There are 131 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Potential 49ers Super Bowls that never happened.

This is why I hate the cowboys, packers, and refs. We should have at least another 4 rings from the 90's.
Originally posted by paulk205:
92 was particularly painful since we were robbed. It's a different game with that Rice TD standing. 83 is the same, but it was before my time and my frustration is historical rather than personal.

I prefer not to remember 90

93 & 97 we didn't stand a chance, so they hurt less.

In 83, two phantom pass interferences in the 4th cost Niners that game. Niners were completely robbed in that one. Personal for me.
Originally posted by Niners99:
going back over the years, we played for the conference championship game 12 times since 1970, but only 5 times went on to the Super Bowl. we won all 5 times obviously, but its frustrating to look back at how many more SB rings we were 1 game away from, but couldnt get it done.

1970- wouldve played the Colts
1971- wouldve played the Dolphins
1983- wouldve played the Raiders
1990- wouldve played the Bills
1992- wouldve played the Bills
1993- wouldve played the Bills
1997- wouldve played the Patriots

as amazing as our 5 championships are, there were 7 more within spitting distance, but we lost. All I see when I look at those 3 against Buffalo are 3 more Lombardi trophies that wouldve been in our case, no doubt.

Cowboys screwed us out of 4 of those, Giants, Redskins, and Packers 1 each.

We were outplayed in some of those games
The real painful one is 1990
This is one of my favorite topics, as painful as it is. I can't comment on the losses in the '70s, but for what it's worth, these are my various rationalizations of the playoff losses since:

In '83, as Sonoco mentioned, we were lucky to survive Detroit in the previous round. Along those lines, don't forget that in the title game the Redskins missed FOUR field-goals, so we were somewhat lucky even to be in a position to mount our furious rally. No question, the officials' calls at the end were soul-crushing, but given that we were never ahead, it's hard to say that without those calls we necessarily would've won the game. And I tend to agree with Sonoco that the Raiders' blowout of the Redskins would suggest that we might well have suffered the same fate. I think that Walsh said it best when he noted that, although we might've "snuck" into the Super Bowl that year, we weren't really ready yet; what '83 really did was give us the drive we needed to go out and decimate the league in '84.

'85 and '86 are easy. In '85, we were so banged up that Walsh said our loss was almost a relief. In '86, the Giants were head and shoulders above everyone else, and once they knocked out Montana, forget it.

'87 is tricky because we were so statistically superior to the Vikings (not to mention every OTHER team). The #1 offense AND the #1 defense. Walsh's primary explanation was that he worked the team, especially the receivers, too hard in practice. (Rice in particular complained of having dead legs.) Randy Cross simply blamed overconfidence. But anyone who watched that game saw two things: even though our coverage really wasn't bad, Anthony Carter had the game of his friggin' life, setting a playoff record that stood for more than a decade; and the Vikings' DL overwhelmed our OL, turning Montana into an invalid. The best explanation of this game, in my opinion, is the one that was written up in "The Blind Side": Bubba Paris was our weak link, and Chris Doleman was able to singlehandedly shut us down. In '88, with Steve Wallace at LT, against the same Vikings, we blew 'em out. So in '87, it was certainly a shocking upset, but we didn't give it away; we were simply beaten, explicably.

Okay, '90. I've got two lines of thought here. First, the fumble was forced, by a great defensive play; Howard split a double-team and put his helmet right on the ball, later saying that Craig didn't have a chance. Craig gets WAY too much hate for that fumble; sometimes you've just gotta credit the defense. Second, without the fumble, the threepeat was in no way automatic, and I myself think it was very unlikely. Montana was out (thanks again, Bubba), so Young would've made his first-ever playoff start. We saw how ragged his first playoff start turned out to be, and that was after two years of starting. If he had made that start in the Super Bowl, with all the threepeat pressure, along with the fact that we had no running game to speak of (and thus no ability to possess the ball for 40 minutes like the Giants did, and even THEN the Giants needed a missed field-goal to win), I can't really perceive how we could've won. That game certainly hurt like no other, EVER, but when it was over, I don't think we had anything left.

'92 has a bit of what-iffiness, given that touchdown that was called back. But given our defense, it's hard to deny that Dallas was a better team. '93, even harder.

In '95, we paid for the losses of Watters and Sanders. (Everyone knew that we couldn't afford Sanders. I've heard Young blame the front office for not keeping Watters, but Watters demanded a front-loaded contract that would pay him at least as much as Rice, so we couldn't have matched the Eagles' offer for him either.) On top of that, we also lost Shanahan and Rhodes. That's just too much to replace in one year.

'96, no Young; '97 and '98, no Hearst, end of story.

'01, I know that Favre had a lot of great games, and a lot of great games against US, but I doubt that he was ever better than he was in the second half of that game.

'02, after the comeback against the Giants, a cross-country flight to Tampa to face that (rested) defense? No chance.

On top of all this, if you STILL feel like we've blown opportunities for rings, just remember how close we came to losing two Super Bowls to the Bengals. (See Billups, Lewis.) Sometimes things just balance out.
heres an amazing stat, 49ers and bills combined to play in 7 straight super bowls, but somehow never met each other
Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:
1997 = would've played Broncos btw, (Pats = 1996)

2 Games Away (lost in Divisional):

1972 - lost to Dallas, would've faced 'Skins, then undefeated Miami
1986 - lost to NYG, would've faced 'Skins, then Denver
1987 - lost to Vikings, would've played 'Skins, then Denver
1995 - lost to GB, would've played Dallas, then Steelers
1996 - lost to GB, would've played Panthers, then Patriots
1998 - lost to Falcons, would've played Vikings, then Broncos
2002 - lost to Tampa Bay, would've played Eagles, then Raiders

you are incorrect. we played GB in the NFC champ game in the 97-98 season, which was a Packers/Patriots super bowl. Broncos played the Packers in the 98-99 season, and the Falcons in the 99-00 season. we were also knocked out by the Packers in the 96-97 season, but in the divisional round.

It gets confusing because each year the SB is played in a different year than the regular season, but it was the 1997 season, Mariucci's first year as HC, that we lost to GB in the NFC champ game.
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:
1997 = would've played Broncos btw, (Pats = 1996)

2 Games Away (lost in Divisional):

1972 - lost to Dallas, would've faced 'Skins, then undefeated Miami
1986 - lost to NYG, would've faced 'Skins, then Denver
1987 - lost to Vikings, would've played 'Skins, then Denver
1995 - lost to GB, would've played Dallas, then Steelers
1996 - lost to GB, would've played Panthers, then Patriots
1998 - lost to Falcons, would've played Vikings, then Broncos
2002 - lost to Tampa Bay, would've played Eagles, then Raiders

you are incorrect. we played GB in the NFC champ game in the 97-98 season, which was a Packers/Patriots super bowl. Broncos played the Packers in the 98-99 season, and the Falcons in the 99-00 season. we were also knocked out by the Packers in the 96-97 season, but in the divisional round.

It gets confusing because each year the SB is played in a different year than the regular season, but it was the 1997 season, Mariucci's first year as HC, that we lost to GB in the NFC champ game.

we did not play gb in the nfc title game that led to the pack/pats sb, gb/carolina played that nfc title game, we played the nfc title game with gb that led to the gb/denver sb a year later
dont make threads like this as we head into the playoffs!!! C'MON MAN!?!?!?!?!?!
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:
1997 = would've played Broncos btw, (Pats = 1996)

2 Games Away (lost in Divisional):

1972 - lost to Dallas, would've faced 'Skins, then undefeated Miami
1986 - lost to NYG, would've faced 'Skins, then Denver
1987 - lost to Vikings, would've played 'Skins, then Denver
1995 - lost to GB, would've played Dallas, then Steelers
1996 - lost to GB, would've played Panthers, then Patriots
1998 - lost to Falcons, would've played Vikings, then Broncos
2002 - lost to Tampa Bay, would've played Eagles, then Raiders

you are incorrect. we played GB in the NFC champ game in the 97-98 season, which was a Packers/Patriots super bowl. Broncos played the Packers in the 98-99 season, and the Falcons in the 99-00 season. we were also knocked out by the Packers in the 96-97 season, but in the divisional round.

It gets confusing because each year the SB is played in a different year than the regular season, but it was the 1997 season, Mariucci's first year as HC, that we lost to GB in the NFC champ game.

we did not play gb in the nfc title game that led to the pack/pats sb, gb/carolina played that nfc title game, we played the nfc title game with gb that led to the gb/denver sb a year later

nvm, you guys are right. somehow I got it all mixed up. i was correct about the 1997 season part, but I put the 2 broncos SB's one year ahead for some reason.
As much as I would have loved to get a three-peat in 1990, I just doubt we'd of beaten the Bills. Our defense would not have matched their 'power-4' (our backfield was not aging well, and Steve Young was mediocre in the pocket at that time). -Giants had the 'right' defensive scheme/offensive strategy to contain them (keeping them off the field, and shutting them down on the sidelines).

If we had played the Bills it would be a shoot-out, and Bruce Smith would have destroyed Steve Young.
Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
dont make threads like this as we head into the playoffs!!! C'MON MAN!?!?!?!?!?!

so you're saying making this thread has ANYTHING to do with whats about to happen in the forthcoming postseason?
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:
1997 = would've played Broncos btw, (Pats = 1996)

2 Games Away (lost in Divisional):

1972 - lost to Dallas, would've faced 'Skins, then undefeated Miami
1986 - lost to NYG, would've faced 'Skins, then Denver
1987 - lost to Vikings, would've played 'Skins, then Denver
1995 - lost to GB, would've played Dallas, then Steelers
1996 - lost to GB, would've played Panthers, then Patriots
1998 - lost to Falcons, would've played Vikings, then Broncos
2002 - lost to Tampa Bay, would've played Eagles, then Raiders

you are incorrect. we played GB in the NFC champ game in the 97-98 season, which was a Packers/Patriots super bowl. Broncos played the Packers in the 98-99 season, and the Falcons in the 99-00 season. we were also knocked out by the Packers in the 96-97 season, but in the divisional round.

It gets confusing because each year the SB is played in a different year than the regular season, but it was the 1997 season, Mariucci's first year as HC, that we lost to GB in the NFC champ game.

we did not play gb in the nfc title game that led to the pack/pats sb, gb/carolina played that nfc title game, we played the nfc title game with gb that led to the gb/denver sb a year later

nvm, you guys are right. somehow I got it all mixed up. i was correct about the 1997 season part, but I put the 2 broncos SB's one year ahead for some reason.

it does get confusing cus of the season carrying over into january, i just remember the 96 season well cus both carolina and jacksonville made the conference titles in their second season
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:
1997 = would've played Broncos btw, (Pats = 1996)

2 Games Away (lost in Divisional):

1972 - lost to Dallas, would've faced 'Skins, then undefeated Miami
1986 - lost to NYG, would've faced 'Skins, then Denver
1987 - lost to Vikings, would've played 'Skins, then Denver
1995 - lost to GB, would've played Dallas, then Steelers
1996 - lost to GB, would've played Panthers, then Patriots
1998 - lost to Falcons, would've played Vikings, then Broncos
2002 - lost to Tampa Bay, would've played Eagles, then Raiders

you are incorrect. we played GB in the NFC champ game in the 97-98 season, which was a Packers/Patriots super bowl. Broncos played the Packers in the 98-99 season, and the Falcons in the 99-00 season. we were also knocked out by the Packers in the 96-97 season, but in the divisional round.

It gets confusing because each year the SB is played in a different year than the regular season, but it was the 1997 season, Mariucci's first year as HC, that we lost to GB in the NFC champ game.

we did not play gb in the nfc title game that led to the pack/pats sb, gb/carolina played that nfc title game, we played the nfc title game with gb that led to the gb/denver sb a year later

nvm, you guys are right. somehow I got it all mixed up. i was correct about the 1997 season part, but I put the 2 broncos SB's one year ahead for some reason.

it does get confusing cus of the season carrying over into january, i just remember the 96 season well cus both carolina and jacksonville made the conference titles in their second season

Jags havent been back since. all in all though both expansion teams, along with the Texans, have turned out to be successes on the field. sometimes expansion teams end up being bottom feeders for a long time, but theyve been competitive since they came in. obviously the Jags were put in the wrong city, but they win most years.

looking at those matchups, its probably a good thing we didnt play the Raiders in 83 and Broncos in 97. I still think those early 90's teams wouldve wiped the floor with the Bills though.
[ Edited by Niners99 on Dec 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM ]
I'm sure if you look at a lot of teams that have been dominant for a decade or so, you will find that they lost many times in the championship game before the Superbowl. Good teams are constantly in the playoffs and from there, you are only playing good teams. I would guess that Dallas and Pittsburgh have just as many appearances.

The one that stings the most to me is 92? Whichever year it was that Montana got injured by the Giants. It was still a close game but if we could have went on to win we would have had a great chance to be the only team to 3 peat a Superbowl. Would have added nicely to the Niners Glory.
  • Shemp
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 26,696
Roger Craig fumble at end of NFC championship game at end of I don't know what year. Guaranteed SB down the toilet.