Originally posted by Griz:
Originally posted by Niners99:
When you look at overall records, and maintaining greatness, i think George Seifert doesnt get enough credit for the job he did here.
Now i understand that Walsh created the WCO, the winning mentality, was responsible for all personal moves and knowing who to sign, who to cut, etc, and he won the first 3 rings. but if you look at overall records....Seifert actually was just as good, maybe a bit better as far as wins/losses.
There seems to be this common opinion that Seifert just took over the reigns of a dynasty and sat back and coasted on it. however, id argue he did a phenomenal job of building his own teams, and keeping the Niners on top. outside the 1989-1990 super bowl win over Denver, i think he deserves full credit.
you can make an argument Walsh had everything setup to repeat in 89, but after that, the team choked away a surefire Super Bowl title against the Giants the very next season, and then ran into the Montana injury problems, missing the playoffs in 1991, and a division in the team among which QB should play.
he made the right call going with Young and letting Montana go, and we pulled right back out of it and dominated once more, including another Super Bowl win in 94. maybe a Walsh team takes 1 or 2 more Super Bowls in those years we finished runner up to Dallas and New York, maybe not.
overall, Seifert was 98-30 as Niners HC in 8 seasons, winning 7 division titles in those 8 years, and missing the playoffs at 10-6 in 1991, which almost always gets you in. Seifert was 10-5 in the playoffs. he averaged a 12-4 record as 49ers head coach.
Walsh was 92-56, but if you throw out his first 2 rebuilding seasons, and the strike year in 1982 hes 81-29 in 7 seasons (after 3 were removed). he won 6 division titles in those 7 seasons, and was 10-4 in the playoffs. he averages an 11-5 record in those 7 years.
im not saying Seifert was better, Walsh probably deserves credit for 4 of the 5 super bowls, and was clearly the best of all time, but Seifert didnt just coast on Walsh's team. maybe for 1 season in 89, but after that he was on his own, and he did an outstanding job.
sorry for writing before I read all the other post. But I had to say this because I could not beleive any one could put Seifert over Walsh. Walsh made a dynasty and Seifert could not of done any better to keep everything going just as it is...... give Seifert credit. but Walsh made it happened. I don't have to say anymore. Seifert went for a ride and kept it the same.....And then went to Carolina Panthers and did nothing.
nowhere did i ever say Seifert was better than Walsh. i said he had better statistics in alot of areas than Walsh did. at the end of the day, Walsh built the dynasty, hes the greatest ever. i was bringing up the fact that Seifert outperformed Walsh from a wins/losses and division titles point of view.
itd be one thing if Seifert took the reigns in 89, won the SB, and then tapered off. were talking about a coach who took the reigns, won the SB, and then blew past every obstacle in his way for 8 years. you can only pulling the "inherited a great team" card for one or 2 seasons. after that, everyone knows in the NFL you have to keep up with the other teams or fall behind.
Seifert actively kept the team winning. when it gets to 8 years of 10-14 win football, 2 super bowls, and 7 division titles, its time to stop saying Walsh set him up. for 8 years? he had a better 8 years than Walsh himself did statistically.
the man just deserves his due, which he doesnt seem to get, because 49er fans are so stubbornly on Walsh and Montana's side as if they werent all part of the same franchise. for what Seifert did, youd think hed get a "man, what a HOF coach we had there. niner legend". but nope. its "eh walsh set him up. big deal"
nobody ever says "steve young only was good because he took over montanas job. he coasted"
