DoomYoshi wrote:There's quite a bit of doubt that he was on track for hall of fame. First, a couple of games aren't indicative of hall of fame status, even a few good seasons aren't enough. Even winning a Super Bowl wont guarantee it (Jim Plunkett won it twice and never made it in). Second, as I stated way back, kap is known as a rusher, and that's just not popular right now at the NFL level (where the trend is towards more shotgun and throwing on every down, including first and fourth). He always runs about 10-25% of his plays. That's a fast track to the ER, not the HoF*. Third, there is the craziness about a toxic locker room. Usually that stuff is kept secret, but SF was very public. Either Kap led a mutiny or he let it go on. Either way, a quarterback is more than just an arm, he's also supposed to be a leader.
I won't rule out HoF in an alternate timeline. Players have been benched and even cut from teams to go on to HoF careers. Keep in mind how tough it is to get into Canton. There are 53 players per roster and 32 games for around 1600 active players. Representing 100 years of football, there are just over 300 players in the hall of fame.
*the quarterback is often the most expensive and irreplaceable player on the team. Why a coach would build an offense around rushing this guy through 300+ pounders instead of in the safety of the pocket is beyond me.
The only reason I cited those two games are because they were his last two games. This counters the claims of his detractors that he was on a downward spiral. He may have had some bad games in 2016, but he continued to have good games right up to the end.
His running is what made him famous, for sure, but in fact his passing numbers were very solid. He had a passer rating of 90.7 in his final season and 88.9 in his professional career. If that 88.9 had continued for more years, it would rank him 14th in the HoF. Granted, as you say there are no guarantees, but he would not be out of place there.
As for the advisability of expensive QBs running, I started wondering about this. Is it really more dangerous to run at a 300 pounder, or is it better to hide in the pocket until the 300 pounder comes and jumps on you? Intuitively, I figured that being able to run may in fact be the safer option -- the further you break out downfield, the more likely you are to be tackled by the legs and able to roll with the impact, rather than having impacts to the upper body that can't really be rolled with. Not being an expert, I decided to google it and see if anyone has studied it. Sure enough, I found THIS article which describes a study on exactly this. In fact, they pronounced a "myth" the conventional wisdom that running quarterbacks are more likely to get injured. They found no statistically-significant difference, but if anything, the fleet-footed QB who can move out of the crush zone is less likely to be injured than his pocket-turtle counterpart.
In any case, it's not necessary to use every tool, only to have it available when it's suitable. A running quarterback doesn't have to run all the time; he only has to run when the situation calls for it. It's similar to rushing in general: a game can be won without any rushing at all, but if the opponents know you can't rush, then they can easily shut down your passing game too.