-
Niners99
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 43,165
Originally posted by Niners816:
Originally posted by Niners99:
How is our 97 team ranked 8th? Theres also no way our 1991 team was the 4th best. They went 10-6, and only had 3 pro bowl selections.
1991 gave up only 239 pts (only behind 1992 for the decade low). It's six loses were by 2,3,6,5,7 & 3. Finished the season 6-0 after a 4-6 start and was the hottest team in the league including eventual champ Washington. It's only sin was injury (Steve young missed 5 games) & and two bad losses to ATL. Had the 1991 team got in that would've been number 5. Basically, the down the stretch 1991 team was the precursor to the 92-94 run. When watters was added the offense went nuclear and we were pretty dominate (with the exception of the 1993 defense).
1997 strength of schedule was way down and the offense wasn't as good as the 1991 squad. 1991 scored more and gave up less with a tougher schedule.
Fair enough.
-
Niners816
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 9,990
Originally posted by 49erFan816:
Originally posted by Niners816:
This....and Mike Holmgren knowing our WCO inside and out and reigning in Favre. I think had Jerry stayed heathy for all of 1997 we would have rolled the league. It would have been the closest to one of my dream niner super teams ('98 offense combined with '97 defense).
In the series though 1995 & 1996 where primarily on lack of a run game. 1997, IMO was losing Jerry and therefore an explosive offense and by that time it was in our heads much like Dallas in '92 & '93.
As for best non SB 90s team, it's either '90 or '92 for me.
I'd rank our 90's squads like this:
1.) 1994
2.) 1990
3.) 1992
4.) 1991
5.) 1993
6.) 1995
7.) 1998
8.) 1997
9.) 1996
10.) 1999
Even though the 94 team won the SB. I will still rank the 90 and 92 teams ahead of them because of how talented they were compared to the 92 squad. Especially defensively.
1994 gets the nod for me, because the stretch of games that started post philly s**t-show was as dominate as any thing we've done in franchise history. 13-1 with only loss being a give away game to Minnesota. Ave score was something like 37-19 per game. During this stretch Steve had a qb rating of 124, that ranks with any 14 game stretch in the history of the sport including Joe's '89 season.
Of course this is just my opinion and I've always held '90 and '92 as missing ring teams. I agree that both those teams had better defenses, but 1994 offense was just out of this world it was the culmination of the 92-94 shanny years. Plus kicking Dallas's ass twice gets it bonus points
-
CullyInTheHouse
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 979
Because they were just so much more physical than us. The reason why we own them now is why they owned us in the 90s. Kap and Favre are different QBs, but both had teams around them that were very physical. We used to get bullied by GB and Dallas.
-
WildBill
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 6,100
Waters departure made us one dimensional, if had stayed, it would have mad them tougher to beat. It hurt Waters and the niners, after he left Waters sucked, if he had stayed, he knows, he might have racked up numbers that make him a hall of famer, especially with the other players taking the heat off him.
-
TonyStarks
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 60,518
Originally posted by ElephantHaley:
The Main Reason GB rolled us in the 90s was because Holmgren Knew the 49ers Playbook/schemes Inside and Out. 49ers were just as talented NO DOUBT but Holmgren/Farve/Fritz Shermur DC knew how to attack the 49ers and for some UNGODLY reason, the 49ers could not cover Antonio Freeman. I feel the 49ers approached GB different like run at them the way the Cowgirls used to run on GB each time. All GB would do is play nickel and dime with Leroy Butler lined up in the box with no threat of running so Rice/Owens/Stokes each had to beat almost double coverage each play.
/thread
-
CullyInTheHouse
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 979
Originally posted by WildBill:
Waters departure made us one dimensional, if had stayed, it would have mad them tougher to beat. It hurt Waters and the niners, after he left Waters sucked, if he had stayed, he knows, he might have racked up numbers that make him a hall of famer, especially with the other players taking the heat off him.
Just overall our team was more finesse than anything. That style is great for the regular season, but the physical teams are the ones that usually get it done in the playoffs. That is the reason why we along with SEA have been so successful in the postseason in recent years. The Cowboys were flat out much more physical than us and used to have their way in the postseason. Then came GB who were nasty themselves.
-
jbeale49
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 1,054
Dorsey f**kin Levins and Ahman F**king Green with a side of Antonio F**kin Freeman
-
Sanfran_chrisco
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 33,132
didnt have alex smith
-
9moon
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 20,165
Actually these are the TOP 5 reasons why we coudn't beat Green Bay:
1) Coaching - knowing the ins and outs of our O & D, neither George & Mooch could keep up with Mike's chess game
2) The Fitz Hiring - no other DC in the 80s gave Bill Walsh & SF WCO more trouble than Shurmur when he was with the Rams
4) Hearst and the OL - for whatever reason, this group just could not run nor pass block their front 7.
5) The Zebras - Aside the Jerry Rice Fumble in the Catch II, the zebras controversial calls and decision had always gone GB's way.
-
SanDiego49er
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 47,923
Because they had Favre. As much as he is disliked on this board and people try to minimize him he was a great player in his prime.
-
brodiebluebanaszak
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 14,385
Obviously, it was Holmsy who knew exactly what we wanted to do better than the 9er coaching staff on the other sideline.
Why did he leav,e exactly?
-
mayo49
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 64,320
Because they had Brett Favre and we had Jeff Garcia.
[ Edited by mayo49 on May 25, 2015 at 6:19 AM ]
-
WildBill
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 6,100
Originally posted by CullyInTheHouse:
Just overall our team was more finesse than anything. That style is great for the regular season, but the physical teams are the ones that usually get it done in the playoffs. That is the reason why we along with SEA have been so successful in the postseason in recent years. The Cowboys were flat out much more physical than us and used to have their way in the postseason. Then came GB who were nasty themselves.
Besides Waters, if we could have kept Sanders, the cowboys, physical or not would not compare with us. Only cause they took two parts of our engine away is why they got where they got. The other being Haley. Waters Haley and Sanders. The niners could have had 7superbowls by now. Oh well.
-
49erFan816
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 212
Originally posted by WildBill:
Besides Waters, if we could have kept Sanders, the cowboys, physical or not would not compare with us. Only cause they took two parts of our engine away is why they got where they got. The other being Haley. Waters Haley and Sanders. The niners could have had 7superbowls by now. Oh well.
Haley getting traded was bad but it was fault as he was disappointed in such things as Lott going to another team and Montana being hurt.
The 49ers did get Ken Norton Jr. who ended up playing the rest of his career with them. So it wasn't all bad.
I believe after Waters won his ring he wanted his money which is the norm in sports today.
-
49erFan816
- Veteran
-
- Posts: 212
Originally posted by mayo49:
Because they had Brett Favre and we had Jeff Garcia.
huh? Garcia came in what? 99?