So what does everybody think about the Timeline: Tale of 2 cities so far?

Originally posted by thl408:

I don't know what kind of offensive system JJ ran at Miami, but he was a defensive guy and he implemented Miami's 4-3 front in DAL. He seems like a smart guy so you don't eff with what's not broken - the WCO. He probably would have left that side of the ball alone.

I'm sure it would have been Holmgren as OC and Jimmy would have ran the defense. That would have been going to the 4-3 5 years earlier then we did. I wonder who Dallas would have went with and does the Herschel Walker trade happen.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:
I don't know what kind of offensive system JJ ran at Miami, but he was a defensive guy and he implemented Miami's 4-3 front in DAL. He seems like a smart guy so you don't eff with what's not broken - the WCO. He probably would have left that side of the ball alone.

I'm sure it would have been Holmgren as OC and Jimmy would have ran the defense. That would have been going to the 4-3 5 years earlier then we did. I wonder who Dallas would have went with and does the Herschel Walker trade happen.

The 49ers were already running a 4-3, but Seifert's and JJ's versions are different. Seifert ran hybrid fronts, like what Carroll does in SEA right now. There's a mix of one gapping players and two gapping players on any one play. JJ was pure one gap, attacking style. I'll try to find an article that describes it well.

Originally posted by thl408:

The 49ers were already running a 4-3, but Seifert's and JJ's versions are different. Seifert ran hybrid fronts, like what Carroll does in SEA right now. There's a mix of one gapping players and two gapping players on any one play. JJ was pure one gap, attacking style. I'll try to find an article that describes it well.

Was it like that the whole time during the Walsh era as well. I guess when did the elephant position come into being. I always thought it was a 3-4 scheme, but the elephant could make it a 4 man front based on where he lined up. Hell, it might just be schematic, but I was under the impression 1994 was the first time we went with a truer 4-3 defense.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by thl408:
The 49ers were already running a 4-3, but Seifert's and JJ's versions are different. Seifert ran hybrid fronts, like what Carroll does in SEA right now. There's a mix of one gapping players and two gapping players on any one play. JJ was pure one gap, attacking style. I'll try to find an article that describes it well.

Was it like that the whole time during the Walsh era as well. I guess when did the elephant position come into being. I always thought it was a 3-4 scheme, but the elephant could make it a 4 man front based on where he lined up. Hell, it might just be schematic, but I was under the impression 1994 was the first time we went with a truer 4-3 defense.

I don't know about the whole time Walsh was there. I'm just referring to when Seifert was DC, then when he went to HC, the 49ers ran Seifert's brand of the 4-3 with an elephant, which is just a DE that stood up in a 2 point stance. Seifert ran a 4-3 Under, like what Carroll is doing in SEA.

JJohnson ran a 4-3 Over. I have to think he would have brought that with him had he succeeded Walsh. His 4-3 Miami was the key to his success.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/guide-to-n-f-l-defenses-part-2-evolution-of-4-3-front/?_r=0
Johnson wanted his athletic defenders exploding off the ball into their gaps. He had his front four crowd the neutral zone as much as possible without drawing penalties. The linemen were to make the offense react to them while they "read on the run" rather than simply controlling their gap, then reading keys to decide what to do next. The wide alignment of the ends allowed them to get upfield quickly to get to the quarterback or disrupt a running play in the backfield.

Originally posted by thl408:

I don't know about the whole time Walsh was there. I'm just referring to when Seifert was DC, then when he went to HC, the 49ers ran Seifert's brand of the 4-3 with an elephant, which is just a DE that stood up in a 2 point stance. Seifert ran a 4-3 Under, like what Carroll is doing in SEA.

JJohnson ran a 4-3 Over. I have to think he would have brought that with him had he succeeded Walsh. His 4-3 Miami was the key to his success.
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/guide-to-n-f-l-defenses-part-2-evolution-of-4-3-front/?_r=0
Johnson wanted his athletic defenders exploding off the ball into their gaps. He had his front four crowd the neutral zone as much as possible without drawing penalties. The linemen were to make the offense react to them while they "read on the run" rather than simply controlling their gap, then reading keys to decide what to do next. The wide alignment of the ends allowed them to get upfield quickly to get to the quarterback or disrupt a running play in the backfield.

Gotcha.....I just remember it was kinda of a big deal going into 1994, because we drafted Young as a DT to go along with Stubblefield as DTs. It was moving away from the Micheal Carter NT days and later Ted Washington as a NT as well. I also remember Rickey Jackson and Richard Dent being signed to be exclusively DE. This was kinda the formula going forward as well because Roy barker and Doleman were our DEs going into 1996. We kinda moved away from the elephant position.

Originally posted by Niners816:
Gotcha.....I just remember there it was kinda of a big deal going into 1994, because we drafted Young as a DT to go along with Stubblefield as DTs. It was moving away from the Micheal Carter NT days and later Ted Washington as a NT as well. I also remember Rickey Jackson and Richard Dent being signed to be exclusively DE. This was kinda the formula going forward as well because Roy barker and Doleman were our DEs going into 1996. We kinda moved away from the elephant position.

All those names bring so much joy to me!

Had jerry not yorked his coach we might be looking up to Dallas with 7.

Beyond the fact that I was fully entrenched in the 90's rivalry part of it nothing new to me except a few things.

1. Eddie D. allowed Jerry Jones to spend weeks with him after Jerry bought the Cowboys. I always knew Jerry had deep admiration for the 49ers and how Eddie ran things. Jerry wanted to soak up as much game as possible from Eddie.
2. Apparently Dallas had Montana rated very high on their draft board and would have taken him but they were very content with Danny White and his back up. Tom Landry said he didn't want to waste a pick on Joe so he can eventually cut him. Thanks!
3. Eddie D. wanted to hire Jimmy Johnson as Bill's replacement instead of Siefert.

Originally posted by 951NINER:

Beyond the fact that I was fully entrenched in the 90's rivalry part of it nothing new to me except a few things.

1. Eddie D. allowed Jerry Jones to spend weeks with him after Jerry bought the Cowboys. I always knew Jerry had deep admiration for the 49ers and how Eddie ran things. Jerry wanted to soak up as much game as possible from Eddie.
2. Apparently Dallas had Montana rated very high on their draft board and would have taken him but they were very content with Danny White and his back up. Tom Landry said he didn't want to waste a pick on Joe so he can eventually cut him. Thanks!
3. Eddie D. wanted to hire Jimmy Johnson as Bill's replacement instead of Siefert.

From Walsh to Johnson?

Can we have Eddie D conduct our next coaching search?

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 951NINER:
Beyond the fact that I was fully entrenched in the 90's rivalry part of it nothing new to me except a few things.

1. Eddie D. allowed Jerry Jones to spend weeks with him after Jerry bought the Cowboys. I always knew Jerry had deep admiration for the 49ers and how Eddie ran things. Jerry wanted to soak up as much game as possible from Eddie.
2. Apparently Dallas had Montana rated very high on their draft board and would have taken him but they were very content with Danny White and his back up. Tom Landry said he didn't want to waste a pick on Joe so he can eventually cut him. Thanks!
3. Eddie D. wanted to hire Jimmy Johnson as Bill's replacement instead of Siefert.

From Walsh to Johnson?

Can we have Eddie D conduct our next coaching search?

We turned out fine. Went back 2 back. Either way Jimmy got handed a ton of picks.

Originally posted by 951NINER:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by 951NINER:

Beyond the fact that I was fully entrenched in the 90's rivalry part of it nothing new to me except a few things.

1. Eddie D. allowed Jerry Jones to spend weeks with him after Jerry bought the Cowboys. I always knew Jerry had deep admiration for the 49ers and how Eddie ran things. Jerry wanted to soak up as much game as possible from Eddie.
2. Apparently Dallas had Montana rated very high on their draft board and would have taken him but they were very content with Danny White and his back up. Tom Landry said he didn't want to waste a pick on Joe so he can eventually cut him. Thanks!
3. Eddie D. wanted to hire Jimmy Johnson as Bill's replacement instead of Siefert.

From Walsh to Johnson?

Can we have Eddie D conduct our next coaching search?

We turned out fine. Went back 2 back. Either way Jimmy got handed a ton of picks.

My two biggest what if of the 90s unfortunately center around not having Seifert. Now, I love and appreciate all that he did and it was nowhere near as easy as he made it look winning 2 titles and going to 5 conference title games in 8 years, but I always wonder how it would have played out had :

1.) Holmgren been elevated to HC in Jan '89. Now this would have been a QB coach to HC assention and 3 years a head of when Mike actually got a head job. I loved holmgren's offense and it always pained me when he built GB in a better version of us in the mid 90s, because I believe we had better offensive personnel.

2.)this one assumes George getting the job in '89 but has him bowing out after SB29. It would have been 2 seasons earlier then did, but having Mike Shanahan guiding us in the mid to late 90s would have been the result. Would have loved to see the games between shanny and Holmgren.

I would have taken either of these options of Jimmy Johnson.

I'm not so sure that Jimmy Johnson was head and shoulders better than Switzer (just like Walsh vs. Seifert).

You saw how tough the Cowboys played us in '94, both games? If Switzer was Singletary, we would have crushed them in both games. Instead those games went down to the wire.

I've always argued that the Cowboys just were outright more talented than us in the '90s thanks to that Walker trade, Haley trade, etc. '94 we took enough away to even the score (Ken Norton Jr, getting Deion and those FAs).

They had younger/better trenches. Young vs. Aikman, or Rice/Taylor/Jones/Rathman/Floyd/Watters vs. Irvin/Harper/Novacek/Johnston/Smith was not the most important part of the battle. They had a better OL, and I'd say a better front 7 and maybe we had an edge in the secondary.

Many years later through this site, learning about Seifert.......much more appreciation for him as a coach. Maybe not as a motivator of men but certainly as a defensive/secondary Xs and Os guy. Man was he underrated back then.

Imagine a modern Seifert/Fangio combination?

I do think the greatness of Young and Rice was an x-factor that kept those games closer than they should have been.

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

I do think the greatness of Young and Rice was an x-factor that kept those games closer than they should have been.

I think we where better in 1992 & 1994. I think they were decidedly better in 1993 and maybe slightly better in 1995. However, if given the shot I think we beat them in the playoffs in 1995. I think the single greatest team in that rivalry was our 1994 squad followed by their 1993 team. Both teams realistically were 14-2 type squads that drop a few games they shouldn't have. The biggest mismatch was in 1993, our defense was average and that's being kind.

Originally posted by Niners816:
I think we where better in 1992 & 1994. I think they were decidedly better in 1993 and maybe slightly better in 1995. However, if given the shot I think we beat them in the playoffs in 1995. I think the single greatest team in that rivalry was our 1994 squad followed by their 1993 team. Both teams realistically were 14-2 type squads that drop a few games they shouldn't have. The biggest mismatch was in 1993, our defense was average and that's being kind.

'92 we were very good and could compete with them. You're right.

I often wonder what would have happened had Rice's early TD stayed.......

Upon further review, holding was a good call (right in vicinity of Young). Just a shame that the protection couldn't hold up legitimately for another fraction of a second.

I still remember to this day how pumped I was for that score.