Originally posted by Leathaface:Originally posted by Joecool:Originally posted by Ceadderman:Originally posted by tommyncal:Originally posted by Joecool:
Perfect examples for Mike Singletary's case:
These guys could never win a superbowl until the running game was the main focus and Marino never won it. Steve Young never won until our defense was better than our offense. They all had the capabilities to get the job done when needed but their superbowl wins weren't mainly because of them.
So, if Alex Smith is the QB on those those superbowl winning teams, you think they still win the superbowl???
Dude, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, Dilfer won a Super Bowl with Baltimore. W/O that Defense would they even have made the Playoffs?
Quit beating your horse Semantics. He's already dead. It's time to let him go.
Oh and our DEFENSE was not better than our Offense in '95. You better look at how many points our Offense put on the board. Our Defense DID get better and we needed it to get better but it was NOT better than our Offense.Prime example is look at the amount of points dropped on San Di-uhoh by one Steve Young and one Jerry Rice.
Our defense was better than our offense that year. Just because our offense scored tons of points against OTHER defenses doesn't mean a thing. I don't think Steve Young would be very effective against our defense.
BTW, what did the Niners (I won't say Young) do when Deon left? The defense was the reason why we won that superbowl more than it was the QB.
And about the Alex Smith comment...if Dilfer can win one, anyone QB can.
You're crazy if you think the 94-95 team won b/c of the defense. Yes the defense was in need of a upgrade, and yes they were awesome. But just b/c the defense got better relative to the previous year doesn't mean it was the stronger unit.
That's just ridiculous, I'm sorry. The 94-95 team had one of the most complete offenses the 49ers have ever had.
Id say the 94 Superbowl team had one of the best offenses in NFL history