Originally posted by merm49:
89 or 94, leaning towards '94 despite the fact that Montana wasn't QB. Young was just on fire in 94, turning in one of the greatest QB seasons ever. WRs, TEs, and RBs were supremely talented, and both backs were threats catching balls out backfield. The Defense was just nasty. Look at the names. A young Stubblefield and BY with HOFer Ricky Jackson. Norton, Plummer, and Woodall at LB. Defensive Player of the Year Neon Deon and Eric Davis at CB, with Hanks and McDonald at S. There was no weakness on that 94 team. Too bad it only really stuck together for that one year; had Sanders and Waters stayed, they probably could have made another SB or two.
'94 was great no doubt. It was cool seeing a dream team that was actually doing it's thing. It was probably the most dominant 49er team during regular season play that I've seen.
My major issue with the '94 team was that we were literally just a few guys away from not being contenders anymore. In '95, losing Ricky Watters was huge, Deion....
The '89 team leaves no doubts about going to war with any franchise, any era. In my opinion the reason why '90 was not as good as '89 mostly had to do with Craig not being what he used to be with his knee injury. They talked about the NYG '90 defense, but the SF '90 defense was outstanding holding those guys to only field goals that year.
Also back in those days, there were some real tough NFC foes that could be a real chore to beat. They say you need elite QBs today......in truth, you needed them much more IMO back then. And when you talk about elitism, I like Joseph over Steven.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I just wonder how many of those '94 over '89 guys actually wanted the '89 team play.
I didn't watch the '84 team play and have a hard time knowing how great they really were..........which is why I need to start watching.