls thrown eric davis' way was astounding) Probably one of the best seasons by a corner in NFL history. I see the argument for not including Deion because he's more Cowboy than Niner, but if Willis is in Deion has to be too, right?

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Hearst?

I'd give Watters the edge over Hearst and that's w/o any research on all the past RBs

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions

again if we're not going on career,

i might go gore over watters and hearst.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I think this is going to be an important question:

How will we balance between the awesome players that were here for a year or two and those that were here for years that were just good or pretty good? You don't really want a team full of one-and-done stars because for many of those players, many teams could take claim for them and we'll end up saying, "Oh yeah, I guess he WAS a Niner". On the other side of it, I'd rather not leave out some very successful Niners at the expense of other players that have been Niners for many years, who were chosen because of their longetivity on the team. Some sort of middle ground should be reached, maybe something like "when a normal person thinks of him, would they think of them as a 49er?"

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Normal person

I definitely agree that I'd prefer guys who people thought of as 49ers. With Deion, people remember the one year, but I think he'll go down as a mercenary type anyways...Even a guy like Haley is equally remembered by 49ers and Cowboys fans, but I definitely plan on including him in the voting process.

Amongst those running backs, I'm thinking the vote will likely include:

Craig
Hearst
Gore

Another guy that nobody talks about that I didn't know anything about until doing some reearch is Joe Perry, the team's all-time leading rusher. Of course the top 10 leading rusher doesn't say much consider Kevan Barlow is #7 and Ricky Watters isn't even listed since he left so soon.

Ricky Watters is a guy I really don't know what to do with...

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Watters

Sort of the same situation as Deion, but I think he notched up enough years in Seattle to be considered a Hawk. I think our consideration of him is a direct result of winning the Super Bowl while he was here. I think if Hearst and he switched roles, Hearst may have gathered the same fondness Watters did.

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions

hearst

I've always been a bigger Hearst fan. I was annoyed when Watters left. With Deion I was not surprised in the least, even if I wish he had stuck around. I figure right now the list would be Craig, Hearst, Watters and Gore. I'd guess Craig is the easy winner there, but I'm curious how Gore does since he's the guy right now. I had thought about adding Barlow as a joke, but I'm afraid people would try and stuff the ballot box for him seeing as how people think of him as one of the all-time greats and all.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Hearst vs Watters

I did think about for Rb but I always thought hearst ran harder than Watters.... I wish i had video of that crazy stiff arm on that 96 yards overtime run vs the jets that (to me) set him apart

Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.

by bayboy on Apr 21, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions

That was a nice run,

But when I see the replay of Watters running along the sideline with the announcer yelling, "You can't catch him! You couldn't possibly catch him!", I get goosebumps every time. His amazing athleticism and the big plays he broke put him over and beyond, IMO.

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

due to resonable arguments....

I would put TO next to Rice also im adding kickers:

PK Ray Wersching

P Tommy Davis

Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.

by bayboy on Apr 21, 2008 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

HOF RBs

Craig (should be HOF) & Hugh McElhenny

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Apr 22, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions

the real question is

what franchise would have the 2nd best all time team? cowboys? packers? steelers? raiders?

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 12:47 PM PDT reply actions

don't discount the Texans!

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 21, 2008 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Toss-up.

If you're looking for offensive power, I'd go with the Cowboys. If you're thinking defense is the ticket, the Steelers obviously get the call.

by sfgfan on Apr 21, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Exception

Maybe a one-year exception? Patrick Willis had a great year and clearly shows the potential to be an all-time great 49er, but I'm of the opinion that an all-time team should consider a player's entire body of work.

Looking at the whole body of works makes a guy like John Taylor suddenly look a little bit better than a TO to some people (if he doesn't already) since he put up the numbers and never left the team. I'm not saying TO is off the list, but it's one more factor to consider when voting. When I list a group of eligible players I'll list positive reasons and negative reasons for voting for them but I'll try and be balanced for every player. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, which makes a simple poll the mot effective voting tool, rather than me just creating the team.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 1:33 PM PDT reply actions

Entire body of work?

Would this include the stats players put up with the 9ers only or their entire career regardless changing team?

Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.

by bayboy on Apr 21, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions

body of work with the 49ers

Need to be more specific. It's all about their time as a 49er.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions

Fooch, excuse me but you're reasoning is flawed.

This doesn't make any sense. There's nothing about Taylor, less maybe his attitude, that's better than TO. Taylor played 9 seasons with the Niners; TO played 8. If TO is getting discounted for not finishing his career as a 49er than Rice needs to get the same. In the free agency era it is very rare for a player to play his entire career with a single team. And Taylor's numbers weren't all that impressive anyways.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Excellent point

I stand corrected. It's easy to just remember his touchdown against the Bengals!

Personally, I'd vote for TO in that second slot but I wouldn't be surprised if Taylor got a good number of votes from TO haters. As much as he bugs me, he's still a bad-ass receiver.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

JT gets a vote from me...

But not at WR—I personally think he’s the best KR the team has ever had. He even made the Pro Bowl in 1988 at that position (leading the league in punt return yardage, average, TDs, and longest return)

"I been waitin' a long time for this! I been waitin' since the f**kin' amateurs!" --WILL "THE THRILL" CLARK

by Josh from Hollywood on Apr 25, 2008 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I missed your follow-up post to bayboy

But the point remains, Taylor's 9th year (in which he only had 387 yards and 2 TD shouldn't earn him any brownie points over TO's 8 years with the Niners.

TO had 8,572 yards receiving to go with 81 TD as a 49er. Taylor had 5,598 yards receiving with 43 TD.

Case closed. [As a 49er] TO > Taylor.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Pssh, stats!

Looks like you're using a computer to look up their numbers, Braek! Well, try looking them up in your gut, and see what the numbers look like then!

While that's obviously meant to be funny, and not serious, the fact that people will tell you that Steve Young's numbers and only one Super Bowl title make him a crappy QB leads me to believe that the above paragraph might not be considered very Colbertian, but more serious-like... Hmmm...

Thinking of giving up sports and taking up heavy drinking.

by Drunken Miller on Apr 21, 2008 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Batman and Robin

Although Taylor was a great sidekick he is a life long Robin he can not take the place of a Batman considering T.O was arguably the best receiver in the league his last four years in S.F. and had over 1,000 yards and 10 TDs in each of them including 16 TDS twice during that time. Three of those four years were played with out another above average receiver on the roster. Bottom line it is not even close.

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions

How Far Back Are We Going???????

How many years back are we going because if it is truly an ALL TIME 49er team then the running back would most likely be Joe Perry who most of us (myself included) have never even heard of, but he owns the majority of the rushing records and played from 48-63 and was the first niner inducted into the Hall of Fame. I am thinking that to be fair in the voting it should consist of players that the majority of us have seen play or at least seen on ESPN classic so possibly going no further back then the 70s????

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 1:55 PM PDT reply actions

ESPN Era?

So do we go with the proverbial ESPN Era beginning in 1979? That is definitely an important question. The top 10 rushers in 49ers history is littered with guys I honestly know nothing about...

The quarterback vote beyond Young and Montana includes guys like YA Tittle and John Brodie. Do we just acknowledge that we don't know enough?

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions

mid 70s and up

I do not know enough about the 49ers of the early 70s or the 60s let alone the 50s to comment on them. I would say the majority of fans who know how to post a comment on a blog are much more familiar with Transformers and the code for 100 lives in Contra then the Niners during the Kennedy Administration.

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions

excellent point

I think it probably makes sense for this exercise to stick with the last 30 years. Would people have a problem if instead of calling it the All-Time 49ers, I called it the All-ESPN Era 49ers? Or does somebody have a better idea? I'd say All-Super Bowl era 49ers, but that would conceivably leave a guy like Frank Gore off the voting. And it's too much to say All-Super Bowl and beyond 49ers. I snagged the term ESPN era from Dan Shanoff (former Daily Quickie writer) and as much of a pain as the world wide leader can be, they have come to define the last 25+ years. Thoughts?

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Era

Make an exception for Hall of Famers, I say. For instance, Leo Nomellini absolutely must be on the list at DT. The dude went to 10 pro bowls! 6 times All-NFL! Named the defensive tackle of the all-time NFL team! He HAS to be there. There are others with similar status. Bob St Clair, Hugh "The King" McElhenny and Dave Wilcox all deserve spots too. And while I know many niner fans don't know these guys too well, think of this as a chance for them to get educated on their team's history. It might be nice to include a small line explaining the qualifications of each player when you do the actual polls.

by spenczar on Apr 22, 2008 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions

More Leo!

One more thing I forgot about Leo: He played in every game for 14 years, never missed one. And he played on offense and defense. Insane.

by spenczar on Apr 22, 2008 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions

description of qualifications

Oh I'm definitely including some info on each player listed.

As far as learning history, I figure we have two options. Through the all-time team we can learn info, but also, over the summer I'm thinking of starting a series of posts titled something like, Old Time Niners, or Niners History: ___ or something like that...

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 22, 2008 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions

+1

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, *Select, Start

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions

contra

isn't it b, a, b, a?

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 21, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions

yes...

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, B, A, Select, Start

Contra was what Call of Duty is

Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.

by bayboy on Apr 21, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Willis and Gore

I Love both of these guys they are two of my favorite players. I want nothing more then for both of them to be unanimous decisions at the end of their careers but at this point in time they are lacking the time in service.

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 21, 2008 3:00 PM PDT reply actions

Gore's being handicapped by Smith

If Gore was playing with Young or Montana his numbers would be off the chart.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah

All those blocks Alex Smith missed last year really screwed Gore's running lanes.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions

well......

in fairness the 9 man fronts probably did screw the running lanes. but, i dont think you can really get that technical in this voting. too many questions! lets just start the voting and everyone can use their own criteria....just like MVP voting.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah

My only point was really that the problems - even those in the passing game - came from far more than one place on last year's team.

It's also worth noting that Gore put up most of his numbers last season with different QBs at the helm, so blaming Smith out of hand for Gore's season totals is somewhat lacking in depth.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 7:42 PM PDT up reply actions

agreed 100%

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Or this means

"It's also worth noting that Gore put up most of his numbers last season with different QBs at the helm"

That Smith is soley responsible for Gore's lack of production.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 22, 2008 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions

It's pretty easy to stop the run

when you don't have to worry about the pass.

Here's to hoping Albert Hanyesworth stomps on Alex Smith's head.

by methodrampage on Apr 21, 2008 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Obviously true

My only point, though made more sarcasticaly than necessary, was that the failures of both the pass game and the rush game from last year are far more multi-faceted than simply "Alex Smith sux."

FWIW< I absolutely agree that with Young or Montana Gore's numbers could have been otherworldly, but I think that's obviously a testament to both of those guys more than it acts as a functional comparison to Smith and last season's team.

I keep reliving the moment when Steve Young almost fell down... over and over....

by howtheyscored on Apr 21, 2008 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmm....

I kind of like the idea of going two deep at each position, because of the sheer amount of talent the franchise has had in last 25-30 years. However, if you don't want to go that deep it's understandable, but I'd with your standard 11 man OFF/DEF lineups with K and P as well, but also the following spots:

Nickel back
Pass Rusher
3rd down back
Kick/Punt returner(maybe just overall ST best?)
3rd wide receiver

These specialized positions are very important to teams success also. If we're going with a 4-3 base, I'd also consider a 4th linebacker in the mix in addition to the spots mentioned above. Basically, whatever guys outside of your base packages would you really need around.

"I'd trade Barlow for a case of crabs and a nasty rash any day of the week!"-Sprint Right Option

by gatling on Apr 21, 2008 8:15 PM PDT reply actions

just a thought fooch

a structure something like this might work, unless youve already got it figured out, if so disregard.
offense-
QB1,QB2,RB1,RB2,FB,TE,WR1,WR2,WR3,LT,LG,C,RG,RT,OL(sort of an honorable mention for the best non-starting O-lineman)

defense-
LE,RE,DT,DT,DL (same as the generic o-lineman runner up),ROLB,MLB,LOLB,LB,CB1,CB2,CB3, FS,SS,S

special teams-
K,P,Returner,other special teams player

coaching staff-
head coach, offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator

total of 15 offense, 15 defense, 4 special teams players, 3 coaches.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 21, 2008 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Interesting idea

I think your format could work. I'm guessing the head coach will be easy to figure out, but the coordinators would be fun to decide on as well. And there are a sufficient number of players in the last 30 years to fill that kind of roster...

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 22, 2008 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions

yep

obviously head coach will be about as close a vote as WR1, but then seifert can drop down to the coordinator category. and who knows maybe george pulls off a huge upset over bill like steve over joe.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 22, 2008 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

you can mark 22 spots as taken

...that is if it was up to me.

Offense
LT Steve Wallace
LG Jesse Sapolu
C Bart Oates
RG Derrick Deese
RT Harris Barton
TE Brent Jones
WR Jerry Rice
WR John Taylor
RB QB Steve Young
RB Ricky Watters
FB William Floyd

Defense
LE Dennis Brown (willing to bend on this one)
LT Bryant Young
RT Dana Stubblefield
RE Rickey Jackson
LILB ~~Evander Holyfield~~Lee Woodall
RILB Gary Plummer
ROLB Ken Norton, Jr.
LCB Eric Davis
RCB Deion Sanders
SS Tim McDonald
FS Merton Hanks

"To know clearly what pleases the world is but a brief dream." --Machivelli

by jfainsf49 on Apr 22, 2008 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions

voting

I agree that many spots are more clear than others, but I think it'll make things a little more interesting to see how the vote plays out...

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 22, 2008 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions

i agree

lets stop posting our entire mock lineups and just vote. (side note i agree floyd should probably get the FB spot but i really doubt he gets it, rathman is the sentimental favorite and might even get my vote)

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 22, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions

positions

This thread was initially meant to be for people to list multiple guys for a single position as sort of nominees so I can create lists at each position...although I certainly appreciate entire team lists. As for starting this, I'm waiting until after we switch over tomorrow to start the voting. It'll probably start with punter and kicker since those are a little less controversial.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 22, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Is this the lineup for 94/95 season

Rickey Jackson!!..jajajaja

If we're going by Super bowl winners there would not be enough room in this All-Time 49ers team.. we're not the Stoolies have only won 1 super bowl to name that team their All-Time Pigeon team

Joe and Steve were under the same system for years... don't expect Smith to be super so soon.

by bayboy on Apr 22, 2008 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions

REALLY????????

NO RONNIE LOTT...............

The 07 SPYtriots would be 13 point DOGS vs the 89 NINERS,,,and SF would still cover by 10 points!!!

by 49er BOMBERO on Apr 22, 2008 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Bias? what bias?

I was only suggesting 22 players out of the possible 34 that sam23 suggested. Yes, I just copied and pasted their 94-95 roster, more as a joke, but being a little serious.

"To know clearly what pleases the world is but a brief dream." --Machivelli

by jfainsf49 on Apr 22, 2008 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions

ha

i didnt realize thats what you did until you mentioned it, and it looks like i wasnt the only one. that team really coulda been an all-time team.

by sam23 @ Niners Nation on Apr 22, 2008 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions

zomg

i totally agreed with at least half of those picks and didnt even realize that was the 95 team. got me.

by lincypoo i wuv u on Apr 25, 2008 3:15 AM PDT up reply actions

95 49ers

They were great, but no Lott? No Haley? No Craig? I'd probably take TO or Dwight Clark over Taylor.

Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!

by David Fucillo on Apr 22, 2008 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Wow...

your D is basically the '94 roster

"If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, by golly, it's a rat."

by UnleashTheGore on Apr 22, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions

the whole thing is the 94 team

no Doug Brien?

Lott's Prayer: Almost as many words as the Lord's Prayer, but the Lord wouldn't recognize any of them.

by Nosetackle Supreme on Apr 22, 2008 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Steve Young?

I guess winning doesn’t matter. I guess the fact that Young couldn’t play in a B league before Montana doesn’t matter. Montana was a winner from the start won in college won with the niners. Had more intangibiles than any QB I have ever seen. I cann;t believe a Niners fan would actually put Steve Young up there. You must not remember Montana. Just for your recollection he won FOUR NATIONAL TITLES!!!!!!!!!!!!

If LA fell into the sea would anyone Really miss it??

by Cowbell Addict on Apr 24, 2008 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions

I am aware of the titles

Bro, I will tell you like someone once told me when I first starting posting here, follow the flowage of the convo. I was responding to sam23’s suggestion that the list contain a total of 34 players. I just cut a pasted the Niners ‘95 SB winning team’s roster, that is only 22 players and I will grant you that Dennis Brown, Ricky Jackson and maybe a couple others don’t belong. In short, I was oversimplifying, and mostly it was in jest.

"To know clearly what pleases the world is but a brief dream." --Machiavelli

by jfainsf49 on Apr 25, 2008 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions