'89 niners on NFL network now!

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, 48 points in two games totally skewed it. Take 48 points off and you're left with 126 points, which still would've led the NFL that year. And that's in just 14 games.

Game 1 against the Colts, 49ers are up 23-17 and Montana hits Rice for long touchdown.

Game 2 against Bucs, 49ers trail 16-13 with under 2 minutes left, repeat XXIII with winning TD drive. 20-16.

Game 3 against Eagles, 49ers trail 21-10 (so it was actually only 17 4th quarter points, not 28...ooops), and then a little into the 4th quarter, it turns into 28-17. Win 38-28.

Game 4 against the Rams, 49ers LOSE 13-12.

Game 5 against Saints, 49ers trail 20-10 in the 4th quarter. Win game 24-20. Get lucky on a couple bad calls. Rice fumbles at 2 yard line but it's called a touchdown, and Taylor has ball knocked away by Toi Cook before he has possession, but it's also ruled a TD.

Game 6 against Cowboys. 49ers tied with 1-15 Cowboys going into 4th quarter, 14-14. Win game 31-14.

Game 7 against Patriots. 17-10 49ers at half. Tied at 17, then 24-17 before start of 4th quarter. Patriots cut it to 24-20 early in 4th before 49ers pull away to win 37-20.

Game 8 against Jets. 49ers up 20-7 at half. Solid 23-10 victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 9 against Saints. 49ers up 21-10 at half. Saints cut it to 21-13. 24-13 going into 4th quarter, 31-14 final score. Solid victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 10 against Falcons. Blowout. 49ers win 45-3.

Game 11 against Packers. LOSE. 21-17.

Game 12 against Giants. 49ers blow a 24-7 halftime lead. Giants tie it at 24 at the start of the 4th quarter. 49ers pull it out 34-24, in part thanks to a Giants fumble that puts 49ers deep in Giants territory, allowing them to run it in front short yardage. NOTE: Giants lost Lawrence Taylor for the remainder of the game in the first quarter.

Game 13 against Falcons. 49ers trail 10-6 at halftime...to the 3-13 Falcons, who were playing for interim head coach. 49ers have a 13-10 lead heading into 4th quarter, and pull away to win 23-10.

Game 14 against Rams. 49ers trail 27-10 early in 4th quarter. Come from behind to win 30-27. Last TD to put 49ers in front was a Rams fumble that put the 49ers inside the 5. They pounded it in for the game winning TD, a la Giants game.

Game 15 against Bills. 49ers trail 3-0 at halftime. Up 7-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Pull away to win 21-10.

Game 16 against Bears. I guess we'll call it a "blowout" (since my statements are not in any danger), but the 49ers didn't play well in this one. Up 16-0 at half, won game 26-0. Bears were DECIMATED by injuries. Without Dan Hampton, their defense was nothing.

So for those of you keeping score, that's 2 blowouts (Falcons and Bears) and 2 solid victories (Jets and second Saints contest) all season. Only one of those teams had a winning record. The rest the 49ers either trailed and had to pull off come-from-behind victories, or they were involved in close contests/nail biters.

I defy anyone to look at that and tell me this was a "dominant team."

Quote:

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)

There was a HUGE difference in talent level between 1989 and 1999, examples of which I cite in my prior post.

Records don't necessarily define anything.

And the Rams put 27 on the Ravens. The Ravens went on to shatter records the very next year with mostly the same defensive personnel. They were a top defense in 1999 and the Rams were never in any danger.

That 1999 Panthers team would've been a contender for going to the Super Bowl in 1989, and the Rams absolutely dominated them.

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

Not compared to the 1989 49ers it wasn't.

Quote:
Sorry, my bad . . . again, it's about points, not yards . . . right?
[/QUOTE]

Just correcting you. Not once did Montana throw for 300 yards in the playoffs in 89.

Quote:

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)

Ever occur to you that those defenses ranked higher because the league was far less talented back then, and therefore they were only comparatively strong?

By the way, you're stretching the definition of the word, "torched."

Yeah, 241 yards passing from Joe on the Vikings. That's so legendary. Especially considering Rice's 72 yard TD off a catch-and-run from a ZERO YARD PASS. That's right, Rice caught it at the line of scrimmage. The Vikings' horrible defense (despite being ranked high due to the weak era) left him uncovered and he got to the sidelines and pulled away. That play was laughable, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Then he had 262 yards against the Rams on nothing but short passes.


[QUOTE]
- 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

The point is the so-called "great 1989 49ers offense" was nothing but a high percentage scheme that led to low risk of turnovers, but also exceedingly few big plays. The only big plays that offense could get were off horrible tackling or completely blown coverages. When did you see Joe drop back, look off two defenders, and hit a 15-20 yard deep in route? When did you see him take a 7 step drop and launch a 40-50 yard pass deep to a blazing fast receiver?

No, what you have with the 1989 49er offense is dumpoffs to Craig and Rathman, gaining 3-7 yards, and quick 5 yard slants and crosses to Rice, or occasionally Taylor. Or a dumpoff to Brent Jones. It was bland, it was boring, it was ineffective for the first 3 quarters of a football game, and it showed on the scoreboard, with just 442 points and numerous come-from-behind victories needed. The 49ers lost two games...two games in which they combined to score 29 points. What's more, they didn't have the great running game you'd need to be a truly great offense, either, ranking 10th in rushing yards and averaging just 3.9 yards/carry. Roger Craig, the workhorse RB, gained just 1054 yards rushing on 3.9 yards/carry.

Seriously, the 1998 Falcons scored 442 points, and they were so run heavy it basically ended Jamal Anderson's career.

The 1998 Falcons, in all seriousness, were a better team than the 1989 49ers. They just didn't win the Super Bowl. Why not? Oh, might be that "strong competition" thing.

The 1989 49ers were a "system offense" with only two great players (Montana and Rice). The 1999 Rams were a "player" offense. Any coordinator in football could have owned the league with them. Mike Martz, who has proven himself to be an absolutely TERRIBLE offensive coordinator, was calling the plays there, and even he couldn't screw it up. That really tells you something. That offense was in a league of its own. If anyone can compare, it would be the 2004 Colts or 1984 Dolphins.

The 1989 49ers' offense wasn't even Top 50 all-time.

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, 48 points in two games totally skewed it. Take 48 points off and you're left with 126 points, which still would've led the NFL that year. And that's in just 14 games.

Game 1 against the Colts, 49ers are up 23-17 and Montana hits Rice for long touchdown.

Game 2 against Bucs, 49ers trail 16-13 with under 2 minutes left, repeat XXIII with winning TD drive. 20-16.

Game 3 against Eagles, 49ers trail 21-10 (so it was actually only 17 4th quarter points, not 28...ooops), and then a little into the 4th quarter, it turns into 28-17. Win 38-28.

Game 4 against the Rams, 49ers LOSE 13-12.

Game 5 against Saints, 49ers trail 20-10 in the 4th quarter. Win game 24-20. Get lucky on a couple bad calls. Rice fumbles at 2 yard line but it's called a touchdown, and Taylor has ball knocked away by Toi Cook before he has possession, but it's also ruled a TD.

Game 6 against Cowboys. 49ers tied with 1-15 Cowboys going into 4th quarter, 14-14. Win game 31-14.

Game 7 against Patriots. 17-10 49ers at half. Tied at 17, then 24-17 before start of 4th quarter. Patriots cut it to 24-20 early in 4th before 49ers pull away to win 37-20.

Game 8 against Jets. 49ers up 20-7 at half. Solid 23-10 victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 9 against Saints. 49ers up 21-10 at half. Saints cut it to 21-13. 24-13 going into 4th quarter, 31-14 final score. Solid victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 10 against Falcons. Blowout. 49ers win 45-3.

Game 11 against Packers. LOSE. 21-17.

Game 12 against Giants. 49ers blow a 24-7 halftime lead. Giants tie it at 24 at the start of the 4th quarter. 49ers pull it out 34-24, in part thanks to a Giants fumble that puts 49ers deep in Giants territory, allowing them to run it in front short yardage. NOTE: Giants lost Lawrence Taylor for the remainder of the game in the first quarter.

Game 13 against Falcons. 49ers trail 10-6 at halftime...to the 3-13 Falcons, who were playing for interim head coach. 49ers have a 13-10 lead heading into 4th quarter, and pull away to win 23-10.

Game 14 against Rams. 49ers trail 27-10 early in 4th quarter. Come from behind to win 30-27. Last TD to put 49ers in front was a Rams fumble that put the 49ers inside the 5. They pounded it in for the game winning TD, a la Giants game.

Game 15 against Bills. 49ers trail 3-0 at halftime. Up 7-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Pull away to win 21-10.

Game 16 against Bears. I guess we'll call it a "blowout" (since my statements are not in any danger), but the 49ers didn't play well in this one. Up 16-0 at half, won game 26-0. Bears were DECIMATED by injuries. Without Dan Hampton, their defense was nothing.

So for those of you keeping score, that's 2 blowouts (Falcons and Bears) and 2 solid victories (Jets and second Saints contest) all season. Only one of those teams had a winning record. The rest the 49ers either trailed and had to pull off come-from-behind victories, or they were involved in close contests/nail biters.

I defy anyone to look at that and tell me this was a "dominant team."

Quote:

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)

There was a HUGE difference in talent level between 1989 and 1999, examples of which I cite in my prior post.

Records don't necessarily define anything.

And the Rams put 27 on the Ravens. The Ravens went on to shatter records the very next year with mostly the same defensive personnel. They were a top defense in 1999 and the Rams were never in any danger.

That 1999 Panthers team would've been a contender for going to the Super Bowl in 1989, and the Rams absolutely dominated them.

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

Not compared to the 1989 49ers it wasn't.

Quote:
Sorry, my bad . . . again, it's about points, not yards . . . right?
[/QUOTE]

Just correcting you. Not once did Montana throw for 300 yards in the playoffs in 89.

Quote:

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)

Ever occur to you that those defenses ranked higher because the league was far less talented back then, and therefore they were only comparatively strong?

By the way, you're stretching the definition of the word, "torched."

Yeah, 241 yards passing from Joe on the Vikings. That's so legendary. Especially considering Rice's 72 yard TD off a catch-and-run from a ZERO YARD PASS. That's right, Rice caught it at the line of scrimmage. The Vikings' horrible defense (despite being ranked high due to the weak era) left him uncovered and he got to the sidelines and pulled away. That play was laughable, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Then he had 262 yards against the Rams on nothing but short passes.


[QUOTE]
- 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

The point is the so-called "great 1989 49ers offense" was nothing but a high percentage scheme that led to low risk of turnovers, but also exceedingly few big plays. The only big plays that offense could get were off horrible tackling or completely blown coverages. When did you see Joe drop back, look off two defenders, and hit a 15-20 yard deep in route? When did you see him take a 7 step drop and launch a 40-50 yard pass deep to a blazing fast receiver?

No, what you have with the 1989 49er offense is dumpoffs to Craig and Rathman, gaining 3-7 yards, and quick 5 yard slants and crosses to Rice, or occasionally Taylor. Or a dumpoff to Brent Jones. It was bland, it was boring, it was ineffective for the first 3 quarters of a football game, and it showed on the scoreboard, with just 442 points and numerous come-from-behind victories needed. The 49ers lost two games...two games in which they combined to score 29 points. What's more, they didn't have the great running game you'd need to be a truly great offense, either, ranking 10th in rushing yards and averaging just 3.9 yards/carry. Roger Craig, the workhorse RB, gained just 1054 yards rushing on 3.9 yards/carry.

Seriously, the 1998 Falcons scored 442 points, and they were so run heavy it basically ended Jamal Anderson's career.

The 1998 Falcons, in all seriousness, were a better team than the 1989 49ers. They just didn't win the Super Bowl. Why not? Oh, might be that "strong competition" thing.

The 1989 49ers were a "system offense" with only two great players (Montana and Rice). The 1999 Rams were a "player" offense. Any coordinator in football could have owned the league with them. Mike Martz, who has proven himself to be an absolutely TERRIBLE offensive coordinator, was calling the plays there, and even he couldn't screw it up. That really tells you something. That offense was in a league of its own. If anyone can compare, it would be the 2004 Colts or 1984 Dolphins.

The 1989 49ers' offense wasn't even Top 50 all-time.

Who's the homer?

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, 48 points in two games totally skewed it. Take 48 points off and you're left with 126 points, which still would've led the NFL that year. And that's in just 14 games.

Game 1 against the Colts, 49ers are up 23-17 and Montana hits Rice for long touchdown.

Game 2 against Bucs, 49ers trail 16-13 with under 2 minutes left, repeat XXIII with winning TD drive. 20-16.

Game 3 against Eagles, 49ers trail 21-10 (so it was actually only 17 4th quarter points, not 28...ooops), and then a little into the 4th quarter, it turns into 28-17. Win 38-28.

Game 4 against the Rams, 49ers LOSE 13-12.

Game 5 against Saints, 49ers trail 20-10 in the 4th quarter. Win game 24-20. Get lucky on a couple bad calls. Rice fumbles at 2 yard line but it's called a touchdown, and Taylor has ball knocked away by Toi Cook before he has possession, but it's also ruled a TD.

Game 6 against Cowboys. 49ers tied with 1-15 Cowboys going into 4th quarter, 14-14. Win game 31-14.

Game 7 against Patriots. 17-10 49ers at half. Tied at 17, then 24-17 before start of 4th quarter. Patriots cut it to 24-20 early in 4th before 49ers pull away to win 37-20.

Game 8 against Jets. 49ers up 20-7 at half. Solid 23-10 victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 9 against Saints. 49ers up 21-10 at half. Saints cut it to 21-13. 24-13 going into 4th quarter, 31-14 final score. Solid victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 10 against Falcons. Blowout. 49ers win 45-3.

Game 11 against Packers. LOSE. 21-17.

Game 12 against Giants. 49ers blow a 24-7 halftime lead. Giants tie it at 24 at the start of the 4th quarter. 49ers pull it out 34-24, in part thanks to a Giants fumble that puts 49ers deep in Giants territory, allowing them to run it in front short yardage. NOTE: Giants lost Lawrence Taylor for the remainder of the game in the first quarter.

Game 13 against Falcons. 49ers trail 10-6 at halftime...to the 3-13 Falcons, who were playing for interim head coach. 49ers have a 13-10 lead heading into 4th quarter, and pull away to win 23-10.

Game 14 against Rams. 49ers trail 27-10 early in 4th quarter. Come from behind to win 30-27. Last TD to put 49ers in front was a Rams fumble that put the 49ers inside the 5. They pounded it in for the game winning TD, a la Giants game.

Game 15 against Bills. 49ers trail 3-0 at halftime. Up 7-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Pull away to win 21-10.

Game 16 against Bears. I guess we'll call it a "blowout" (since my statements are not in any danger), but the 49ers didn't play well in this one. Up 16-0 at half, won game 26-0. Bears were DECIMATED by injuries. Without Dan Hampton, their defense was nothing.

So for those of you keeping score, that's 2 blowouts (Falcons and Bears) and 2 solid victories (Jets and second Saints contest) all season. Only one of those teams had a winning record. The rest the 49ers either trailed and had to pull off come-from-behind victories, or they were involved in close contests/nail biters.

I defy anyone to look at that and tell me this was a "dominant team."

Quote:

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)

There was a HUGE difference in talent level between 1989 and 1999, examples of which I cite in my prior post.

Records don't necessarily define anything.

And the Rams put 27 on the Ravens. The Ravens went on to shatter records the very next year with mostly the same defensive personnel. They were a top defense in 1999 and the Rams were never in any danger.

That 1999 Panthers team would've been a contender for going to the Super Bowl in 1989, and the Rams absolutely dominated them.

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

Not compared to the 1989 49ers it wasn't.

Quote:
Sorry, my bad . . . again, it's about points, not yards . . . right?
[/QUOTE]

Just correcting you. Not once did Montana throw for 300 yards in the playoffs in 89.

Quote:

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)

Ever occur to you that those defenses ranked higher because the league was far less talented back then, and therefore they were only comparatively strong?

By the way, you're stretching the definition of the word, "torched."

Yeah, 241 yards passing from Joe on the Vikings. That's so legendary. Especially considering Rice's 72 yard TD off a catch-and-run from a ZERO YARD PASS. That's right, Rice caught it at the line of scrimmage. The Vikings' horrible defense (despite being ranked high due to the weak era) left him uncovered and he got to the sidelines and pulled away. That play was laughable, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Then he had 262 yards against the Rams on nothing but short passes.


[QUOTE]
- 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

The point is the so-called "great 1989 49ers offense" was nothing but a high percentage scheme that led to low risk of turnovers, but also exceedingly few big plays. The only big plays that offense could get were off horrible tackling or completely blown coverages. When did you see Joe drop back, look off two defenders, and hit a 15-20 yard deep in route? When did you see him take a 7 step drop and launch a 40-50 yard pass deep to a blazing fast receiver?

No, what you have with the 1989 49er offense is dumpoffs to Craig and Rathman, gaining 3-7 yards, and quick 5 yard slants and crosses to Rice, or occasionally Taylor. Or a dumpoff to Brent Jones. It was bland, it was boring, it was ineffective for the first 3 quarters of a football game, and it showed on the scoreboard, with just 442 points and numerous come-from-behind victories needed. The 49ers lost two games...two games in which they combined to score 29 points. What's more, they didn't have the great running game you'd need to be a truly great offense, either, ranking 10th in rushing yards and averaging just 3.9 yards/carry. Roger Craig, the workhorse RB, gained just 1054 yards rushing on 3.9 yards/carry.

Seriously, the 1998 Falcons scored 442 points, and they were so run heavy it basically ended Jamal Anderson's career.

The 1998 Falcons, in all seriousness, were a better team than the 1989 49ers. They just didn't win the Super Bowl. Why not? Oh, might be that "strong competition" thing.

The 1989 49ers were a "system offense" with only two great players (Montana and Rice). The 1999 Rams were a "player" offense. Any coordinator in football could have owned the league with them. Mike Martz, who has proven himself to be an absolutely TERRIBLE offensive coordinator, was calling the plays there, and even he couldn't screw it up. That really tells you something. That offense was in a league of its own. If anyone can compare, it would be the 2004 Colts or 1984 Dolphins.

The 1989 49ers' offense wasn't even Top 50 all-time.

Who's the homer?

This noob just keeps getting owned. Now its what.....the 1998 falcons are better with chandler....wow. Just get off the board nobody wants you here. All your arguements are weak and wrong. All fans and experts would disagree with you....yes even rams fans would as many do. Lay off the anti depressants

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, 48 points in two games totally skewed it. Take 48 points off and you're left with 126 points, which still would've led the NFL that year. And that's in just 14 games.

Game 1 against the Colts, 49ers are up 23-17 and Montana hits Rice for long touchdown.

Game 2 against Bucs, 49ers trail 16-13 with under 2 minutes left, repeat XXIII with winning TD drive. 20-16.

Game 3 against Eagles, 49ers trail 21-10 (so it was actually only 17 4th quarter points, not 28...ooops), and then a little into the 4th quarter, it turns into 28-17. Win 38-28.

Game 4 against the Rams, 49ers LOSE 13-12.

Game 5 against Saints, 49ers trail 20-10 in the 4th quarter. Win game 24-20. Get lucky on a couple bad calls. Rice fumbles at 2 yard line but it's called a touchdown, and Taylor has ball knocked away by Toi Cook before he has possession, but it's also ruled a TD.

Game 6 against Cowboys. 49ers tied with 1-15 Cowboys going into 4th quarter, 14-14. Win game 31-14.

Game 7 against Patriots. 17-10 49ers at half. Tied at 17, then 24-17 before start of 4th quarter. Patriots cut it to 24-20 early in 4th before 49ers pull away to win 37-20.

Game 8 against Jets. 49ers up 20-7 at half. Solid 23-10 victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 9 against Saints. 49ers up 21-10 at half. Saints cut it to 21-13. 24-13 going into 4th quarter, 31-14 final score. Solid victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 10 against Falcons. Blowout. 49ers win 45-3.

Game 11 against Packers. LOSE. 21-17.

Game 12 against Giants. 49ers blow a 24-7 halftime lead. Giants tie it at 24 at the start of the 4th quarter. 49ers pull it out 34-24, in part thanks to a Giants fumble that puts 49ers deep in Giants territory, allowing them to run it in front short yardage. NOTE: Giants lost Lawrence Taylor for the remainder of the game in the first quarter.

Game 13 against Falcons. 49ers trail 10-6 at halftime...to the 3-13 Falcons, who were playing for interim head coach. 49ers have a 13-10 lead heading into 4th quarter, and pull away to win 23-10.

Game 14 against Rams. 49ers trail 27-10 early in 4th quarter. Come from behind to win 30-27. Last TD to put 49ers in front was a Rams fumble that put the 49ers inside the 5. They pounded it in for the game winning TD, a la Giants game.

Game 15 against Bills. 49ers trail 3-0 at halftime. Up 7-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Pull away to win 21-10.

Game 16 against Bears. I guess we'll call it a "blowout" (since my statements are not in any danger), but the 49ers didn't play well in this one. Up 16-0 at half, won game 26-0. Bears were DECIMATED by injuries. Without Dan Hampton, their defense was nothing.

So for those of you keeping score, that's 2 blowouts (Falcons and Bears) and 2 solid victories (Jets and second Saints contest) all season. Only one of those teams had a winning record. The rest the 49ers either trailed and had to pull off come-from-behind victories, or they were involved in close contests/nail biters.

I defy anyone to look at that and tell me this was a "dominant team."

Quote:

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)

There was a HUGE difference in talent level between 1989 and 1999, examples of which I cite in my prior post.

Records don't necessarily define anything.

And the Rams put 27 on the Ravens. The Ravens went on to shatter records the very next year with mostly the same defensive personnel. They were a top defense in 1999 and the Rams were never in any danger.

That 1999 Panthers team would've been a contender for going to the Super Bowl in 1989, and the Rams absolutely dominated them.

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

Not compared to the 1989 49ers it wasn't.

Quote:
Sorry, my bad . . . again, it's about points, not yards . . . right?
[/QUOTE]

Just correcting you. Not once did Montana throw for 300 yards in the playoffs in 89.

Quote:

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)

Ever occur to you that those defenses ranked higher because the league was far less talented back then, and therefore they were only comparatively strong?

By the way, you're stretching the definition of the word, "torched."

Yeah, 241 yards passing from Joe on the Vikings. That's so legendary. Especially considering Rice's 72 yard TD off a catch-and-run from a ZERO YARD PASS. That's right, Rice caught it at the line of scrimmage. The Vikings' horrible defense (despite being ranked high due to the weak era) left him uncovered and he got to the sidelines and pulled away. That play was laughable, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Then he had 262 yards against the Rams on nothing but short passes.


[QUOTE]
- 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

The point is the so-called "great 1989 49ers offense" was nothing but a high percentage scheme that led to low risk of turnovers, but also exceedingly few big plays. The only big plays that offense could get were off horrible tackling or completely blown coverages. When did you see Joe drop back, look off two defenders, and hit a 15-20 yard deep in route? When did you see him take a 7 step drop and launch a 40-50 yard pass deep to a blazing fast receiver?

No, what you have with the 1989 49er offense is dumpoffs to Craig and Rathman, gaining 3-7 yards, and quick 5 yard slants and crosses to Rice, or occasionally Taylor. Or a dumpoff to Brent Jones. It was bland, it was boring, it was ineffective for the first 3 quarters of a football game, and it showed on the scoreboard, with just 442 points and numerous come-from-behind victories needed. The 49ers lost two games...two games in which they combined to score 29 points. What's more, they didn't have the great running game you'd need to be a truly great offense, either, ranking 10th in rushing yards and averaging just 3.9 yards/carry. Roger Craig, the workhorse RB, gained just 1054 yards rushing on 3.9 yards/carry.

Seriously, the 1998 Falcons scored 442 points, and they were so run heavy it basically ended Jamal Anderson's career.

The 1998 Falcons, in all seriousness, were a better team than the 1989 49ers. They just didn't win the Super Bowl. Why not? Oh, might be that "strong competition" thing.

The 1989 49ers were a "system offense" with only two great players (Montana and Rice). The 1999 Rams were a "player" offense. Any coordinator in football could have owned the league with them. Mike Martz, who has proven himself to be an absolutely TERRIBLE offensive coordinator, was calling the plays there, and even he couldn't screw it up. That really tells you something. That offense was in a league of its own. If anyone can compare, it would be the 2004 Colts or 1984 Dolphins.

The 1989 49ers' offense wasn't even Top 50 all-time.

Who's the homer?

This noob just keeps getting owned. Now its what.....the 1998 falcons are better with chandler....wow. Just get off the board nobody wants you here. All your arguements are weak and wrong. All fans and experts would disagree with you....yes even rams fans would as many do. Lay off the anti depressants

Still resorting to personal insults, fallacies, and arguments that amount to, "Because I say so." And then you project onto me.

This is sad.

Who in the world would argue against scoring in the fourth quarter like its a bad thing????? This goes beyond lunacy. Is there a rule that the points HAVE TO BE SPREAD OUT EVENLY THROUGH THE GAME OR ELSE YOU ARE NOT CONSIDERED A GREAT CONSISTANT OFFENSE?????????

I have never read a weaker arguement......its like a loser fan saying to me yeqh you won the game but we were up at HALFTIME. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

this is a joke.....please quit while you are behind. That would be like me saying BRADY IS A BAD QB bc he never had a gqme winning td in 3 sbs and lost one. He only drove down and viniteri kicked a fg......again lunacy.

On the contrary.....i think if a team FINISHES WELL THEY ARE CONSIDERED THE BEST most consistant and RELIABLE UNSTOPPABLE machine. Havent people heard of the expression they dont finish well...they didnt finish off their opponent. Well the niners were the absolute best at this which is why they are considered the best offense of all time. Their west coqst offense thats supposed to be short and predictable....according to the noob......COULDNT BE CONTAINED AND OFTEN EXPLODED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER.

That is the best sign of a champion....finish the game and thats what the niners did.

I still cant believe you are in this forum joob. Just leave...havent you got embarassed and owned enough....or are you thirsty for more.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Who in the world would argue against scoring in the fourth quarter like its a bad thing????? This goes beyond lunacy. Is there a rule that the points HAVE TO BE SPREAD OUT EVENLY THROUGH THE GAME OR ELSE YOU ARE NOT CONSIDERED A GREAT CONSISTANT OFFENSE?????????

I have never read a weaker arguement......its like a loser fan saying to me yeqh you won the game but we were up at HALFTIME. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

this is a joke.....please quit while you are behind. That would be like me saying BRADY IS A BAD QB bc he never had a gqme winning td in 3 sbs and lost one. He only drove down and viniteri kicked a fg......again lunacy.

On the contrary.....i think if a team FINISHES WELL THEY ARE CONSIDERED THE BEST most consistant and RELIABLE UNSTOPPABLE machine. Havent people heard of the expression they dont finish well...they didnt finish off their opponent. Well the niners were the absolute best at this which is why they are considered the best offense of all time. Their west coqst offense thats supposed to be short and predictable....according to the noob......COULDNT BE CONTAINED AND OFTEN EXPLODED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER.

That is the best sign of a champion....finish the game and thats what the niners did.

I still cant believe you are in this forum joob. Just leave...havent you got embarassed and owned enough....or are you thirsty for more.

It's like you said a couple posts back man, this is a lost cause. No matter how many of his arguments we shoot down he will come back for more. Let him debate with himself, we've let him hi-jack this thread for long enough.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Who in the world would argue against scoring in the fourth quarter like its a bad thing????? This goes beyond lunacy. Is there a rule that the points HAVE TO BE SPREAD OUT EVENLY THROUGH THE GAME OR ELSE YOU ARE NOT CONSIDERED A GREAT CONSISTANT OFFENSE?????????

I have never read a weaker arguement......its like a loser fan saying to me yeqh you won the game but we were up at HALFTIME. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

this is a joke.....please quit while you are behind. That would be like me saying BRADY IS A BAD QB bc he never had a gqme winning td in 3 sbs and lost one. He only drove down and viniteri kicked a fg......again lunacy.

On the contrary.....i think if a team FINISHES WELL THEY ARE CONSIDERED THE BEST most consistant and RELIABLE UNSTOPPABLE machine. Havent people heard of the expression they dont finish well...they didnt finish off their opponent. Well the niners were the absolute best at this which is why they are considered the best offense of all time. Their west coqst offense thats supposed to be short and predictable....according to the noob......COULDNT BE CONTAINED AND OFTEN EXPLODED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER.

That is the best sign of a champion....finish the game and thats what the niners did.

I still cant believe you are in this forum joob. Just leave...havent you got embarassed and owned enough....or are you thirsty for more.

So I guess in your world, it doesn't matter how dominant a team is. Who cares if the team has to set an all-time record for 4th quarter points because they are constantly behind? Greatest ever! So much better than blowing teams out in the first 3, then resting the starters in the 4th while playing prevent and just running the ball to run out the clock, right?

I KNEW somebody was going to go this route, too.

That's like saying, "who cares about margin of victory? Wins are all important. If you win 15 games & the Super Bowl and beat every team by 1 point, you could be the greatest team ever!"

Tom Brady...multiple 4,000 yard seasons. A 50 TD pass season. 3 rings. NEXT!

[ Edited by AlexIsClass on Jun 23, 2011 at 00:02:36 ]

Originally posted by SofaKing:


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!!

No, I'm quite well-versed on 80's football. Let's go through:

Andre Rison: Rookie season.
Bill Brooks: OK receiver, but nothing special.
Hinton and Donaldson: Overrated linemen.
Jon Hand: First round bust
Duane Bickett: First round bust
Fredd Young: Special teams guy, not a great linebacker. Was past his prime in 89 after 88 injuries. Quality years were with Seahawks.
Mike Prior: Journeyman caliber free safety. 7th round pick. Left Indy to become backup in GB.

And the receivers were rendered irrelevent anyway after Chandler went down for the year. Jack Trudeau = terrible.

89 Bucs:

Mark Carrier: Fluke season. Everyone getting lots of receiving yards that year. Only topped 1,000 yards one other time in career, and it was about 1,000 flat.

Vinny Testaverde: Awful.

Ricky Reynolds: Lousy corner.

Winston Moss: Journeyman caliber LB.

Gruber: Decent, but what he did went to waste.

Their problem wasn't that they were young. It's that they stunk. Vinny never amounted to anything more than a serviceable stopgap QB. Reynolds became a scrub nickel once he left TB. Moss went from team to team and was mediocre. Gruber was solid for a long time but never made a Pro Bowl. Carrier was a pleasant addition for the Panthers one year, and that was the extent of it.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by AlexIsClass:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

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.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, 48 points in two games totally skewed it. Take 48 points off and you're left with 126 points, which still would've led the NFL that year. And that's in just 14 games.

Game 1 against the Colts, 49ers are up 23-17 and Montana hits Rice for long touchdown.

Game 2 against Bucs, 49ers trail 16-13 with under 2 minutes left, repeat XXIII with winning TD drive. 20-16.

Game 3 against Eagles, 49ers trail 21-10 (so it was actually only 17 4th quarter points, not 28...ooops), and then a little into the 4th quarter, it turns into 28-17. Win 38-28.

Game 4 against the Rams, 49ers LOSE 13-12.

Game 5 against Saints, 49ers trail 20-10 in the 4th quarter. Win game 24-20. Get lucky on a couple bad calls. Rice fumbles at 2 yard line but it's called a touchdown, and Taylor has ball knocked away by Toi Cook before he has possession, but it's also ruled a TD.

Game 6 against Cowboys. 49ers tied with 1-15 Cowboys going into 4th quarter, 14-14. Win game 31-14.

Game 7 against Patriots. 17-10 49ers at half. Tied at 17, then 24-17 before start of 4th quarter. Patriots cut it to 24-20 early in 4th before 49ers pull away to win 37-20.

Game 8 against Jets. 49ers up 20-7 at half. Solid 23-10 victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 9 against Saints. 49ers up 21-10 at half. Saints cut it to 21-13. 24-13 going into 4th quarter, 31-14 final score. Solid victory, but certainly not a blowout.

Game 10 against Falcons. Blowout. 49ers win 45-3.

Game 11 against Packers. LOSE. 21-17.

Game 12 against Giants. 49ers blow a 24-7 halftime lead. Giants tie it at 24 at the start of the 4th quarter. 49ers pull it out 34-24, in part thanks to a Giants fumble that puts 49ers deep in Giants territory, allowing them to run it in front short yardage. NOTE: Giants lost Lawrence Taylor for the remainder of the game in the first quarter.

Game 13 against Falcons. 49ers trail 10-6 at halftime...to the 3-13 Falcons, who were playing for interim head coach. 49ers have a 13-10 lead heading into 4th quarter, and pull away to win 23-10.

Game 14 against Rams. 49ers trail 27-10 early in 4th quarter. Come from behind to win 30-27. Last TD to put 49ers in front was a Rams fumble that put the 49ers inside the 5. They pounded it in for the game winning TD, a la Giants game.

Game 15 against Bills. 49ers trail 3-0 at halftime. Up 7-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Pull away to win 21-10.

Game 16 against Bears. I guess we'll call it a "blowout" (since my statements are not in any danger), but the 49ers didn't play well in this one. Up 16-0 at half, won game 26-0. Bears were DECIMATED by injuries. Without Dan Hampton, their defense was nothing.

So for those of you keeping score, that's 2 blowouts (Falcons and Bears) and 2 solid victories (Jets and second Saints contest) all season. Only one of those teams had a winning record. The rest the 49ers either trailed and had to pull off come-from-behind victories, or they were involved in close contests/nail biters.

I defy anyone to look at that and tell me this was a "dominant team."

Quote:

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)

There was a HUGE difference in talent level between 1989 and 1999, examples of which I cite in my prior post.

Records don't necessarily define anything.

And the Rams put 27 on the Ravens. The Ravens went on to shatter records the very next year with mostly the same defensive personnel. They were a top defense in 1999 and the Rams were never in any danger.

That 1999 Panthers team would've been a contender for going to the Super Bowl in 1989, and the Rams absolutely dominated them.

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

Not compared to the 1989 49ers it wasn't.

Quote:
Sorry, my bad . . . again, it's about points, not yards . . . right?
[/QUOTE]

Just correcting you. Not once did Montana throw for 300 yards in the playoffs in 89.

Quote:

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)

Ever occur to you that those defenses ranked higher because the league was far less talented back then, and therefore they were only comparatively strong?

By the way, you're stretching the definition of the word, "torched."

Yeah, 241 yards passing from Joe on the Vikings. That's so legendary. Especially considering Rice's 72 yard TD off a catch-and-run from a ZERO YARD PASS. That's right, Rice caught it at the line of scrimmage. The Vikings' horrible defense (despite being ranked high due to the weak era) left him uncovered and he got to the sidelines and pulled away. That play was laughable, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Then he had 262 yards against the Rams on nothing but short passes.


[QUOTE]
- 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

The point is the so-called "great 1989 49ers offense" was nothing but a high percentage scheme that led to low risk of turnovers, but also exceedingly few big plays. The only big plays that offense could get were off horrible tackling or completely blown coverages. When did you see Joe drop back, look off two defenders, and hit a 15-20 yard deep in route? When did you see him take a 7 step drop and launch a 40-50 yard pass deep to a blazing fast receiver?

No, what you have with the 1989 49er offense is dumpoffs to Craig and Rathman, gaining 3-7 yards, and quick 5 yard slants and crosses to Rice, or occasionally Taylor. Or a dumpoff to Brent Jones. It was bland, it was boring, it was ineffective for the first 3 quarters of a football game, and it showed on the scoreboard, with just 442 points and numerous come-from-behind victories needed. The 49ers lost two games...two games in which they combined to score 29 points. What's more, they didn't have the great running game you'd need to be a truly great offense, either, ranking 10th in rushing yards and averaging just 3.9 yards/carry. Roger Craig, the workhorse RB, gained just 1054 yards rushing on 3.9 yards/carry.

Seriously, the 1998 Falcons scored 442 points, and they were so run heavy it basically ended Jamal Anderson's career.

The 1998 Falcons, in all seriousness, were a better team than the 1989 49ers. They just didn't win the Super Bowl. Why not? Oh, might be that "strong competition" thing.

The 1989 49ers were a "system offense" with only two great players (Montana and Rice). The 1999 Rams were a "player" offense. Any coordinator in football could have owned the league with them. Mike Martz, who has proven himself to be an absolutely TERRIBLE offensive coordinator, was calling the plays there, and even he couldn't screw it up. That really tells you something. That offense was in a league of its own. If anyone can compare, it would be the 2004 Colts or 1984 Dolphins.

The 1989 49ers' offense wasn't even Top 50 all-time.

Who's the homer?

This noob just keeps getting owned. Now its what.....the 1998 falcons are better with chandler....wow. Just get off the board nobody wants you here. All your arguements are weak and wrong. All fans and experts would disagree with you....yes even rams fans would as many do. Lay off the anti depressants

I'm done trying to convince the Ram homer. It's impossible to penetrate all the ridiculous statements such as;

Excessive 4th quarter points is a sign of weakness.

Records don't define anything.

There was a HUGE difference in the quality of athlete between 89 and 99.

The 98 Falcons were a better team than the 89 Niners.

The 89 Niner offense was boring, ineffective and not even top 50 all time.

It was fun for a while, but there's no convincing some people. I'll stick with the VAST VAST majority. 89 Niners Top 5 all time . . . 99 Rams . . . not.

Signing off now!

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

I'm done trying to convince the Ram homer.

I hope so, no offense. I doubt that I am the only one that quit bothering to read the last few pages... and not out of disrespect to you, but to not waste time on the Ram-fan.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

I'm done trying to convince the Ram homer.

I hope so, no offense. I doubt that I am the only one that quit bothering to read the last few pages... and not out of disrespect to you, but to not waste time on the Ram-fan.

It was fun at first, until I eventually had to question my sanity.

Sorry no personal insults cry baby.....no fallacies.....no projecting and certainly no because i said so. Its because EVERYONE SAYS SO AND ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG.

how does it feel to get owned all the time???? None of the niner fans would know bc you have gotten owned worse than any one poster i have ever seen. You are new too....too funny. Most of the posters have stopped reading your dribble and i am going to as well. Its so wrong and delusional its actually great comedy so please by all means keep posting we all need a good laugh. Yes thats right we are all laughing AT YOU! HOW DOES IT FEEL?

seriously just leave go to another forum bc you cant cut it here not with your mentality and arguements. You might be better suited on a rams forum where you can talk about how good that one year was and getting owned by the niners for 16 games in a row just like you are getting owned by everyone here.....BYE BYE. See you at da pahhhhty richter.

Ima just drop this off right here.

Top 25 Teams in Passer Rating Differential (1960-present)
Ranking Team OPR DPR Differential Record Won title
1 1960 Browns 109.5 51.7 57.8 8-3-1 --
2 1966 Packers 102.1 46.1 56.0 12-2 Yes
3 1987 49ers 106.2 53.8 52.4 13-2 --
4 1989 49ers 114.8 68.5 46.3 14-2 Yes
5 1975 Vikings 90.8 46.2 44.6 12-2 --
6 1975 Steelers 86.7 42.8 43.9 12-2 Yes
7 1994 49ers 111.4 68.1 43.3 13-3 Yes
8 1999 Rams 106.6 64.1 42.5 13-3 Yes

The Genius Of Bill Walsh

Every great "dynasty" (1960s Packers, 1970s Steelers, 1980s/90s 49ers, 2000s Patriots) and near-dynasty (1970s Cowboys, 1970s Vikings, 1990s Rams) of the era is represented on the list, except for the largely overrated Cowboys of the 1990s -- a group that went better than 12-4 just once.

But one dynasty loomed larger than the rest.

Three teams in the top seven belonged to Bill Walsh. This cluster of San Francisco teams proves that the great genius Walsh, as Cold, Hard Football Facts have noted, was not that he popularized the West Coast offense. No, the great genius of Walsh was that he popularized the West Coast offense while creating arguably the greatest (and certainly most underappreciated) defensive dynasty in history.

For 17 straight years, the 49ers never surrendered more than 300 points in a season and they consistently produced very low Defensive Passer Ratings, usually among the very best in the NFL. We discussed this phenomenon a couple years ago and more recently this spring, as it related to Ken Anderson's Hall of Fame cred.

The fact that three of the top seven teams all come from the same organization in the same brief period of success is amazing.

Let's put it into statistical context: the 49ers won five titles not because they had Joe Montana and Steve Young. The 49ers won five titles because they had Montana and Young and consistently paired these great passers with the best pass defenses in football.

Otter breaking it down =

NINERS ARE THE BESTEST !!!!

Originally posted by oldman9er:
Otter breaking it down =

NINERS ARE THE BESTEST !!!!

that's from SI. But since the discussion is about the TEAM, I liked that it included both offense and defense.