'89 niners on NFL network now!

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:
I'm not trolling, just trying to be an honest non-homer. I know it's considered blasphemous not to assert our dynasty teams were the greatest, but if we're being honest with ourselves, our teams benefitted from weaker competition.

What the 1999 Rams did, as much as we hate their oganization, is incredible. And it's OK if they have the greatest team of all-time...it's the only SB champion team they've ever had. Just like the 85 Bears. Let them enjoy their one spectacular year. The 49ers have 5 rings, even if none of those teams are Top 10 all-time individually. We had sustained excellence.

Damn. The only position Rams had that was better was Faulk.

The 89 49er team would have smashed that Rams team. The Rams won by one yard to the Titans. The very next year they lost to the underdogg Pats and that was the end for them. That's not very spectacular.

Bruce/Holt > Rice/Taylor. Rice is the GOAT, but Taylor, was a bum. And if Holt hadn't gotten hurt, he might be challening Rice's GOAT status. Two first ballot HOF WRs > 1.

Orlando Pace > any 49er lineman. Pace = HOFer.

Kevin Carter had 17 sacks, better than any Niner pass rusher. London Fletcher was better than any Niner linebacker. Ronnie Lott was better than any Ram DB, but Todd Lyght > Don Griffin & Daryl Pollard.

LOL. Ok you have made it pretty clear you are a Rams fan. But you of all people should know John Taylor was not a bum (Two Receiving TDs of 90+ yards on MNF against your Rams in 1989, as well as a clutch TD to win Super Bowl XXIII)...

I'll give you Orlando Pace, but Kevin Carter? We had Fred Dean and Charles Haley, one HOFer and the other a future HOFer. Kevin Carter will never sniff the HOF.

Todd Lyght? Ever hear of Eric Wright or Dwight Hicks? Far superior players over Todd Lyght. Todd Lyght had one exceptional year in 1999, then was cut after the 2000 season because he was getting abused up and down the field.

Patrick Willis > London Fletcher

And that's all I have to say about that

I'm not a Rams fan. I'm actually insulted you would even think that; I can't STAND them. Part of that reason is they were so good.

Lots of non-sequiturs here. Fred Dean wasn't on the 89 team. Charles Haley may have had a better career, but Carter had 17 sacks in 1999 and was dominant against the run. Haley was weak vs. the run and only had 10.5 sacks in 89. I don't think Haley will ever be in the HOF, either.

Not only did the Rams have Orlando Pace, the best tackle in the NFL, but they also had Timmerman, one of the best guards in the the game, if not THE best. That line was easily was better than our 89 unit.

Eric Wright and Dwight Hicks? Again, not on the 89 team. Well, Wright was, but he was a #4 corner and only played one more season.

Taylor had one good game in his career, as you mentioned. Despite Rice drawing constant double and triple teams, Taylor still put up mediocre numbers. What does that say about him?

He would've been a #3 or #4 receiver on any other team, at best. But Rice was so good the 49ers didn't need a real #2. Holt and Bruce are two of the Top 10 receivers of all-time. Holt may even be Top 5 of all-time. Rice is #1, but Taylor isn't even in the Top 500.

Forgot: Patrick Willis, not on the 89 team. Why are you bringing up all our players from other years and comparing them to Rams players? This is 89 Rams vs. 99 49ers. Fletcher was better than any linebacker on the 89 49ers.

No real Niner fan would ever refer to JT the way you did . . . you're not fooling anybody.

I'm just a non-homer Niners fan. I don't overhype our players. People want to talk about Patrick Willis like he's some GREAT linebacker, or John Taylor like he was a GREAT receiver, please. It's just towing the company line, like Lions fans thinking Calvin Johnson is the best WR in the NFL or Cowboys fans thinking DeMarcus Ware is great against the run. I've even heard a Jaguars fan call freak'n Maurice Jones-Drew "the most complete back in the league." Delusional fanship I have no interest in.

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

I'm just a non-homer Niners fan. I don't overhype our players. People want to talk about Patrick Willis like he's some GREAT linebacker, or John Taylor like he was a GREAT receiver, please. It's just towing the company line, like Lions fans thinking Calvin Johnson is the best WR in the NFL or Cowboys fans thinking DeMarcus Ware is great against the run. I've even heard a Jaguars fan call freak'n Maurice Jones-Drew "the most complete back in the league." Delusional fanship I have no interest in.

Yeah, I agree. It's not like Taylor had a 1,000 yards receiving or 10 TDs in the year in question. Or caught one of the most important passes in the clutch in his first Super Bowl appearance. The guy's a bum.

Originally posted by FreddyG:

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:
I'm not trolling, just trying to be an honest non-homer. I know it's considered blasphemous not to assert our dynasty teams were the greatest, but if we're being honest with ourselves, our teams benefitted from weaker competition.

What the 1999 Rams did, as much as we hate their oganization, is incredible. And it's OK if they have the greatest team of all-time...it's the only SB champion team they've ever had. Just like the 85 Bears. Let them enjoy their one spectacular year. The 49ers have 5 rings, even if none of those teams are Top 10 all-time individually. We had sustained excellence.

Damn. The only position Rams had that was better was Faulk.

The 89 49er team would have smashed that Rams team. The Rams won by one yard to the Titans. The very next year they lost to the underdogg Pats and that was the end for them. That's not very spectacular.

Bruce/Holt > Rice/Taylor. Rice is the GOAT, but Taylor, was a bum. And if Holt hadn't gotten hurt, he might be challening Rice's GOAT status. Two first ballot HOF WRs > 1.

Orlando Pace > any 49er lineman. Pace = HOFer.

Kevin Carter had 17 sacks, better than any Niner pass rusher. London Fletcher was better than any Niner linebacker. Ronnie Lott was better than any Ram DB, but Todd Lyght > Don Griffin & Daryl Pollard.

LOL. Ok you have made it pretty clear you are a Rams fan. But you of all people should know John Taylor was not a bum (Two Receiving TDs of 90+ yards on MNF against your Rams in 1989, as well as a clutch TD to win Super Bowl XXIII)...

I'll give you Orlando Pace, but Kevin Carter? We had Fred Dean and Charles Haley, one HOFer and the other a future HOFer. Kevin Carter will never sniff the HOF.

Todd Lyght? Ever hear of Eric Wright or Dwight Hicks? Far superior players over Todd Lyght. Todd Lyght had one exceptional year in 1999, then was cut after the 2000 season because he was getting abused up and down the field.

Patrick Willis > London Fletcher

And that's all I have to say about that

I'm not a Rams fan. I'm actually insulted you would even think that; I can't STAND them. Part of that reason is they were so good.

Lots of non-sequiturs here. Fred Dean wasn't on the 89 team. Charles Haley may have had a better career, but Carter had 17 sacks in 1999 and was dominant against the run. Haley was weak vs. the run and only had 10.5 sacks in 89. I don't think Haley will ever be in the HOF, either.

Not only did the Rams have Orlando Pace, the best tackle in the NFL, but they also had Timmerman, one of the best guards in the the game, if not THE best. That line was easily was better than our 89 unit.

Eric Wright and Dwight Hicks? Again, not on the 89 team. Well, Wright was, but he was a #4 corner and only played one more season.

Taylor had one good game in his career, as you mentioned. Despite Rice drawing constant double and triple teams, Taylor still put up mediocre numbers. What does that say about him?

He would've been a #3 or #4 receiver on any other team, at best. But Rice was so good the 49ers didn't need a real #2. Holt and Bruce are two of the Top 10 receivers of all-time. Holt may even be Top 5 of all-time. Rice is #1, but Taylor isn't even in the Top 500.

Forgot: Patrick Willis, not on the 89 team. Why are you bringing up all our players from other years and comparing them to Rams players? This is 89 Rams vs. 99 49ers. Fletcher was better than any linebacker on the 89 49ers.

Haha yeah. I didn't realize you were just talking strictly about 89 49ers vs 99 Rams until after I posted.

I just went on a rant after you said John Taylor was a bum! Surprising to hear that from a "49er fan" because it is incorrect and idiotic. I still question your allegiance.

All time 49ers team team > rest of the NFL

This

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:
I'm not trolling, just trying to be an honest non-homer. I know it's considered blasphemous not to assert our dynasty teams were the greatest, but if we're being honest with ourselves, our teams benefitted from weaker competition.

What the 1999 Rams did, as much as we hate their oganization, is incredible. And it's OK if they have the greatest team of all-time...it's the only SB champion team they've ever had. Just like the 85 Bears. Let them enjoy their one spectacular year. The 49ers have 5 rings, even if none of those teams are Top 10 all-time individually. We had sustained excellence.

Damn. The only position Rams had that was better was Faulk.

The 89 49er team would have smashed that Rams team. The Rams won by one yard to the Titans. The very next year they lost to the underdogg Pats and that was the end for them. That's not very spectacular.

Bruce/Holt > Rice/Taylor. Rice is the GOAT, but Taylor, was a bum. And if Holt hadn't gotten hurt, he might be challening Rice's GOAT status. Two first ballot HOF WRs > 1.

Orlando Pace > any 49er lineman. Pace = HOFer.

Kevin Carter had 17 sacks, better than any Niner pass rusher. London Fletcher was better than any Niner linebacker. Ronnie Lott was better than any Ram DB, but Todd Lyght > Don Griffin & Daryl Pollard.

LOL. Ok you have made it pretty clear you are a Rams fan. But you of all people should know John Taylor was not a bum (Two Receiving TDs of 90+ yards on MNF against your Rams in 1989, as well as a clutch TD to win Super Bowl XXIII)...

I'll give you Orlando Pace, but Kevin Carter? We had Fred Dean and Charles Haley, one HOFer and the other a future HOFer. Kevin Carter will never sniff the HOF.

Todd Lyght? Ever hear of Eric Wright or Dwight Hicks? Far superior players over Todd Lyght. Todd Lyght had one exceptional year in 1999, then was cut after the 2000 season because he was getting abused up and down the field.

Patrick Willis > London Fletcher

And that's all I have to say about that

I'm not a Rams fan. I'm actually insulted you would even think that; I can't STAND them. Part of that reason is they were so good.

Lots of non-sequiturs here. Fred Dean wasn't on the 89 team. Charles Haley may have had a better career, but Carter had 17 sacks in 1999 and was dominant against the run. Haley was weak vs. the run and only had 10.5 sacks in 89. I don't think Haley will ever be in the HOF, either.

Not only did the Rams have Orlando Pace, the best tackle in the NFL, but they also had Timmerman, one of the best guards in the the game, if not THE best. That line was easily was better than our 89 unit.

Eric Wright and Dwight Hicks? Again, not on the 89 team. Well, Wright was, but he was a #4 corner and only played one more season.

Taylor had one good game in his career, as you mentioned. Despite Rice drawing constant double and triple teams, Taylor still put up mediocre numbers. What does that say about him?

He would've been a #3 or #4 receiver on any other team, at best. But Rice was so good the 49ers didn't need a real #2. Holt and Bruce are two of the Top 10 receivers of all-time. Holt may even be Top 5 of all-time. Rice is #1, but Taylor isn't even in the Top 500.

Forgot: Patrick Willis, not on the 89 team. Why are you bringing up all our players from other years and comparing them to Rams players? This is 89 Rams vs. 99 49ers. Fletcher was better than any linebacker on the 89 49ers.

No real Niner fan would ever refer to JT the way you did . . . you're not fooling anybody.

I'm just a non-homer Niners fan. I don't overhype our players. People want to talk about Patrick Willis like he's some GREAT linebacker, or John Taylor like he was a GREAT receiver, please. It's just towing the company line, like Lions fans thinking Calvin Johnson is the best WR in the NFL or Cowboys fans thinking DeMarcus Ware is great against the run. I've even heard a Jaguars fan call freak'n Maurice Jones-Drew "the most complete back in the league." Delusional fanship I have no interest in.

since i have been visiting these forums for some 10 years....you have got to be in the top 3 delusional, idiotic posters i have ever seen. Not only are you completely WRONG when comparing the 2000 rams to the 89 niners.....you are even more WRONG when comparing the competition. You lose all credibility....Whenever there is a top team of all time the 84 and 89 niners are almost always in the top 5 and ive seen the 89 niners first a few times while the steelers and bears are mentioned as well. So YOU my mentally challenged poster are WRONG and so many people who know the game are RIGHT.

The titans did not have a good passing game and their secondary was weak and TB had a pedestrian offense in 2000....for you to say dunn was a good rb or king a good qb....sorry to break this to you but they are backups on most teams....hell, king wasn't even considered to be a starter. The titans and yancy thigpen....are you joking again. Holt and Bruce both top 10 wr's......WRONG AND WRONG again....they wont even be top 20....doesnt it bother you to be wrong all the time. The rams D in 2000 was average at best while the niners D held Elway to 10 points (7 off a PI that gave them the ball at the 1 yard line so holding elway to 3 points....name another D that could of done that!) DID YOU KNOW that the BEST D in 89 was the BRONCOS and we rolled up 55 pooints......LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN.....The best D in points allowed was the broncos and the 89 niners scored 55????? And we also rolled up points on the vikings that year who were the best D in yards alllowed and monster sack artists and owned them as well.

Here is a fun fact for you...Montana is the best qb ever and lott is the best all around fs ever as well as craig is one of the best if not the best all purpose rb ever, rathman was one of the best fbs ever and brent jones was a great te. Taylor could of been a number 2 wr on ANY team and even a number 1 on some teams. The niners OL was very good and AS A UNIT was the best OFFENSE EVER....better than the rams. More complete and unstoppable with montana and co when all it takes to stop the rams is a good secondary.....see the titans holding the great rams offense to how many points or NE the next year....Newsflash for you. The niners score 55 points against the #1 D and the rams couldnt top 30 against the titans or NE. You just got owned bigtime and i would like to finish with a statement that we are all thinking and i hope you think about for the rest of your life and before you decide to try to post on this forum again.

What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things i have ever heard. At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points........

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:
I'm not trolling, just trying to be an honest non-homer. I know it's considered blasphemous not to assert our dynasty teams were the greatest, but if we're being honest with ourselves, our teams benefitted from weaker competition.

What the 1999 Rams did, as much as we hate their oganization, is incredible. And it's OK if they have the greatest team of all-time...it's the only SB champion team they've ever had. Just like the 85 Bears. Let them enjoy their one spectacular year. The 49ers have 5 rings, even if none of those teams are Top 10 all-time individually. We had sustained excellence.

Damn. The only position Rams had that was better was Faulk.

The 89 49er team would have smashed that Rams team. The Rams won by one yard to the Titans. The very next year they lost to the underdogg Pats and that was the end for them. That's not very spectacular.

Bruce/Holt > Rice/Taylor. Rice is the GOAT, but Taylor, was a bum. And if Holt hadn't gotten hurt, he might be challening Rice's GOAT status. Two first ballot HOF WRs > 1.

Orlando Pace > any 49er lineman. Pace = HOFer.

Kevin Carter had 17 sacks, better than any Niner pass rusher. London Fletcher was better than any Niner linebacker. Ronnie Lott was better than any Ram DB, but Todd Lyght > Don Griffin & Daryl Pollard.

LOL. Ok you have made it pretty clear you are a Rams fan. But you of all people should know John Taylor was not a bum (Two Receiving TDs of 90+ yards on MNF against your Rams in 1989, as well as a clutch TD to win Super Bowl XXIII)...

I'll give you Orlando Pace, but Kevin Carter? We had Fred Dean and Charles Haley, one HOFer and the other a future HOFer. Kevin Carter will never sniff the HOF.

Todd Lyght? Ever hear of Eric Wright or Dwight Hicks? Far superior players over Todd Lyght. Todd Lyght had one exceptional year in 1999, then was cut after the 2000 season because he was getting abused up and down the field.

Patrick Willis > London Fletcher

And that's all I have to say about that

I'm not a Rams fan. I'm actually insulted you would even think that; I can't STAND them. Part of that reason is they were so good.

Lots of non-sequiturs here. Fred Dean wasn't on the 89 team. Charles Haley may have had a better career, but Carter had 17 sacks in 1999 and was dominant against the run. Haley was weak vs. the run and only had 10.5 sacks in 89. I don't think Haley will ever be in the HOF, either.

Not only did the Rams have Orlando Pace, the best tackle in the NFL, but they also had Timmerman, one of the best guards in the the game, if not THE best. That line was easily was better than our 89 unit.

Eric Wright and Dwight Hicks? Again, not on the 89 team. Well, Wright was, but he was a #4 corner and only played one more season.

Taylor had one good game in his career, as you mentioned. Despite Rice drawing constant double and triple teams, Taylor still put up mediocre numbers. What does that say about him?

He would've been a #3 or #4 receiver on any other team, at best. But Rice was so good the 49ers didn't need a real #2. Holt and Bruce are two of the Top 10 receivers of all-time. Holt may even be Top 5 of all-time. Rice is #1, but Taylor isn't even in the Top 500.

Forgot: Patrick Willis, not on the 89 team. Why are you bringing up all our players from other years and comparing them to Rams players? This is 89 Rams vs. 99 49ers. Fletcher was better than any linebacker on the 89 49ers.

No real Niner fan would ever refer to JT the way you did . . . you're not fooling anybody.

I'm just a non-homer Niners fan. I don't overhype our players. People want to talk about Patrick Willis like he's some GREAT linebacker, or John Taylor like he was a GREAT receiver, please. It's just towing the company line, like Lions fans thinking Calvin Johnson is the best WR in the NFL or Cowboys fans thinking DeMarcus Ware is great against the run. I've even heard a Jaguars fan call freak'n Maurice Jones-Drew "the most complete back in the league." Delusional fanship I have no interest in.

fine . . . whatever . . . you betcha. Calling JT a bum, the player who caught the game winning TD in superbowl 23, goes beyond simple "non-homerism" and exposed your game. You overreached . . . sorry . . .

Also, Patrick Willis . . . four seasons, four pro-bowls, three time first team all pro . . . not great????? WTF???

BTW, Sam Bradford is a douche !

[ Edited by SonocoNinerFan on Jun 21, 2011 at 18:41:23 ]

Originally posted by elguapo:


since i have been visiting these forums for some 10 years....you have got to be in the top 3 delusional, idiotic posters i have ever seen. Not only are you completely WRONG when comparing the 2000 rams to the 89 niners.....you are even more WRONG when comparing the competition. You lose all credibility....Whenever there is a top team of all time the 84 and 89 niners are almost always in the top 5 and ive seen the 89 niners first a few times while the steelers and bears are mentioned as well. So YOU my mentally challenged poster are WRONG and so many people who know the game are RIGHT.
[/QUOTE]

It's the 99 Rams we're comparing, not the 2000 Rams. Unless you're using the Super Bowl year, in which case, we're referring to the 1990 49ers.

I know a lot of people put the 89 Niners in the Top 5 all-time. That's why I said they were overrated.

Quote:
The titans did not have a good passing game and their secondary was weak

Steve MVP McNair, not a good passing game?

Their secondary was weak? Blaine Bishop and Samari Rolle...weak?

If the Titans were so weak in these areas, why did they go 13-3 the next season? Most SB losers fall apart the following year.

Quote:
and TB had a pedestrian offense in 2000....for you to say dunn was a good rb or king a good qb....sorry to break this to you but they are backups on most teams....hell, king wasn't even considered to be a starter.

Warrick Dunn was a 3-time Pro Bowler and later started for the Falcons and posted 1400 yards in 2005. A backup on most teams? How ignorant.

Bill Walsh thought Shaun King was an excellent quarterback. I'll take his word over yours. And how can he not be considered to be a starter when he WAS a starter? He started for the Bucs in 1999-00, FACT.

Quote:
Holt and Bruce both top 10 wr's......WRONG AND WRONG again....they wont even be top 20....

Too late, they're both Top 10 all-time in receiving yards. Bruce is #3 all-time, and Holt is #10 and still plans on playing next year. If it weren't for injuries, he might have passed Rice.

Quote:
doesnt it bother you to be wrong all the time. The rams D in 2000 was average at best while the niners D held Elway to 10 points (7 off a PI that gave them the ball at the 1 yard line so holding elway to 3 points....name another D that could of done that!) DID YOU KNOW that the BEST D in 89 was the BRONCOS and we rolled up 55 pooints......LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN.....The best D in points allowed was the broncos and the 89 niners scored 55????? And we also rolled up points on the vikings that year who were the best D in yards alllowed and monster sack artists and owned them as well.

The Rams' D ranked 4th in points, 6th in yards that year. They had the #1 run defense in the NFL. Only reason they weren't in the Top 3, if not first in the entire NFL, in yards, is they blew teams out so much they went into prevent mode and teams got garbage time passing yards on them. They were #2 in interceptions, too.

The Rams' 99 defense was statistically better than our 89 team's defense, and their team scored 84 more points. On what planet is our 89 team even in the same REALM as that team?

Name another D that could've done that to the All-Elway Broncos offense? How about the 1986 Giants and 1987 Redskins? How about the 1991 Bills?

Quote:
Here is a fun fact for you...Montana is the best qb ever and lott is the best all around fs ever as well as craig is one of the best if not the best all purpose rb ever, rathman was one of the best fbs ever and brent jones was a great te. Taylor could of been a number 2 wr on ANY team and even a number 1 on some teams. The niners OL was very good and AS A UNIT was the best OFFENSE EVER

442 points. The best offense ever? They'd be lucky to crack the top 3 in scoring in any given year with that point total. That's just reality.

Kurt Warner was better in 1999 than Joe Montana was in 1989 (4300 yards and 41 TDs vs. 3500 yards and 26 TDs). I'm not saying he was better than Montana, but he had a way better season. Marshall Faulk was WAY better in 99 than Roger Craig was in 89 (1,000/1,000 season in 1999, with 1381 rushing yards and 1048 receiving yards). Craig only had 1,054 yards rushing and 473 yards receiving. Brent Jones did a whopping 40 catches for 500 yards and 4 touchdowns in 89. Roland Williams, the Rams' TE (and they didn't even use a TE much) caught 25 for 226 and 6 in 1999.

If Rathman was one of the best fullbacks ever, how come he never made a Pro Bowl? He posted 305 yards and 1 touchdown. Mike Alstott could do that in 3 games. Rathman was a good fullback, but having a good fullback doesn't make up for the fact that the Rams had better performances from their QB, RB, WRs, and offensive line.

The Niners' o-line, by the way, allowed 45 sacks that year and the running game ranked 10th in the NFL. Nothing special.

Taylor's lack of production despite playing opposite the greatest receiver in NFL history, who was drawing constant triple teams, says it all. If you can't even put up big numbers playing opposite Jerry Rice and with two of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time, you're not a very good receiver.

Quote:
....better than the rams. More complete and unstoppable with montana and co when all it takes to stop the rams is a good secondary.....see the titans holding the great rams offense to how many points or NE the next year....Newsflash for you. The niners score 55 points against the #1 D and the rams couldnt top 30 against the titans or NE. You just got owned bigtime and i would like to finish with a statement that we are all thinking and i hope you think about for the rest of your life and before you decide to try to post on this forum again.

Didn't Warner throw for the two highest passing yardage total against both teams in those Super Bowls? Didn't the Patriots videotape their practices and cheat their way to victory? Everyone thought the Rams were going to blow them out. Belichick knew they didn't have much of a chance without some "help." Not to mention, they held the Rams' receivers all game long and got away with it.

So the Rams were held to REASONABLE point totals against a couple of outstanding defenses? Big deal.

The 1989 49ers scored only 442 points. They lost games by the score of 13-12 to the Rams and 21-17 to the Packers. They were trailing and nearly lost to the Bucs in week 2, the Eagles in week 3, the Saints in week 5, the Rams in week 15, and the Bills in week 16. The only team they blew out all season was the Falcons in their first meeting (45-3). That same 3-13 Falcons team led the 49ers at half in their rematch.

No joke: The 1989 49ers nearly didn't even make the playoffs. Had they not pulled out several close games, they would've been right around the .500 mark.

The 1999 Rams, meanwhile, blew out everybody until the NFC Championship game and the Super Bowl.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a cold shower. I feel dirty having had to explain the greatness of the freak'n Rams. ICHHHH.

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:


since i have been visiting these forums for some 10 years....you have got to be in the top 3 delusional, idiotic posters i have ever seen. Not only are you completely WRONG when comparing the 2000 rams to the 89 niners.....you are even more WRONG when comparing the competition. You lose all credibility....Whenever there is a top team of all time the 84 and 89 niners are almost always in the top 5 and ive seen the 89 niners first a few times while the steelers and bears are mentioned as well. So YOU my mentally challenged poster are WRONG and so many people who know the game are RIGHT.
[/QUOTE]

It's the 99 Rams we're comparing, not the 2000 Rams. Unless you're using the Super Bowl year, in which case, we're referring to the 1990 49ers.

I know a lot of people put the 89 Niners in the Top 5 all-time. That's why I said they were overrated.

Quote:
The titans did not have a good passing game and their secondary was weak

Steve MVP McNair, not a good passing game?

Their secondary was weak? Blaine Bishop and Samari Rolle...weak?

If the Titans were so weak in these areas, why did they go 13-3 the next season? Most SB losers fall apart the following year.

Quote:
and TB had a pedestrian offense in 2000....for you to say dunn was a good rb or king a good qb....sorry to break this to you but they are backups on most teams....hell, king wasn't even considered to be a starter.

Warrick Dunn was a 3-time Pro Bowler and later started for the Falcons and posted 1400 yards in 2005. A backup on most teams? How ignorant.

Bill Walsh thought Shaun King was an excellent quarterback. I'll take his word over yours. And how can he not be considered to be a starter when he WAS a starter? He started for the Bucs in 1999-00, FACT.

Quote:
Holt and Bruce both top 10 wr's......WRONG AND WRONG again....they wont even be top 20....

Too late, they're both Top 10 all-time in receiving yards. Bruce is #3 all-time, and Holt is #10 and still plans on playing next year. If it weren't for injuries, he might have passed Rice.

Quote:
doesnt it bother you to be wrong all the time. The rams D in 2000 was average at best while the niners D held Elway to 10 points (7 off a PI that gave them the ball at the 1 yard line so holding elway to 3 points....name another D that could of done that!) DID YOU KNOW that the BEST D in 89 was the BRONCOS and we rolled up 55 pooints......LET ME REPEAT THAT AGAIN.....The best D in points allowed was the broncos and the 89 niners scored 55????? And we also rolled up points on the vikings that year who were the best D in yards alllowed and monster sack artists and owned them as well.

The Rams' D ranked 4th in points, 6th in yards that year. They had the #1 run defense in the NFL. Only reason they weren't in the Top 3, if not first in the entire NFL, in yards, is they blew teams out so much they went into prevent mode and teams got garbage time passing yards on them. They were #2 in interceptions, too.

The Rams' 99 defense was statistically better than our 89 team's defense, and their team scored 84 more points. On what planet is our 89 team even in the same REALM as that team?

Name another D that could've done that to the All-Elway Broncos offense? How about the 1986 Giants and 1987 Redskins? How about the 1991 Bills?

Quote:
Here is a fun fact for you...Montana is the best qb ever and lott is the best all around fs ever as well as craig is one of the best if not the best all purpose rb ever, rathman was one of the best fbs ever and brent jones was a great te. Taylor could of been a number 2 wr on ANY team and even a number 1 on some teams. The niners OL was very good and AS A UNIT was the best OFFENSE EVER

442 points. The best offense ever? They'd be lucky to crack the top 3 in scoring in any given year with that point total. That's just reality.

Kurt Warner was better in 1999 than Joe Montana was in 1989 (4300 yards and 41 TDs vs. 3500 yards and 26 TDs). I'm not saying he was better than Montana, but he had a way better season. Marshall Faulk was WAY better in 99 than Roger Craig was in 89 (1,000/1,000 season in 1999, with 1381 rushing yards and 1048 receiving yards). Craig only had 1,054 yards rushing and 473 yards receiving. Brent Jones did a whopping 40 catches for 500 yards and 4 touchdowns in 89. Roland Williams, the Rams' TE (and they didn't even use a TE much) caught 25 for 226 and 6 in 1999.

If Rathman was one of the best fullbacks ever, how come he never made a Pro Bowl? He posted 305 yards and 1 touchdown. Mike Alstott could do that in 3 games. Rathman was a good fullback, but having a good fullback doesn't make up for the fact that the Rams had better performances from their QB, RB, WRs, and offensive line.

The Niners' o-line, by the way, allowed 45 sacks that year and the running game ranked 10th in the NFL. Nothing special.

Taylor's lack of production despite playing opposite the greatest receiver in NFL history, who was drawing constant triple teams, says it all. If you can't even put up big numbers playing opposite Jerry Rice and with two of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time, you're not a very good receiver.

Quote:
....better than the rams. More complete and unstoppable with montana and co when all it takes to stop the rams is a good secondary.....see the titans holding the great rams offense to how many points or NE the next year....Newsflash for you. The niners score 55 points against the #1 D and the rams couldnt top 30 against the titans or NE. You just got owned bigtime and i would like to finish with a statement that we are all thinking and i hope you think about for the rest of your life and before you decide to try to post on this forum again.

Didn't Warner throw for the two highest passing yardage total against both teams in those Super Bowls? Didn't the Patriots videotape their practices and cheat their way to victory? Everyone thought the Rams were going to blow them out. Belichick knew they didn't have much of a chance without some "help." Not to mention, they held the Rams' receivers all game long and got away with it.

So the Rams were held to REASONABLE point totals against a couple of outstanding defenses? Big deal.

The 1989 49ers scored only 442 points. They lost games by the score of 13-12 to the Rams and 21-17 to the Packers. They were trailing and nearly lost to the Bucs in week 2, the Eagles in week 3, the Saints in week 5, the Rams in week 15, and the Bills in week 16. The only team they blew out all season was the Falcons in their first meeting (45-3). That same 3-13 Falcons team led the 49ers at half in their rematch.

No joke: The 1989 49ers nearly didn't even make the playoffs. Had they not pulled out several close games, they would've been right around the .500 mark.

The 1999 Rams, meanwhile, blew out everybody until the NFC Championship game and the Super Bowl.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a cold shower. I feel dirty having had to explain the greatness of the freak'n Rams. ICHHHH.

I'll stick with the 53 experts who ranked the Superbowl winners for the Americas game series as follows:

#20 - The 1983 Los Angeles Raiders
#19 - The 1999 St. Louis Rams . . . ouch #19
#18 - The 1969 Kansas City Chiefs
#17 - The 1994 San Francisco 49ers
#16 - The 1996 Green Bay Packers
#15 - The 1971 Dallas Cowboys
#14 - The 1991 Washington Redskins
#13 - The 1986 New York Giants
#12 - The 1998 Denver Broncos
#11 - The 1977 Dallas Cowboys
#10 - The 1976 Oakland Raiders
#9 - The 2004 New England Patriots
#8 - The 1984 San Francisco 49ers
#7 - The 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers
#6 - The 1966 Green Bay Packers
#5 - The 1992 Dallas Cowboys
#4 - The 1989 San Francisco 49ers
#3 - The 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers
#2 - The 1985 Chicago Bears
#1 - The 1972 Miami Dolphins

[ Edited by SonocoNinerFan on Jun 21, 2011 at 19:10:21 ]

Again i will just say you are not only delusional but ignorant. You definitely have lost it and are tops on the list of dults. Do yourself a favor and stop posting your jibberish. There is a reason why EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH YOU......you are wrong. You can counter post all these stats and try to back up your ridiculous statements but you know you are not only wrong but not even close to being remotely right. The 89 niners were a lot better in every way than the rams. Everybody fans experts alike disagree the rams at best a top 15 team and the 89 niners a lock for the top team maybe of all time or at least top 5. Sorry deal with it. Live it love it learn it.

Another newsflash for you....just bc mcnair was an mvp DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAD A GOOD PASSING GAME....just bc holt and bruce were top ten in yards DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TOP TEN. Wow. How is bruce in tds???? Thats what i thought.

Also what kind of simpleton would say king IS A STARTER. just because HE DID START DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A STARTER....FACT. this is just too easy. By your flawed logic i guess carr is a starter bc he started for a team....cade mcnown too.....the list goes on and on.

And i guess every offense that scored more points in a season is better than the niners in 89.....what a joke of an arguement.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Again i will just say you are not only delusional but ignorant. You definitely have lost it and are tops on the list of dults. Do yourself a favor and stop posting your jibberish. There is a reason why EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH YOU......you are wrong. You can counter post all these stats and try to back up your ridiculous statements but you know you are not only wrong but not even close to being remotely right. The 89 niners were a lot better in every way than the rams. Everybody fans experts alike disagree the rams at best a top 15 team and the 89 niners a lock for the top team maybe of all time or at least top 5. Sorry deal with it. Live it love it learn it.

Another newsflash for you....just bc mcnair was an mvp DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAD A GOOD PASSING GAME....just bc holt and bruce were top ten in yards DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TOP TEN. Wow. How is bruce in tds???? Thats what i thought.

Also what kind of simpleton would say king IS A STARTER. just because HE DID START DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A STARTER....FACT. this is just too easy. By your flawed logic i guess carr is a starter bc he started for a team....cade mcnown too.....the list goes on and on.

And i guess every offense that scored more points in a season is better than the niners in 89.....what a joke of an arguement.

1. Blah blah blah. Filler paragraph. Fallacies galore. "Everybody else agrees with me. This is true because I say it is. You're wrong, I'm right. If other people agree with me, it means I'm right."

2. McNair won an MVP because he's a good passer, and they had good targets. Just because they liked to pound the ball with their stud RB, Eddie George, does not mean they didn't have a good passing game.

3. LOL, what? King was a starter for the Bucs. Saying he was a starter means he was a starter. If you said, "good starter," you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But Bill Walsh said he could be a qualify NFL starter, and Bill Walsh was a QB expert.

4. Points are what matters in football. Do you not understand this? How in the world does the "greatest offense in NFL history" score just 442 points? How does "a top 5 team all-time" lose 2 games and nearly lose 6 others, and only blow out 1 team until the playoffs?

BTW, those playoff games, the offense wasn't exactly lighting it up, despite the point totals. The horrible opposing teams turned the ball over like it was going out of style, giving the 49ers short fields. Montana didn't throw for 300 yards once in those playoff games.

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Again i will just say you are not only delusional but ignorant. You definitely have lost it and are tops on the list of dults. Do yourself a favor and stop posting your jibberish. There is a reason why EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH YOU......you are wrong. You can counter post all these stats and try to back up your ridiculous statements but you know you are not only wrong but not even close to being remotely right. The 89 niners were a lot better in every way than the rams. Everybody fans experts alike disagree the rams at best a top 15 team and the 89 niners a lock for the top team maybe of all time or at least top 5. Sorry deal with it. Live it love it learn it.

Another newsflash for you....just bc mcnair was an mvp DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAD A GOOD PASSING GAME....just bc holt and bruce were top ten in yards DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TOP TEN. Wow. How is bruce in tds???? Thats what i thought.

Also what kind of simpleton would say king IS A STARTER. just because HE DID START DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A STARTER....FACT. this is just too easy. By your flawed logic i guess carr is a starter bc he started for a team....cade mcnown too.....the list goes on and on.

And i guess every offense that scored more points in a season is better than the niners in 89.....what a joke of an arguement.

1. Blah blah blah. Filler paragraph. Fallacies galore. "Everybody else agrees with me. This is true because I say it is. You're wrong, I'm right. If other people agree with me, it means I'm right."

2. McNair won an MVP because he's a good passer, and they had good targets. Just because they liked to pound the ball with their stud RB, Eddie George, does not mean they didn't have a good passing game.

3. LOL, what? King was a starter for the Bucs. Saying he was a starter means he was a starter. If you said, "good starter," you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But Bill Walsh said he could be a qualify NFL starter, and Bill Walsh was a QB expert.

4. Points are what matters in football. Do you not understand this? How in the world does the "greatest offense in NFL history" score just 442 points? How does "a top 5 team all-time" lose 2 games and nearly lose 6 others, and only blow out 1 team until the playoffs?

BTW, those playoff games, the offense wasn't exactly lighting it up, despite the point totals. The horrible opposing teams turned the ball over like it was going out of style, giving the 49ers short fields. Montana didn't throw for 300 yards once in those playoff games.

Here's your blah blah blah again. You know you are wrong.....let it go. And FYI when 99% of people disagree with you.....most of the time you are wrong. This is certainly the case with you.

The best qb and best wr of all time along with the best all purpose rb of all time (faulk is better on turf but not grass..) along with a great te, fullback 2nd wr equals a great unit....which is what the niners in 89 were. Close games????? Well i got news for you, there were a lot better teams in the 80s then their were in 2000. Better qb and defensive play and just in case you did not know....kinda like all your posts.....the nfc was a really good conference. Niners Bears Vikings Rams Giants Wash and so on and so on.
Just becausebill walsh says

Wrong about McNair and the titans offense
You keep saying McNair was a very good passer.....he was a good passer at best but his mvp was due to his playmaking ability not him as a passer. Like Vick not a great passer but a great playmaker, especially with his legs.

Wrong about King
if your only point is bill walsh said he is a good qb....then you are wrong for the....I lost count how many times......you are in trouble. Bill walsh also said rick Mirer was going to be a great qb and compared him to montana....GUESS WHAT WALSH WAS WRONG AND SO ARE YOU!

Wrong about the niners offense
The 89 offense was the best if not top 3 offenses of all time...just because they didnt break the points record Does not mean they were not the best offense of all time. CASE IN POINT the best Defenses of ALL time were the 70s steelers and the 85 bears however the ravens have the point record....The ravens are not the best D of all time but since they broke the point record you would argue that the bears or steelers may not of been bc they allowed more points on D the same way the niners did not score as much as the rams or minn or wash....Guess what mr stats....Stats is not the whole picture. Think with your head like the rest of the world including fans and analysts and you will see why everyone would disagree with you on these points because YOU AGAIN ARE WRONG....sucks huh?

You may want to stop posting and wasting everybodys time and save your minute shred of credability by just leaving....it will be better for you.

what was the gag gift that Ronnie Lott presented to George Seifert?

This is the first time I've heard an argument suggesting that a team winning a Superbowl in post salary-cap era had to go through better teams than the ones before 1995.

WTF?!?

Today, NFL is all about mediocrity with 2-3 really good teams, and one great team every 4-5 years. Back in 80s, there were 3-4 great teams EVERY year.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

I'll stick with the 53 experts who ranked the Superbowl winners for the Americas game series as follows:

#20 - The 1983 Los Angeles Raiders
#19 - The 1999 St. Louis Rams . . . ouch #19
#18 - The 1969 Kansas City Chiefs
#17 - The 1994 San Francisco 49ers
#16 - The 1996 Green Bay Packers
#15 - The 1971 Dallas Cowboys
#14 - The 1991 Washington Redskins
#13 - The 1986 New York Giants
#12 - The 1998 Denver Broncos
#11 - The 1977 Dallas Cowboys
#10 - The 1976 Oakland Raiders
#9 - The 2004 New England Patriots
#8 - The 1984 San Francisco 49ers
#7 - The 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers
#6 - The 1966 Green Bay Packers
#5 - The 1992 Dallas Cowboys
#4 - The 1989 San Francisco 49ers
#3 - The 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers
#2 - The 1985 Chicago Bears
#1 - The 1972 Miami Dolphins

Not surprising! In the top 20, only 4 teams are from post salary cap era. Sounds about right.

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Again i will just say you are not only delusional but ignorant. You definitely have lost it and are tops on the list of dults. Do yourself a favor and stop posting your jibberish. There is a reason why EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH YOU......you are wrong. You can counter post all these stats and try to back up your ridiculous statements but you know you are not only wrong but not even close to being remotely right. The 89 niners were a lot better in every way than the rams. Everybody fans experts alike disagree the rams at best a top 15 team and the 89 niners a lock for the top team maybe of all time or at least top 5. Sorry deal with it. Live it love it learn it.

Another newsflash for you....just bc mcnair was an mvp DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAD A GOOD PASSING GAME....just bc holt and bruce were top ten in yards DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TOP TEN. Wow. How is bruce in tds???? Thats what i thought.

Also what kind of simpleton would say king IS A STARTER. just because HE DID START DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A STARTER....FACT. this is just too easy. By your flawed logic i guess carr is a starter bc he started for a team....cade mcnown too.....the list goes on and on.

And i guess every offense that scored more points in a season is better than the niners in 89.....what a joke of an arguement.

1. Blah blah blah. Filler paragraph. Fallacies galore. "Everybody else agrees with me. This is true because I say it is. You're wrong, I'm right. If other people agree with me, it means I'm right."

2. McNair won an MVP because he's a good passer, and they had good targets. Just because they liked to pound the ball with their stud RB, Eddie George, does not mean they didn't have a good passing game.

3. LOL, what? King was a starter for the Bucs. Saying he was a starter means he was a starter. If you said, "good starter," you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But Bill Walsh said he could be a qualify NFL starter, and Bill Walsh was a QB expert.

4. Points are what matters in football. Do you not understand this? How in the world does the "greatest offense in NFL history" score just 442 points? How does "a top 5 team all-time" lose 2 games and nearly lose 6 others, and only blow out 1 team until the playoffs?

BTW, those playoff games, the offense wasn't exactly lighting it up, despite the point totals. The horrible opposing teams turned the ball over like it was going out of style, giving the 49ers short fields. Montana didn't throw for 300 yards once in those playoff games.

How does a team "only" score four TD's per game?

. . . and let's go back to your original ridiculous post that started this nonsense . . .

Quote:
Always felt that was an overrated team and possibly the weakest to win a SB. Blowing out the Broncos, big deal. Everyone did. This team doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the 1999 Rams, who dominated powerful competition all year

Your ""powerful competition" line has been easily refuted multiple times and you've chosen to ignore it. Nevermind that the 1999 NFL field was watered down post salary cap, the regular season schedule the Niners played in 1989 was more difficult in every way. The Niners had to contend with two other teams within the division with records above .500 plus they had to play two division champions and two wild card teams (four if you add the Rams) during the regular season before they crushed the playoff field.

The Rams were NEVER really tested during the 1999 regular season. The ONE team they played that was above .500 they lost to. And if it wasn't for the Bucs getting jobbed on Bert Emanuels CATCH in the NFC Championship game the 99 Rams would have probably been featured in a "Missing Rings" episode of America's Game.

And Montana in the 1989 post season? Don't even go there. 68/88 (77%) for 826 yards , 11 TD's / ZERO Int's . . . and he threw for 317 against the Broncos. Three more TD's and four fewer Int's than Warner's 1999 post season, and like you said . . . it's about points, not yards.





[ Edited by SonocoNinerFan on Jun 22, 2011 at 10:48:04 ]

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:
Again i will just say you are not only delusional but ignorant. You definitely have lost it and are tops on the list of dults. Do yourself a favor and stop posting your jibberish. There is a reason why EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH YOU......you are wrong. You can counter post all these stats and try to back up your ridiculous statements but you know you are not only wrong but not even close to being remotely right. The 89 niners were a lot better in every way than the rams. Everybody fans experts alike disagree the rams at best a top 15 team and the 89 niners a lock for the top team maybe of all time or at least top 5. Sorry deal with it. Live it love it learn it.

Another newsflash for you....just bc mcnair was an mvp DOES NOT MEAN THEY HAD A GOOD PASSING GAME....just bc holt and bruce were top ten in yards DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE TOP TEN. Wow. How is bruce in tds???? Thats what i thought.

Also what kind of simpleton would say king IS A STARTER. just because HE DID START DOES NOT MEAN HE IS A STARTER....FACT. this is just too easy. By your flawed logic i guess carr is a starter bc he started for a team....cade mcnown too.....the list goes on and on.

And i guess every offense that scored more points in a season is better than the niners in 89.....what a joke of an arguement.

1. Blah blah blah. Filler paragraph. Fallacies galore. "Everybody else agrees with me. This is true because I say it is. You're wrong, I'm right. If other people agree with me, it means I'm right."

2. McNair won an MVP because he's a good passer, and they had good targets. Just because they liked to pound the ball with their stud RB, Eddie George, does not mean they didn't have a good passing game.

3. LOL, what? King was a starter for the Bucs. Saying he was a starter means he was a starter. If you said, "good starter," you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But Bill Walsh said he could be a qualify NFL starter, and Bill Walsh was a QB expert.

4. Points are what matters in football. Do you not understand this? How in the world does the "greatest offense in NFL history" score just 442 points? How does "a top 5 team all-time" lose 2 games and nearly lose 6 others, and only blow out 1 team until the playoffs?

BTW, those playoff games, the offense wasn't exactly lighting it up, despite the point totals. The horrible opposing teams turned the ball over like it was going out of style, giving the 49ers short fields. Montana didn't throw for 300 yards once in those playoff games.

You should really quit, you are really making a fool of yourself clinging to that weak argument. There are better ways to get attention. Like posting in threads with the objective of encouraging discourse, not discord.