Originally posted by ninersoul:
The 49ers were DOMINANT offensively in 1994. No one could stop the 49ers from scoring and they scored 35 -- 40+ points in many games that year. Heck, I'll argue that offense was the best in NFL history.
Now no doubt the loss of Watters contributed to the difference of how the offense played the following season and I do feel the niners would've repeated as champs if Watters stayed with us...but the question relies was Watters THAT MUCH of a difference maker in our offense? I'm not so sure.
Even though Loville wasn't as good as Watters, he had talent. From what I remember he was capable of and did make plays running the ball. Its just that it appeared to me that Trestman didn't do a better job of providing more offensive balance.
No, Trestman utilized Loville about as well as he could have been utilized. The Packers back then basically beat up the 49ers, with or without Trestman, simply because the 49ers didn't have a running game, the one year they had a running game, they ended up beating Green Bay. The loss of Watters was catastrophic, it allowed teams to simply defend the pass and dare the 49ers to run, at which point Loville failed to get much of anything done. The offense was still explosive but far too one dimensional and the Packers had a great defense that could handle the 49ers passing game.
Trestman did draw up an excellent gameplan against the Cowboys, got major kudo's for it as the 49ers beat Dallas in 1995, with Grbac starting at QB, with Deion playing for Dallas, the eventual Superbowl Champions. He got put into a tough situation with ridiculous expectations and did the best he could have. Later on he went to help guys like Scott Mitchell and Jake Plummer have their all-time best NFL seasons.