'89 niners on NFL network now!

Originally posted by elguapo:

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.

1. 99% of people disagree with me, eh? What's your source for this? Classic fallacy. 93.8746% of all statistics are made up.

And once again, you are using another classic fallacy, argumentum ad populem (appeal to the "majority"...or in this case, PERCEIVED majority) as a crutch for your inability to argue.


2. So the 1989 Bucs (49ers won the game 20-16 and needed a last minute drive to do so) were a really tough team? How about the 3-13 Falcons, whom they trailed at halftime against in the second meeting? How about being tied with the 1-15 Cowboys at 14-14 going into the 4th quarter? All this competition was only "tough" because you say it is. Look at the playoff teams; they were terrible compared to most playoff teams of the modern era. The Vikings' quarterback was Wade Wilson. WADE WILSION!!!

And you're relying on individual players to prove an team was great. Oh, right, Montana, Rice, and Lott. The only 3 great players on that team. I guess the 1988 team must also be Top 5 all-time, since all 3 of those guys were ALSO on that team. Nevermind them going 10-6 and nearly losing the Super Bowl.

The Rams had Warner, Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and Pace on offense in 1999. That's 5 first-ballot Hall of Fame offensive players.

And you casually state, "Faulk better on turf, not grass." Uh....WHAT? So it's Marshall Faulk's fault he played for dome teams his entire career? Newsflash: Faulk was great on all surfaces, and Craig paled in comparison. Craig had a whopping 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons, and only one of those seasons even topped 1100 yards (I know, I know, stats don't matter at all, right? We should just judge by which players we LIKE more). Craig is not and will never be in the Hall of Fame. Faulk already got in first ballot.

3. Oh, right, McNair and his whopping 138 rushing yards during his MVP season. Yeah, it was totally his legs that won him the MVP that year.

4. How do you know Rick Mirer couldn't have been a good quarterback? He played on terrible Seahawks teams. Almost as bad as the teams Alex has played on.

5. Says who? The 2000 Ravens defense IS probably the best of all-time. Especially considering the 70's Steelers got to maul wide receivers down the field and dirty play in general was accepted. The Steelers and Bears had more years with truly dominating defenses than those Ravens, so those units have a legendary place in history, and rightly so. Just like the 49ers had a long string of very good offenses that gave them relevance in NFL history. But comparing the 1989 49ers offense to the 1999 Rams offense is criminal.

6. Stop projecting.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:


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.

1. I never said the 1989 49ers were a bad offense. I just said they weren't a great one, much less the "greatest ever." Putting them there is just homerism at its finest. It defies all logic. The only thing the 1989 49ers were the "best ever" at was scoring 4th quarter points. They scored 174 4th quarter points that year, which I'm thinking is probably an all-time record.

4th quarter points, though. Think about that. That means one of two things:

A. They were running up the score

OR

B. Their offense was stagnant in the first 3 quarters and only came alive at the ends of games when they needed to come back.

The answer to this, for anyone who studied them, is letter B. Letter A would be absurd, anyway, as 442 points isn't all that impressive and if 174 were scored in the 4th quarter, how would that leave enough points to be blowing teams out to "run up the score" on in the first place?

Anyway, I'm sorry, but great offenses don't go stagnant for 3 quarters and then only get going when they are in a hole. Great offenses are explosive right from the coin toss. The 1999 Rams, for example. The 1998 Vikings, for example. The 2007 Patriots, for example.

The closest thing the 49ers had to this kind of offense was the 1994 team, but even that team pales in comparison to those Rams, Vikings, and Patriots teams. Not to mention the 2000 and 2001 Rams teams, 2004 Colts, the 1984 Dolphins, the 1983 Redskins, the early/mid-2000's Chiefs teams, the 1998 Broncos, the 1991 Redskins, and the 2009 Saints.

2. You are making the mistake of thinking "record" is the same as "difficulty." The NFL was FAR less talented in those days than it is today. There are so many incredible athletes in the modern era as compared to the past that it's a joke. That's just the way sports work. Athletes get bigger, stronger, faster, and better. I'm not suggesting we completely disregard the past, but trying to plug our ears and shout, "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!! THE ATHLETES OF THE PAST WERE BETTER!!!" is naive, foolish, nonsense.

Yeah, the Saints went 9-7 in 1989, but what does that really say when a team quarterbacked by Bobby Hebert, with no real offensive weapons, is able to go 9-7? And aside from their linebackers, they had nothing on defense, either. Their defenses weren't great statistically, at least until 91-92.

Yeah, the Rams went 11-5 in 1989, but they were quarterbacked by Jim Everett, who is best remembered for attacking Jim Rome for calling him, "Chris." They no longer had Eric Dickerson, and their defense was abysmal. Funny how nobody mentions that when they try to pimp John Taylor as anything more than a journeyman caliber player.

The teams the 1999 Rams faced were far stronger. You'd have to be really ignorant not to acknowledge that.

3. Bert Emanuel's supposed "catch" wasn't even a first down. The Rams still would have won.

And the Rams were never really tested? Isn't that what is SUPPOSED to be the case with great teams? Ever think it may have been because they were SO MUCH BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE?

4. No, Montana only threw for 297 yards against the Broncos. Check again. Steve Young came in at the end and threw for 20 more.

Warner had to play far superior defenses in those playoff games. Just look at that joke of a Broncos defense, for example. Their secondary was horrendous against the pass. Steve Atwater and Dennis Smith were basically linebackers playing safety. Neither could cover a book. Their corners were Tyrone Braxton, who wound up moved to safety because of how awful he was in coverage, and Wymon Henderson, a scrub journeyman. Wow, really impressive.

And lest we forget, the 49ers were a West Coast Offense team. Most of the time they were throwing short, high percentage passes. The Rams, on the other hand, were constantly attacking down the field. The accuracy Warner showed those years with the Rams may never be seen again. The Rams offense was not only incredibly explosive, it was ALSO incredibly efficient. The 49ers offenses were never very explosive. They were, at times, very efficient, but not consistently. The 1989 49ers offense was actually on the lower end in terms of efficiency among 49er teams during those years.

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:

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.

1. 99% of people disagree with me, eh? What's your source for this? Classic fallacy. 93.8746% of all statistics are made up.

And once again, you are using another classic fallacy, argumentum ad populem (appeal to the "majority"...or in this case, PERCEIVED majority) as a crutch for your inability to argue.


2. So the 1989 Bucs (49ers won the game 20-16 and needed a last minute drive to do so) were a really tough team? How about the 3-13 Falcons, whom they trailed at halftime against in the second meeting? How about being tied with the 1-15 Cowboys at 14-14 going into the 4th quarter? All this competition was only "tough" because you say it is. Look at the playoff teams; they were terrible compared to most playoff teams of the modern era. The Vikings' quarterback was Wade Wilson. WADE WILSION!!!

And you're relying on individual players to prove an team was great. Oh, right, Montana, Rice, and Lott. The only 3 great players on that team. I guess the 1988 team must also be Top 5 all-time, since all 3 of those guys were ALSO on that team. Nevermind them going 10-6 and nearly losing the Super Bowl.

The Rams had Warner, Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and Pace on offense in 1999. That's 5 first-ballot Hall of Fame offensive players.

And you casually state, "Faulk better on turf, not grass." Uh....WHAT? So it's Marshall Faulk's fault he played for dome teams his entire career? Newsflash: Faulk was great on all surfaces, and Craig paled in comparison. Craig had a whopping 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons, and only one of those seasons even topped 1100 yards (I know, I know, stats don't matter at all, right? We should just judge by which players we LIKE more). Craig is not and will never be in the Hall of Fame. Faulk already got in first ballot.

3. Oh, right, McNair and his whopping 138 rushing yards during his MVP season. Yeah, it was totally his legs that won him the MVP that year.

4. How do you know Rick Mirer couldn't have been a good quarterback? He played on terrible Seahawks teams. Almost as bad as the teams Alex has played on.

5. Says who? The 2000 Ravens defense IS probably the best of all-time. Especially considering the 70's Steelers got to maul wide receivers down the field and dirty play in general was accepted. The Steelers and Bears had more years with truly dominating defenses than those Ravens, so those units have a legendary place in history, and rightly so. Just like the 49ers had a long string of very good offenses that gave them relevance in NFL history. But comparing the 1989 49ers offense to the 1999 Rams offense is criminal.

6. Stop projecting.

Just curious, although you have given good arguments, who should we listen to? You or the mass outlets that reports "sports"?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/1-20

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ycn-7584866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions (NFL Network)

http://www.superbowlpowers.com/superbowl-top-ten/Best-Superbowl-Teams.asp

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/403327_the-best-nfl-teams-of-all-time

http://www.suite101.com/content/nfl---nest-team-of-all-time-a340301

(just to name a few)

- 98

Originally posted by kidash:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:

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.

1. 99% of people disagree with me, eh? What's your source for this? Classic fallacy. 93.8746% of all statistics are made up.

And once again, you are using another classic fallacy, argumentum ad populem (appeal to the "majority"...or in this case, PERCEIVED majority) as a crutch for your inability to argue.


2. So the 1989 Bucs (49ers won the game 20-16 and needed a last minute drive to do so) were a really tough team? How about the 3-13 Falcons, whom they trailed at halftime against in the second meeting? How about being tied with the 1-15 Cowboys at 14-14 going into the 4th quarter? All this competition was only "tough" because you say it is. Look at the playoff teams; they were terrible compared to most playoff teams of the modern era. The Vikings' quarterback was Wade Wilson. WADE WILSION!!!

And you're relying on individual players to prove an team was great. Oh, right, Montana, Rice, and Lott. The only 3 great players on that team. I guess the 1988 team must also be Top 5 all-time, since all 3 of those guys were ALSO on that team. Nevermind them going 10-6 and nearly losing the Super Bowl.

The Rams had Warner, Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and Pace on offense in 1999. That's 5 first-ballot Hall of Fame offensive players.

And you casually state, "Faulk better on turf, not grass." Uh....WHAT? So it's Marshall Faulk's fault he played for dome teams his entire career? Newsflash: Faulk was great on all surfaces, and Craig paled in comparison. Craig had a whopping 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons, and only one of those seasons even topped 1100 yards (I know, I know, stats don't matter at all, right? We should just judge by which players we LIKE more). Craig is not and will never be in the Hall of Fame. Faulk already got in first ballot.

3. Oh, right, McNair and his whopping 138 rushing yards during his MVP season. Yeah, it was totally his legs that won him the MVP that year.

4. How do you know Rick Mirer couldn't have been a good quarterback? He played on terrible Seahawks teams. Almost as bad as the teams Alex has played on.

5. Says who? The 2000 Ravens defense IS probably the best of all-time. Especially considering the 70's Steelers got to maul wide receivers down the field and dirty play in general was accepted. The Steelers and Bears had more years with truly dominating defenses than those Ravens, so those units have a legendary place in history, and rightly so. Just like the 49ers had a long string of very good offenses that gave them relevance in NFL history. But comparing the 1989 49ers offense to the 1999 Rams offense is criminal.

6. Stop projecting.

Just curious, although you have given good arguments, who should we listen to? You or the mass outlets that reports "sports"?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/1-20

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ycn-7584866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions (NFL Network)

http://www.superbowlpowers.com/superbowl-top-ten/Best-Superbowl-Teams.asp

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/403327_the-best-nfl-teams-of-all-time

http://www.suite101.com/content/nfl---nest-team-of-all-time-a340301

(just to name a few)

- 98

That's why I said they are very overrated. The mass media just likes the lopsided scores of their playoff games and Super Bowl and being able to cite Montana, Rice, and Lott along with said scores. You can't trust media analysis.

You can't trust Rams fans either...just sayin...

Rice/Taylor combined for 2,560 yards and 27 TDs in 1989
Bruce/Holt combined for 1,953 yards and 18 TDs in 1999

Bruce/Holt were not superior to Rice/Taylor

The 1999 Rams played a very easy schedule, only 3-2 against teams .500 or better and barely held on to win the NFC championship & Super Bowl

The 1989 49ers were 8-1 against teams .500 or better!!
And they had the most dominant playoff run in NFL history outscoring opponents 126-26 (average margin of victory 33.3)
They put up 55 points against the Broncos who had the NFL's top scoring defense that year.

/endthread

[ Edited by SofaKing on Jun 22, 2011 at 16:13:22 ]

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by kidash:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by elguapo:

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.

1. 99% of people disagree with me, eh? What's your source for this? Classic fallacy. 93.8746% of all statistics are made up.

And once again, you are using another classic fallacy, argumentum ad populem (appeal to the "majority"...or in this case, PERCEIVED majority) as a crutch for your inability to argue.


2. So the 1989 Bucs (49ers won the game 20-16 and needed a last minute drive to do so) were a really tough team? How about the 3-13 Falcons, whom they trailed at halftime against in the second meeting? How about being tied with the 1-15 Cowboys at 14-14 going into the 4th quarter? All this competition was only "tough" because you say it is. Look at the playoff teams; they were terrible compared to most playoff teams of the modern era. The Vikings' quarterback was Wade Wilson. WADE WILSION!!!

And you're relying on individual players to prove an team was great. Oh, right, Montana, Rice, and Lott. The only 3 great players on that team. I guess the 1988 team must also be Top 5 all-time, since all 3 of those guys were ALSO on that team. Nevermind them going 10-6 and nearly losing the Super Bowl.

The Rams had Warner, Faulk, Bruce, Holt, and Pace on offense in 1999. That's 5 first-ballot Hall of Fame offensive players.

And you casually state, "Faulk better on turf, not grass." Uh....WHAT? So it's Marshall Faulk's fault he played for dome teams his entire career? Newsflash: Faulk was great on all surfaces, and Craig paled in comparison. Craig had a whopping 3 1,000 yard rushing seasons, and only one of those seasons even topped 1100 yards (I know, I know, stats don't matter at all, right? We should just judge by which players we LIKE more). Craig is not and will never be in the Hall of Fame. Faulk already got in first ballot.

3. Oh, right, McNair and his whopping 138 rushing yards during his MVP season. Yeah, it was totally his legs that won him the MVP that year.

4. How do you know Rick Mirer couldn't have been a good quarterback? He played on terrible Seahawks teams. Almost as bad as the teams Alex has played on.

5. Says who? The 2000 Ravens defense IS probably the best of all-time. Especially considering the 70's Steelers got to maul wide receivers down the field and dirty play in general was accepted. The Steelers and Bears had more years with truly dominating defenses than those Ravens, so those units have a legendary place in history, and rightly so. Just like the 49ers had a long string of very good offenses that gave them relevance in NFL history. But comparing the 1989 49ers offense to the 1999 Rams offense is criminal.

6. Stop projecting.

Just curious, although you have given good arguments, who should we listen to? You or the mass outlets that reports "sports"?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/1-20

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ycn-7584866

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Game:_The_Super_Bowl_Champions (NFL Network)

http://www.superbowlpowers.com/superbowl-top-ten/Best-Superbowl-Teams.asp

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/403327_the-best-nfl-teams-of-all-time

http://www.suite101.com/content/nfl---nest-team-of-all-time-a340301

(just to name a few)

- 98

That's why I said they are very overrated. The mass media just likes the lopsided scores of their playoff games and Super Bowl and being able to cite Montana, Rice, and Lott along with said scores. You can't trust media analysis.

Just like the Rams were overrated. Just sayin.

- 98

Pierce Holt, Kevin f*gan, Charles Haley, Matt Millen, Keena Turner, and Ronnie Lott.

It's best team, not best offense. And to compare statistics is skewed as rules were altered to favor offenses by 1999, and we all know it continues today.

H

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Rice/Taylor combined for 2,560 yards and 27 TDs in 1989
Bruce/Holt combined for 1,953 yards and 18 TDs in 1999

Bruce/Holt were not superior to Rice/Taylor

The 1999 Rams played a very easy schedule, only 3-2 against teams .500 or better and barely held on to win the NFC championship & Super Bowl

The 1989 49ers were 8-1 against teams .500 or better!!
And they had the most dominant playoff run in NFL history outscoring opponents 126-26 (average margin of victory 33.3)
They put up 55 points against the Broncos who had the NFL's top scoring defense that year.

/endthread

Everyone we all know this poster is delusional. He ignores all logic and states sraight up lies....calling the broncos d bad when they were 1st in points...and the vikings....1st in yards. I repeat rolling up 30 + and 55+ on those two best defenses that year is incredible.

I think he learned his lesson and knows he has to cling onto his weak and completely delusional arguements to save face although now he has lost every arguement.....cant argue......and cant support one point. He backpedals whenever wrong....
Cant argue that rice and taylor we not better than holt and bruce bc theyin fact were as a unit just as the niners played better competition qnd were 8-1 as compared to 3-2 against teams over 500. And elway and the broncos would of held the rams in check from scorng just like tenn did....they had a very good d. NUMBER ONE IN POINTS ALLOWED.


Just refer to the principal in billy madison or willy wonka kind sir....CRAWL UNDER A ROCK and accept that you are getting embarassed. Sucks to be you.

Originally posted by elguapo:
H

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Rice/Taylor combined for 2,560 yards and 27 TDs in 1989
Bruce/Holt combined for 1,953 yards and 18 TDs in 1999

Bruce/Holt were not superior to Rice/Taylor

The 1999 Rams played a very easy schedule, only 3-2 against teams .500 or better and barely held on to win the NFC championship & Super Bowl

The 1989 49ers were 8-1 against teams .500 or better!!
And they had the most dominant playoff run in NFL history outscoring opponents 126-26 (average margin of victory 33.3)
They put up 55 points against the Broncos who had the NFL's top scoring defense that year.

/endthread

Everyone we all know this poster is delusional. He ignores all logic and states sraight up lies....calling the broncos d bad when they were 1st in points...and the vikings....1st in yards. I repeat rolling up 30 + and 55+ on those two best defenses that year is incredible.

I think he learned his lesson and knows he has to cling onto his weak and completely delusional arguements to save face although now he has lost every arguement.....cant argue......and cant support one point. He backpedals whenever wrong....
Cant argue that rice and taylor we not better than holt and bruce bc theyin fact were as a unit just as the niners played better competition qnd were 8-1 as compared to 3-2 against teams over 500. And elway and the broncos would of held the rams in check from scorng just like tenn did....they had a very good d. NUMBER ONE IN POINTS ALLOWED.


Just refer to the principal in billy madison or willy wonka kind sir....CRAWL UNDER A ROCK and accept that you are getting embarassed. Sucks to be you.

At least he kinda broke up the lock-out boredom . . .

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:


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.

1. I never said the 1989 49ers were a bad offense. I just said they weren't a great one, much less the "greatest ever." Putting them there is just homerism at its finest. It defies all logic. The only thing the 1989 49ers were the "best ever" at was scoring 4th quarter points. They scored 174 4th quarter points that year, which I'm thinking is probably an all-time record.

4th quarter points, though. Think about that. That means one of two things:

A. They were running up the score

OR

B. Their offense was stagnant in the first 3 quarters and only came alive at the ends of games when they needed to come back.

The answer to this, for anyone who studied them, is letter B. Letter A would be absurd, anyway, as 442 points isn't all that impressive and if 174 were scored in the 4th quarter, how would that leave enough points to be blowing teams out to "run up the score" on in the first place?

Anyway, I'm sorry, but great offenses don't go stagnant for 3 quarters and then only get going when they are in a hole. Great offenses are explosive right from the coin toss. The 1999 Rams, for example. The 1998 Vikings, for example. The 2007 Patriots, for example.

The closest thing the 49ers had to this kind of offense was the 1994 team, but even that team pales in comparison to those Rams, Vikings, and Patriots teams. Not to mention the 2000 and 2001 Rams teams, 2004 Colts, the 1984 Dolphins, the 1983 Redskins, the early/mid-2000's Chiefs teams, the 1998 Broncos, the 1991 Redskins, and the 2009 Saints.

The 4th quarter points stat might be the most useless I've heard cited yet. Besides the fact that they had two games that skewed that meaningless stat (28 4th quarter points on the road in Philly and 20 4th quarter points on the road against your Rams to win the division) their league leading 28 points per game was relatively evenly distributed. Not that it means a frigging thing.


2. You are making the mistake of thinking "record" is the same as "difficulty." The NFL was FAR less talented in those days than it is today. There are so many incredible athletes in the modern era as compared to the past that it's a joke. That's just the way sports work. Athletes get bigger, stronger, faster, and better. I'm not suggesting we completely disregard the past, but trying to plug our ears and shout, "I DON'T HEAR YOU!!! THE ATHLETES OF THE PAST WERE BETTER!!!" is naive, foolish, nonsense.

Yeah, the Saints went 9-7 in 1989, but what does that really say when a team quarterbacked by Bobby Hebert, with no real offensive weapons, is able to go 9-7? And aside from their linebackers, they had nothing on defense, either. Their defenses weren't great statistically, at least until 91-92.

Yeah, the Rams went 11-5 in 1989, but they were quarterbacked by Jim Everett, who is best remembered for attacking Jim Rome for calling him, "Chris." They no longer had Eric Dickerson, and their defense was abysmal. Funny how nobody mentions that when they try to pimp John Taylor as anything more than a journeyman caliber player.

The teams the 1999 Rams faced were far stronger. You'd have to be really ignorant not to acknowledge that.


You say the NFL was far less talented then than it is today? WTF??? Today was 1999 . . . 12 years ago . . . only 10 years after the Niners superbowl in 89. There was not a huge leap in athleticism between 89 and 99. You're really reaching for s**t to attempt to make that point. BTW, the Rams and Saints were VERY WELL COACHED teams during the late 80's - early 90's as reflected by their records.

For the record here's the brutal gauntlet the great 1999 Rams had to run . . .

Baltimore: 8-8
Atlanta: 5-11
Cincinnati: 4-12
San Francisco: 4-12
Atlanta: 5-11
Cleveland: 2-14
Tennessee: 13-3 (Wildcard team-AFC Champ) (Loss)
Detroit: 8-8 (Loss)
Carolina: 8-8
San Francisco: 4-12
New Orleans: 3-13
Carolina: 8-8
New Orleans: 3-13
New York Giants: 7-9
Chicago: 6-10
Philadelphia: 5-11 (Loss)



Wow . . . That's 1 whole game against a top 10 defense (Baltimore #2)


3. Bert Emanuel's supposed "catch" wasn't even a first down. The Rams still would have won.

And the Rams were never really tested? Isn't that what is SUPPOSED to be the case with great teams? Ever think it may have been because they were SO MUCH BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE?

Of course they were good, but their schedule was also stocked with weak sisters


4. No, Montana only threw for 297 yards against the Broncos. Check again. Steve Young came in at the end and threw for 20 more.

Sorry, my bad . . . again, it's about points, not yards . . . right?

Warner had to play far superior defenses in those playoff games. Just look at that joke of a Broncos defense, for example. Their secondary was horrendous against the pass. Steve Atwater and Dennis Smith were basically linebackers playing safety. Neither could cover a book. Their corners were Tyrone Braxton, who wound up moved to safety because of how awful he was in coverage, and Wymon Henderson, a scrub journeyman. Wow, really impressive.

Wrong again . . . don't let the facts get in the way or anything:

1989-Niners
Minnesota: #1 Defense (#1 against the Pass - Torched)
L.A. Rams: #21 Defense (#5 against the Run - Niners rushed for 174 yards on top of the 258 passing . . . can you say balance?)
Denver: #7 Defense (#3 against the Pass - Torched)

1999-Rams
Minnesota: #27 Defense (#30 against the pass - duh)
Tampa Bay: #3 Defense (#2 against the pass-ok game but 3 picks)
Tennessee: #17 Defense (#25 against the pass)


And lest we forget, the 49ers were a West Coast Offense team. Most of the time they were throwing short, high percentage passes. The Rams, on the other hand, were constantly attacking down the field. The accuracy Warner showed those years with the Rams may never be seen again. The Rams offense was not only incredibly explosive, it was ALSO incredibly efficient. The 49ers offenses were never very explosive. They were, at times, very efficient, but not consistently. The 1989 49ers offense was actually on the lower end in terms of efficiency among 49er teams during those years.

- Aside from being totally wrong about the 89 Niner offense, I can't find a point here . . . again . . . I refer you back to Mr. Wonka

[ Edited by SonocoNinerFan on Jun 22, 2011 at 19:40:01 ]

Originally posted by Otter:
Pierce Holt, Kevin f*gan, Charles Haley, Matt Millen, Keena Turner, and Ronnie Lott.

It's best team, not best offense. And to compare statistics is skewed as rules were altered to favor offenses by 1999, and we all know it continues today.

Know how many of those guys made the Pro Bowl in 1989? One - Ronnie Lott.

Non-49er fans don't even know who Holt, f*gan, and Turner even were. Turner was washed up at that point, anyway. Matt Millen was, too.

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Rice/Taylor combined for 2,560 yards and 27 TDs in 1989
Bruce/Holt combined for 1,953 yards and 18 TDs in 1999

Bruce/Holt were not superior to Rice/Taylor

The 1999 Rams played a very easy schedule, only 3-2 against teams .500 or better and barely held on to win the NFC championship & Super Bowl

The 1989 49ers were 8-1 against teams .500 or better!!
And they had the most dominant playoff run in NFL history outscoring opponents 126-26 (average margin of victory 33.3)
They put up 55 points against the Broncos who had the NFL's top scoring defense that year.

/endthread

Again, records don't necessarily indicate the stronger opponent. They certainly don't in this case.

The Saints went 9-7 in 1989 with Bobby Hebert and no offensive weapons.
The 49ers went 4-12 in 1999 with Jeff Garcia, Terrell Owens, Jerry Rice, and Charlie Garner.

Teams in the 80's were far less talented than teams in the past 15 years. The 49ers had difficulty with the Bucs in 1989. Take a look at the Bucs' roster in 1989 and tell me one name you recognize as being a good player. Just one.

The 99 Falcons may have gone 5-11, just like the Bucs, but they had Chris Chandler, Terrence Mathis, Bob Whitfield, Keith Brooking, Jessie Tuggle, Ray Buchanon, Chuck Smith, Travis Hall, Eugene Robinson, and Patrick Kerney. Heck, that same team + Jamal Anderson and Tony Martin went 14-2 the year before. They still had quite a bit of talent, they just weren't good enough against such a strong NFL.

In 1999, a team with Beuerlein throwing to Muhsin Muhammad, Patrick Jeffers, Donald Hayes, and Wesley Walls, with Kevin Greene, Eric Davis, Mike Barrow, and Mike Minter on defense got you 8-8.

In 1989, having an aging Eric Dickerson and a bunch of scrubs like the Colts had that year got you 8-8.

See what I mean?

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SofaKing:
Rice/Taylor combined for 2,560 yards and 27 TDs in 1989
Bruce/Holt combined for 1,953 yards and 18 TDs in 1999

Bruce/Holt were not superior to Rice/Taylor

The 1999 Rams played a very easy schedule, only 3-2 against teams .500 or better and barely held on to win the NFC championship & Super Bowl

The 1989 49ers were 8-1 against teams .500 or better!!
And they had the most dominant playoff run in NFL history outscoring opponents 126-26 (average margin of victory 33.3)
They put up 55 points against the Broncos who had the NFL's top scoring defense that year.

/endthread

Again, records don't necessarily indicate the stronger opponent. They certainly don't in this case.

The Saints went 9-7 in 1989 with Bobby Hebert and no offensive weapons.
The 49ers went 4-12 in 1999 with Jeff Garcia, Terrell Owens, Jerry Rice, and Charlie Garner.

Teams in the 80's were far less talented than teams in the past 15 years. The 49ers had difficulty with the Bucs in 1989. Take a look at the Bucs' roster in 1989 and tell me one name you recognize as being a good player. Just one.

The 99 Falcons may have gone 5-11, just like the Bucs, but they had Chris Chandler, Terrence Mathis, Bob Whitfield, Keith Brooking, Jessie Tuggle, Ray Buchanon, Chuck Smith, Travis Hall, Eugene Robinson, and Patrick Kerney. Heck, that same team + Jamal Anderson and Tony Martin went 14-2 the year before. They still had quite a bit of talent, they just weren't good enough against such a strong NFL.

In 1999, a team with Beuerlein throwing to Muhsin Muhammad, Patrick Jeffers, Donald Hayes, and Wesley Walls, with Kevin Greene, Eric Davis, Mike Barrow, and Mike Minter on defense got you 8-8.

In 1989, having an aging Eric Dickerson and a bunch of scrubs like the Colts had that year got you 8-8.

See what I mean?

Those 80's teams you mentioned only appear to be less talented because you have no idea who played on any of those teams. Which is natural...after a period of time players are forgotten. After some years people will have no idea who many of the players you mentioned on the 99 Falcons or Panthers were.

BTW....The 1989 Colts had an aging Dickerson who still managed 1312 yards with a 4.2 y/a and 8 TDs, 2 solid receivers in Bill Brooks & Andre Rison, 2 Pro-Bowl Lineman Chris Hinton & Ray Donaldson, and solid defensive players like Jon Hand, Fredd Young, Duane Bickett, and Mike Prior. That's how they got to 8-8.

The 89 Bucs admittedly were not a good team. The offense was lead by QB Vinny Testerverde, WR Mark Carrier, and LT Paul Gruber. Defense had guys like Winston Moss, Ricky Reynolds who were good players. Their problem was that they were very young, 0 starters 30 years or older.

Now that this history lesson is over, why can't I stop feeding this troll? I'm such a noob. Somebody save me from myself!!

[ Edited by SofaKing on Jun 22, 2011 at 22:20:06 ]