There are 104 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The "Cohn" Thread

Originally posted by GNielsen:
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Not me. That 94 team had a very suspect defense. And if last years offense scored on the first drive without giving the ravens short fields, and didn't commit two turnovers, we would have had a different game. Sloppy offense, no ball control makes it harder on the defense.

The '94 defense was sixth in the league in points allowed and the offense was first in the league. In the Super Bowl, the defense gave up 26 points and 16 of them were allowed during what anyone would describe as "garbage time." The Niners were up 35-10 before the Chargers scored their last 16 points. So, you're just flat-out wrong on a few things. This team would have won anyway because this team scored 31 points (hint: that's more points than 26). The 94 defense was in no way, shape or form, a "suspect defense". The front seven included Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, Ken Norton, Richard Dent, Charles Man, Bryant Young and Dana Stubblefield who had his best year. The corners were Deion Sanders and Eric Davis (Sanders once said that Davis was the best corner he ever played across from). Merton Hanks made the pro bowl that year at safety. Sanders was defensive player of the year.

So Jose Cortez, you're just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just ask the cowboys. If the niners weren't spotted 21 points in the championship game, they lose. That defense was getting moved on. It wasn't a bad defense but it wasn't a Super Bowl defense. It was 14-0 when the defense let Stan humphries drive down the field to make it 14-7. If the offense didn't score it would have been a different Super Bowl. And the chargers ran the ball back on a kickoff in that one too!

Oh and what does ranking have to do with anything? Last years team ranked higher than the 94 team. And what do individual players have to do with anything? Defense is a collaborative effort.
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Originally posted by GNielsen:
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Not me. That 94 team had a very suspect defense. And if last years offense scored on the first drive without giving the ravens short fields, and didn't commit two turnovers, we would have had a different game. Sloppy offense, no ball control makes it harder on the defense.

The '94 defense was sixth in the league in points allowed and the offense was first in the league. In the Super Bowl, the defense gave up 26 points and 16 of them were allowed during what anyone would describe as "garbage time." The Niners were up 35-10 before the Chargers scored their last 16 points. So, you're just flat-out wrong on a few things. This team would have won anyway because this team scored 31 points (hint: that's more points than 26). The 94 defense was in no way, shape or form, a "suspect defense". The front seven included Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, Ken Norton, Richard Dent, Charles Man, Bryant Young and Dana Stubblefield who had his best year. The corners were Deion Sanders and Eric Davis (Sanders once said that Davis was the best corner he ever played across from). Merton Hanks made the pro bowl that year at safety. Sanders was defensive player of the year.

So Jose Cortez, you're just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just ask the cowboys. If the niners weren't spotted 21 points in the championship game, they lose. That defense was getting moved on. It wasn't a bad defense but it wasn't a Super Bowl defense. It was 14-0 when the defense let Stan humphries drive down the field to make it 14-7. If the offense didn't score it would have been a different Super Bowl. And the chargers ran the ball back on a kickoff in that one too!

Oh and what does ranking have to do with anything? Last years team ranked higher than the 94 team. And what do individual players have to do with anything? Defense is a collaborative effort.

I think his point was that that '94 defense was stacked and also healthy down the stretch. And unlike our defense this season, they had the premier playmaking talent in that secondary with Deion, Eric and Merton. Then look at that front 7 with the HOF talent they had and how they could harass and get after the passer. The defense helped to push our lead in that Dallas game which happened to be our Super Bowl unlike our defense in Super Bowl 47. That defense made plays and forced the action to one side of the field because Deion took away one side of it. Dude was the greatest CB of all time by far. That defense made plays and scored points
[ Edited by Pillbusta on Aug 12, 2013 at 6:42 AM ]
Anyway, please dump Cohn.

He's a hype monger and controversy producer to get himself hits.

Have no use for troublemakers in our own backyard as a 49er fan.
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Originally posted by cciowa:
Originally posted by GNielsen:
You definitely didn't have the backhanded comments and carping the way you did during the Montana-Young controversy. But, I reject the notion that the reason the Niners didn't win the Super Bowl last year was because they weren't egomaniacs. I think that's just silly. They didn't win the Super Bowl because the defense and special teams couldn't stop the Ravens from scoring - pure and simple. The offense scored 31 points - that would have been enough to win every Super Bowl that came before this game except one - and the one would have been a tie to go into overtime 31-31.

of course this is the truth and i think 98 per cent of niner fans would agree

Not me. That 94 team had a very suspect defense. And if last years offense scored on the first drive without giving the ravens short fields, and didn't commit two turnovers, we would have had a different game. Sloppy offense, no ball control makes it harder on the defense.

Why are you turning this into another "What-if" thread about the superbowl?
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
I think his point was that that '94 defense was stacked and also healthy down the stretch. And unlike our defense this season, they had the premier playmaking talent in that secondary with Deion, Eric and Merton. Then look at that front 7 with the HOF talent they had and how they could harass and get after the passer. The defense helped to push our lead in that Dallas game which happened to be our Super Bowl unlike our defense in Super Bowl 47. That defense made plays and forced the action to one side of the field because Deion took away one side of it. Dude was the greatest CB of all time by far. That defense made plays and scored points

Thank you. The idea that the '94 defense was somehow "suspect" is just kind of silly to me. Look at any part of it. The DB's - Hanks and McDonald at safeties and Sanders and Davis at corners?! Are you kidding me? A young Bryant Young and Stubblefield having by far his best year backed up by guys like Richard Dent and Charles Mann? What? On the season, that defense held opponents to less than a hundred yards rushing a game and 200 yards a game passing. And, like you pointed out, they were completely healthy in the playoffs. Plus, the Chargers were no patsies that year. They were the league's fifth ranked offense and ninth ranked defense.
Both the Cohns are garbage... I've been boycotting the PD for a couple years now
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Originally posted by GNielsen:
Originally posted by JoseCortez:
Not me. That 94 team had a very suspect defense. And if last years offense scored on the first drive without giving the ravens short fields, and didn't commit two turnovers, we would have had a different game. Sloppy offense, no ball control makes it harder on the defense.

The '94 defense was sixth in the league in points allowed and the offense was first in the league. In the Super Bowl, the defense gave up 26 points and 16 of them were allowed during what anyone would describe as "garbage time." The Niners were up 35-10 before the Chargers scored their last 16 points. So, you're just flat-out wrong on a few things. This team would have won anyway because this team scored 31 points (hint: that's more points than 26). The 94 defense was in no way, shape or form, a "suspect defense". The front seven included Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, Ken Norton, Richard Dent, Charles Man, Bryant Young and Dana Stubblefield who had his best year. The corners were Deion Sanders and Eric Davis (Sanders once said that Davis was the best corner he ever played across from). Merton Hanks made the pro bowl that year at safety. Sanders was defensive player of the year.

So Jose Cortez, you're just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just ask the cowboys. If the niners weren't spotted 21 points in the championship game, they lose. That defense was getting moved on. It wasn't a bad defense but it wasn't a Super Bowl defense. It was 14-0 when the defense let Stan humphries drive down the field to make it 14-7. If the offense didn't score it would have been a different Super Bowl. And the chargers ran the ball back on a kickoff in that one too!

Oh and what does ranking have to do with anything? Last years team ranked higher than the 94 team. And what do individual players have to do with anything? Defense is a collaborative effort.

the defense had a hand in that 21 point spot--eric davis had a pick 6 and another forced fumble led to a score
Originally posted by sdniner:
Both the Cohns are garbage... I've been boycotting the PD for a couple years now


I made the mistake of reading his latest blog
Lowell is mostly retired and has become more and more b***hy over the years, but he wasn't a bad sports journalist back in the day. His son on the other had ... Oi.
Originally posted by Scoots:
Lowell is mostly retired and has become more and more b***hy over the years, but he wasn't a bad sports journalist back in the day. His son on the other had ... Oi.

Grant still may develop dad's style -- Lowell Cohn wasn't brilliant overnight. And for those who believe he's become more cranky with age, you obviously didn't read him in his prime like I did. Had Bill Walsh followed Lowell's advice, we would have dumped Montana after the 1982 season.

Be glad Bill read Lowell -- but didn't do anything beyond that.

I don't know if we'll witness anything like Lowell Cohn again. He was part of the heyday of print -- which is long gone. One could earn a decent salary working at the Chronicle back in "the day." Hell, you could make enough to buy a home in San Francisco.

YES, SAN FRANCISCO.

Think any beat writer is making that kind of coin now? Nope.

Before the age of the internet? Lowell Cohn was "must read." You wanted to stay up on the 49ers? You plunked down your fifty cents for the ultra early edition of the Chronicle that was trucked to Fresno everyday at O'Dark Thirty. And you got there early. Because by 10 AM? The print edition was SOLD OUT. And if it was SOLD OUT -- you didn't get your Lowell Cohn fix for the day. Withdrawl ain't easy kids.

Reading the Green back in the day was akin to reading a book. The sports section routinely ran 20-25 pages. Numerous beat writers and columnists were assigned to cover the team. Lowell was just one of the few who stuck out like a sore thumb.

My routine back in the day was fairly simple. Attend my first class from 8 AM-9 AM -- then hit the Fresno State Student Union, where a cup of hot chocolate, a doughnut, the SF Chronicle and a beat up couch beckoned. It took a good hour to devour that sports section (the doughnut didn't take as long). By 10 AM? The break was over and some dreary GE mandated class beckoned....

What we get today, online, gets delivered much quicker now. We know instantly when players get cut -- or sent to IR -- or who said what, where and why. We know each other, where the common 80's fan didn't know Jim from Jack. The news is instant. But it's also lacking that in-depth analysis that died with the print industry.

That's why I like Grant's piece on Scott Tolzien. It reminded me somewhat of what daddy would have written. Back in the day...
lol
Niners grades wk 2


http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2013/09/inside-the-49ers/49ers-3-seahawks-29-grades/
Lowell's latest:
http://cohn.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/17570/colts-beat-49ers-now-what/
LOL....

http://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/2013/10/inside-the-49ers/how-to-stunt-a-qbs-growth/
before y'all jump to comclusions from the title, he rips the raiders a new one & pretty much sucks off JH

pretty hilarious piece