There are 140 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Should Dwight Clark's Catch be the only play known as "The Catch"?

Should Dwight Clark's Catch be the only play known as "The Catch"?

What happens if Roethlisberger throws over the middle, and the ball gets ricocheted to Mendenhall and he goes 80 yards for a TD?

Can that be the Immaculate 2.0?
ABSOLUTELY YES!

Please, tell the name givers to get some imagination and creativity and come up with a unique name that the other accomplishments deserve. Calling it The Cath 2 or other nonsense is a total cop-out.
Only if that catch launches us to a SB win
There is only one The Catch. The other plays were followed by disappointing loses the following week. Besides, the throws were better than the catches anyway.
  • vaden
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 3,005
Another thing Kyle Williams ruined.
the other 2 were pretty big plays, i have no problem calling them The Catch II and The Catch III
Yes. As others have stated. Wasn't just the play, it signaled a new era. We made the playoffs a few times before Bill Walsh took over, but always lost to Dallas.

Dallas could no longer presume they could beat us every time we played.

Look if, Harbaugh takes us to several Super Bowls over the next several years, it makes sense to have some play signal this new era. But, if we don't reach the NFC championship game in the next 5 years, these "catches" signal nothing.
[ Edited by OldJoe on Jan 26, 2012 at 7:28 AM ]
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Yes.....SB or bust.

Nailed it
The Catch II should never have happened. Rice clearly fumbled on that drive and the refs missed it. If instant replay had been in effect, the Catch II wouldn't have happened and the 49ers would have most likely lost that game. Consequently, Hearst would never have broken his ankle the next week in Atlanta. How's that for karma?
I always thought John Taylors catch was The Catch 2???