Re-tooled Q, could this become the best SF Defensive Unit Ever?

Originally posted by prime21:

Originally posted by mryan1004:

Originally posted by PA49ersfan:

Originally posted by SybErkRimInAL:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
For the last 10 years, yes.

-9fA

yea, but the kid said "EVER".

Yeah! Lott put real fear into the the other team. Willis is a super star but I haven't seen the other team be truly scared of him!

brian dawkins the only one i've seen replicate that fear since

Brian Dawkins? not even close. Maybe, just maybe Bob Sanders, but that is still a long shot.

I can't think of any current safety that even comes close. Past, I'd say Steve Atwater.

Originally posted by jesserdumas2:
I think it's a legitimate claim that the '09 defense was largely responsible for the 8-8 finish and was essentially keeping a floundering offense in striking distance while they found their legs in most games. In some contests, they exhibited true game changing capabilities.

Knowing that there have been some great defenses put together during the Super Bowl years, the team was still always more noted for their offensive prowess and always will be. Not-so in this new version of the franchise and no matter how less-inept the offense can strive to become, this will still always be a defensive oriented team. That means that Singletary is banking his job on this being one of the best there ever was.

So where does it rank now?

The team that I saw the most of as a young fan was the 94 team, and with all the free agents Mr. DeBartolo hired for a big ol' hayride to Steve Young's Super Bowl Party, that defense was crazy-good. Like a bunch of aging-but-still-pretty-good Ray Lewis's out there was all I remembered. Ken Norton, Gary Plummer, Rickey Jackson, Tim Harris and sh!t I might have seen Richard Dent out there for a second. It took them a little while to get going, but then Deion jumped on board and they started obliterating people. Damn that was fun.

My point of this thread originally was to point out that the way things are going, the organization is banking on this being an elite defense and to see where they would rank amongst Niners' d's over the years.

I for one think they are very, VERY close to becoming a special group of players. Not the best i've ever seen yet, but very well could be.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
I would not put last years Niner defense in the top 10 of all time. Its an insult to Ronnie Lott, Fred Dean, Charles Haley, and the many GREAT defensive players of the 80s and 90s to even think this team is comparable. Hell.. the Niners of the early 70s under Dick Nolan that had Cedrick Hardman , Bruce Taylor, and Tommy Hart were far better as well.

You can't put a defensive unit that failed to even make the playoffs in any conversation about the best ever. They were not good enough to carry the team to the playoffs. Coulda, Shoulda, WOulda, doesn't cut it. There are just too many fantastic defenses and players to consider this. Frankly this is nowhere close. Call me when this unit wins a superbowl AND ranks in the top statistical categories. It is not as if this unit topped the rankings or set records. The 84 Squad only gave up 227 points. That was the fewest in the league making them statistically the #1 D and they won a superbowl and completely shut down one of the best QBs in the history of football in the SB. So there is the standard.

Originally posted by nvninerfan1:

Originally posted by kemp_j:

Originally posted by YuNGaCE:
Is Patrick Willis the best 49ers defensive player ever ?

I think Pratrick is on his way to becoming the best ever, but players like Ronnie Lott, Charles Haley, Bryant Young, and Eric Daivs, are still ahead of him to this point. Not to mention other Hall of Famers like Dave Wilcox and Fred Dean........

This years D was nice, but by not making the playoff's, this unit can't compare to the Defense's of the 80's and 90's. Possibly next year with a few key additions......

3 out of 4 aint bad, but Eric Davis? Come on.

That's kind of like talking about Bob Lurtsama when you talk about the 1960s Vikings Purple People Eaters. Although he did do good car commercials as
"Benchwarmer Bob".

Maybe Eric Wright... Eric Davis no way.

Originally posted by VA49er:
You can't put a defensive unit that failed to even make the playoffs in any conversation about the best ever. They were not good enough to carry the team to the playoffs. Coulda, Shoulda, WOulda, doesn't cut it. There are just too many fantastic defenses and players to consider this. Frankly this is nowhere close. Call me when this unit wins a superbowl AND ranks in the top statistical categories. It is not as if this unit topped the rankings or set records. The 84 Squad only gave up 227 points. That was the fewest in the league making them statistically the #1 D and they won a superbowl and completely shut down one of the best QBs in the history of football in the SB. So there is the standard.

Dude, look at the offenses those units were paired with though. The defenses in the Super Bowl years never really had to "carry" the team into the playoffs either. Pair this unit with the '94 offense and I'm sure it would rank a hell of a lot higher.

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:

Originally posted by taney71:

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:
Throw in a playmaker in the secondary and this question is affirmative.

One playmaker doesn't make this defense better than some of the ones in the 1980s or the 1995 Super Bowl team.

I'd take Menton Hanks, Eric Davis, and Deon Sanders in the secondary over Micheal Lewis, Goldson, Clements, and Spence (and even if you replaced one of them with a "playmaker").

Also, I'd take the 1994 4ers front 7 over this team's front 7 any day. Of course P. Willis is better than Ken Norton but the drop off isn't that huge and the other linebackers for the 1994 team are much better than the linebackers for the current 9ers.

I disagree completely. Goldson compares quite well to Merton Hanks. Deon couldn't tackle anybody, but in terms of coverage, Nate is only a few notches below Deon. Overall, prime to prime, i'd take Clements over Deon. Adding "one playmaker" would make the secondaries very close to equal IMHO. Why all of the love for Deon? I think that he is one of the most overrated players in NFL history.

In terms of the front 7, I wouldn't really take one over the other. Kevin Greene and Ricky Jackson were great, but both were also past their prime. They weren't much better than the Lawson/Haralson/Brooks combination, and against the run I would rate them as equal. Richard Dent was long past his prime. The DL is better now than it was in 94 or 88/89.

Did you just say you'd take Nate over PrimeTime????????? You, my friend, are drunk.

Originally posted by mryan1004:

Originally posted by jesserdumas2:

Originally posted by NeeJ49er:
With all due respect to the 84 defense, I was always comfortablee when these guys were on the field kicking ass.

DE- Jackson
DT- Young
DT- Stubblefield
DE- Doleman
LB- Norton
LB- Plummer
LB- Woodall
FS- Hanks
SS- Mcdonald
CB- Sanders
CB- Davis

Doleman didnt come on till later. After Deion was long gone.

alot of people also forget Rod Woodson rode with us around 94-95

just 1997.

Originally posted by AKfanster:

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:

Originally posted by taney71:

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:
Throw in a playmaker in the secondary and this question is affirmative.

One playmaker doesn't make this defense better than some of the ones in the 1980s or the 1995 Super Bowl team.

I'd take Menton Hanks, Eric Davis, and Deon Sanders in the secondary over Micheal Lewis, Goldson, Clements, and Spence (and even if you replaced one of them with a "playmaker").

Also, I'd take the 1994 4ers front 7 over this team's front 7 any day. Of course P. Willis is better than Ken Norton but the drop off isn't that huge and the other linebackers for the 1994 team are much better than the linebackers for the current 9ers.

I disagree completely. Goldson compares quite well to Merton Hanks. Deon couldn't tackle anybody, but in terms of coverage, Nate is only a few notches below Deon. Overall, prime to prime, i'd take Clements over Deon. Adding "one playmaker" would make the secondaries very close to equal IMHO. Why all of the love for Deon? I think that he is one of the most overrated players in NFL history.

In terms of the front 7, I wouldn't really take one over the other. Kevin Greene and Ricky Jackson were great, but both were also past their prime. They weren't much better than the Lawson/Haralson/Brooks combination, and against the run I would rate them as equal. Richard Dent was long past his prime. The DL is better now than it was in 94 or 88/89.

Did you just say you'd take Nate over PrimeTime????????? You, my friend, are drunk.

I did, and maybe it was probably a biased move, but look at it this way.....

Deon was here for one season. Nate is much more physical, and light years beyond Deon versus the run. Yes, Deon was a blanket cover corner, but he also had limitations. If you ever want to see something funny, check out Deon vs. the run bloopers. His tackling skills were on par with Nedney's.

In regards to the question/topic, this is probably not the best Defensive Unit Ever, from strictly a talent perspective. However, the margin between the two units is not as wide as you would think.

It is very difficult to compare units, whether offensive or defensive, from different periods in history. All of the Niners Superbowl teams had #1 Offenses; that makes defensive statistics gilded. This was also prior to the pass interference/5 yard bump rule, meaning defenses got away with a lot more. It was a different game. Hence, the easiest point of comparison is in relation to how other defenses in the league ranked at that point in time. Were the past defenses considered one of the better defenses in the league at that time? Yes. Were they ever considered the best? Probably not. Is the current defense one of the better defenses in the league? Yes. Are they the best defense in the league? No.

The current defense COULD be one of the best units ever with another piece or two. In regards to Deon Sanders, he is one of the most overrated players in NFL history IMHO. Not to mention, he bolted to the freakin COWBOYS.

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:

Originally posted by AKfanster:

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:

Originally posted by taney71:

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:
Throw in a playmaker in the secondary and this question is affirmative.

One playmaker doesn't make this defense better than some of the ones in the 1980s or the 1995 Super Bowl team.

I'd take Menton Hanks, Eric Davis, and Deon Sanders in the secondary over Micheal Lewis, Goldson, Clements, and Spence (and even if you replaced one of them with a "playmaker").

Also, I'd take the 1994 4ers front 7 over this team's front 7 any day. Of course P. Willis is better than Ken Norton but the drop off isn't that huge and the other linebackers for the 1994 team are much better than the linebackers for the current 9ers.

I disagree completely. Goldson compares quite well to Merton Hanks. Deon couldn't tackle anybody, but in terms of coverage, Nate is only a few notches below Deon. Overall, prime to prime, i'd take Clements over Deon. Adding "one playmaker" would make the secondaries very close to equal IMHO. Why all of the love for Deon? I think that he is one of the most overrated players in NFL history.

In terms of the front 7, I wouldn't really take one over the other. Kevin Greene and Ricky Jackson were great, but both were also past their prime. They weren't much better than the Lawson/Haralson/Brooks combination, and against the run I would rate them as equal. Richard Dent was long past his prime. The DL is better now than it was in 94 or 88/89.

Did you just say you'd take Nate over PrimeTime????????? You, my friend, are drunk.

I did, and maybe it was probably a biased move, but look at it this way.....

Deon was here for one season. Nate is much more physical, and light years beyond Deon versus the run. Yes, Deon was a blanket cover corner, but he also had limitations. If you ever want to see something funny, check out Deon vs. the run bloopers. His tackling skills were on par with Nedney's.

In regards to the question/topic, this is probably not the best Defensive Unit Ever, from strictly a talent perspective. However, the margin between the two units is not as wide as you would think.

It is very difficult to compare units, whether offensive or defensive, from different periods in history. All of the Niners Superbowl teams had #1 Offenses; that makes defensive statistics gilded. This was also prior to the pass interference/5 yard bump rule, meaning defenses got away with a lot more. It was a different game. Hence, the easiest point of comparison is in relation to how other defenses in the league ranked at that point in time. Were the past defenses considered one of the better defenses in the league at that time? Yes. Were they ever considered the best? Probably not. Is the current defense one of the better defenses in the league? Yes. Are they the best defense in the league? No.

The current defense COULD be one of the best units ever with another piece or two. In regards to Deon Sanders, he is one of the most overrated players in NFL history IMHO. Not to mention, he bolted to the freakin COWBOYS.

I was going to make a post about how over-rated Deion was, but when you say Clements is just a notch below, I just can't take it.

Deion was a HUGE liability against the run. But he was an incredible cover corner. the only better one in Niner history (and maybe league history) was Jimmy Johnson. (There was one season where I think the were only 6 passes thrown to his man!)

Clemens is a great tackler, but frankly he has been a liability in the passing game. I remember reading that he had 4.3 speed. But he doesn't seem to have that speed any longer - at least he doesn't play that way.

With today's pass-happy offenses, it is imperative that we have better coverage ability than we have!

Those of you fans who are under 30 probably are missing something very essential: Bill Walsh. The defenses of the 90's had some outstanding core players with some talented aging veterans added through free agency. They were often able to step it up in big games, but they often weren't that great consistently.

What Walsh had in the 80's was something better: he had a concept of how he wanted to play defense, AND he had an eye for the TALENT to fit that concept. It was for that reason that those defenses despite sometimes not having so many big names consistently performed. I would rank the 84 defense as the best and the 87-89 defenses right there, and then the mid-90's ones. Add in the first Dick Nolan championship defense and you are left with - at best - 9th or 10th for this one. I wouldn't rank them that high even, because they were inconsistent, but they could be in the conversation.

Can our current defense get there? I think there is a real chance. Manusky, once he was freed of Mike Nolan's meddling has seemed to have a pretty good idea of what he wants and how to get it out of his players. The big question will be how successful McCloughan will be in adding the final pieces to the talent puzzle.

If Ronnie Lott could move to safety then Clenents needs to face reality and get his butt to safety. His days are over playing corner. He can roam and come in and lay guys out. He'd love it.