Most hated All-time 49ers Foe

I personally couldn't stand Jamal Anderson. Effing dirty bird

My most hated teams? Dallas Cowsluts, New Jersey Gina's(Especially their fans), Seadderall Seahawks, Chokeland Fayders, and I'll throw in the Packers for good measure.

Originally posted by grizzlyadams:

Originally posted by Mr.Mcgibblets:

Really hated the Cowpukes and Packers back in the day. ( still do )

The Seahawks are the new evil villains nowadays.

I should've added the Packers as an option. Hated them, too. Kinda still do.

Packers and Cowboys are deadlocked in a tie for me. I couldn't get over the Favre-led Packers even after "The Catch II" stuck it to them in 1998. My grudge remains strong against both these teams.

Can't say I hate the seahawks yet, they haven't won anything . their bandwagon fans on the other hand .................act as if

Originally posted by blunt_probe:
'92, '93, '95, '96, and '97. I'm not including the Giants, but they've denied us super bowls too...

I think we would have beaten Denver. We were stacked in '97 even without Jerry. BTW, I'm not saying we should have beaten the cowboys and the packers in these games, but just that if we got past them, we probably would have won the super bowl.

well, considering we actually beat the broncos a month before super bowl 32 (score was 34-17 IIRC, was also the joe montana jersey retirement MNF game, also when JR got hurt again) i give us a good chance we'd have done it again....stupid packers

we never seem to win rainy NFCCG at the 'Stick ('92, '97, '11) '90 and '94 it rained the week/night before, but stopped was sunny by kickoff with only intermitent drizzle....rain seems to be the kiss of death despite the supposed homefield advantage...was too youg, but it probably rained in '88 when the vikings upset us (or was that during the great CA drought still?)

Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:

Originally posted by blunt_probe:
'92, '93, '95, '96, and '97. I'm not including the Giants, but they've denied us super bowls too...

I think we would have beaten Denver. We were stacked in '97 even without Jerry. BTW, I'm not saying we should have beaten the cowboys and the packers in these games, but just that if we got past them, we probably would have won the super bowl.

well, considering we actually beat the broncos a month before super bowl 32 (score was 34-17 IIRC, was also the joe montana jersey retirement MNF game, also when JR got hurt again) i give us a good chance we'd have done it again....stupid packers

we never seem to win rainy NFCCG at the 'Stick ('92, '97, '11) '90 and '94 it rained the week/night before, but stopped was sunny by kickoff with only intermitent drizzle....rain seems to be the kiss of death despite the supposed homefield advantage...was too youg, but it probably rained in '88 when the vikings upset us (or was that during the great CA drought still?)

But in 96' Carolina have beaten us twice so I don't think it would've been likely to beat Carolina in Carolina in 96. 97 was a toss up but that was a REAL GOOD Denver Team. Esp in 1997, we didn't have MUCH of a running game

All and all, SF and DAL should have more superbowls.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
But in 96' Carolina have beaten us twice so I don't think it would've been likely to beat Carolina in Carolina in 96. 97 was a toss up but that was a REAL GOOD Denver Team. Esp in 1997, we didn't have MUCH of a running game

All and all, SF and DAL should have more superbowls.

to clarify the '96 and '97 teams and playoff runs:

'96 = 12-4, 2nd place to panthers in NFCW, beat Philly in WC, lost to GB at lambeau (icy, muddy game) in NFCD...(Jan 1997) probably lose to CAR on the road in NFCCG had we faced them a 3rd time that season...no runnng game at all with terry kirby and loville...think young got hurt and grbac had to take over too aginst the pack in that game

'97 = 13-3, won NFCW, beat Broncos convincingly in reg season, #1 seed in NFC, beat Vikings in NFCD, lose at the rainy Stick to GB (Jan 1998) and miss chance to face Broncos in SB32 in San Diego....running game wasn't THAT bad even though it was the first year with Hearst and a revamped running game (first 1,000 yd rusher that yr Niners had since Watters), and last hurrah of the strong mid-90's Niners D before they started to get old

and for good measure...

'98 = 12-4 and 2nd place again (to the dirty birds this time), finally beat Packers in WC (the Catch 2), lose Heart and narrow loss to Falcons in Divisional (Jan 1999), would probably have lost anyways to Vikings in NFCCG, defense was getting old, Steve Young's last hurrah

Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:

Originally posted by pdizo916:
But in 96' Carolina have beaten us twice so I don't think it would've been likely to beat Carolina in Carolina in 96. 97 was a toss up but that was a REAL GOOD Denver Team. Esp in 1997, we didn't have MUCH of a running game

All and all, SF and DAL should have more superbowls.

to clarify the '96 and '97 teams and playoff runs:

'96 = 12-4, 2nd place to panthers in NFCW, beat Philly in WC, lost to GB at lambeau (icy, muddy game) in NFCD...(Jan 1997) probably lose to CAR on the road in NFCCG had we faced them a 3rd time that season...no runnng game

'97 = 13-3, won NFCW, beat Broncos convincingly in reg season, #1 seed in NFC, beat Vikings in NFCD, lose at the rainy Stick to GB (Jan 1998) and miss chance to face Broncos in SB32 in San Diego....running game wasn't THAT bad even though it was the first year with Hearst and a revamped running game (first 1,000 yd rusher that yr Niners had since Watters), and last hurrah of the strong mid-90's Niners D before they started to get old

and for good measure...

'98 = 12-4 and 2nd place again (to the dirty birds this time), finally beat Packers in WC (the Catch 2), lose Heart and narrow loss to Falcons in Divisional (Jan 1999), would probably have lost anyways to Vikings in NFCCG, defense was getting old, Steve Young's last hurrah

Thats what i meant. If SF def. GB and Car. def dallas in the 96' season, it wouldve been sf @ car-a game that I think we would lose bad.

All and all, GB was the better team in 96 and 97. Those GB teams were FILTHY.

Originally posted by pdizo916:

Originally posted by Dr_Bill_Walsh:

Originally posted by pdizo916:
But in 96' Carolina have beaten us twice so I don't think it would've been likely to beat Carolina in Carolina in 96. 97 was a toss up but that was a REAL GOOD Denver Team. Esp in 1997, we didn't have MUCH of a running game

All and all, SF and DAL should have more superbowls.

to clarify the '96 and '97 teams and playoff runs:

'96 = 12-4, 2nd place to panthers in NFCW, beat Philly in WC, lost to GB at lambeau (icy, muddy game) in NFCD...(Jan 1997) probably lose to CAR on the road in NFCCG had we faced them a 3rd time that season...no runnng game

'97 = 13-3, won NFCW, beat Broncos convincingly in reg season, #1 seed in NFC, beat Vikings in NFCD, lose at the rainy Stick to GB (Jan 1998) and miss chance to face Broncos in SB32 in San Diego....running game wasn't THAT bad even though it was the first year with Hearst and a revamped running game (first 1,000 yd rusher that yr Niners had since Watters), and last hurrah of the strong mid-90's Niners D before they started to get old

and for good measure...

'98 = 12-4 and 2nd place again (to the dirty birds this time), finally beat Packers in WC (the Catch 2), lose Heart and narrow loss to Falcons in Divisional (Jan 1999), would probably have lost anyways to Vikings in NFCCG, defense was getting old, Steve Young's last hurrah

Thats what i meant. If SF def. GB and Car. def dallas in the 96' season, it wouldve been sf @ car-a game that I think we would lose bad.

All and all, GB was the better team in 96 and 97. Those GB teams were FILTHY.

and for s**ts and giggles.

In 96, i remember we were in GB and we lead for the most of the game. Well, GB tied it very late in the game and won it in OT. Well, if we would've won that game, we would be the #1 seed and probably faced CAR in the Div and the winner of GB/Dal in the championship.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
Thats what i meant. If SF def. GB and Car. def dallas in the 96' season, it wouldve been sf @ car-a game that I think we would lose bad.

All and all, GB was the better team in 96 and 97. Those GB teams were FILTHY.

holmgren was more their x-factor than favruh IMO....even in that "greatest games" video of the '99 wild card/catch 2, Steve Young and Favre were explaining how even though both team's offensive vocab was almost verbatim, Holmgren had the coaching edge over Seifert and Mooch in gameplanning against us and knowing Steve's quirks and reads/audibles, plus the packers had the added edge of having fritz shurmur as their DC, who had faced the 49ers for so many years when he was on the rams in the 80's

I know this question is for niner fans but I will say Cowboys. I have enjoyed conversations with other teams fans but they are the worst. I was so happy we kicked the sh*t out of them last year. I would rather lose to the niners twice if it means we thrash the Cowboys.

Beating the Cowboys in the '94 NFC Championship game was so refreshing.

Originally posted by pdizo916:
and for s**ts and giggles.

In 96, i remember we were in GB and we lead for the most of the game. Well, GB tied it very late in the game and won it in OT. Well, if we would've won that game, we would be the #1 seed and probably faced CAR in the Div and the winner of GB/Dal in the championship.

that was the blown don beebe call on MNF in Oct '96....i blame seifert more though, he was conservative and settled for a FG rather than go for a TD that would've put the game out of GB/favre's reach....that's when mike shanahan's ballsy OC playcalling was sorely missed and also the strong running game as stated was lacking that season

cowdung

fudge packers

then CAWK blockers (and currently)

Originally posted by seahawk12thman:
I know this question is for niner fans but I will say Cowboys. I have enjoyed conversations with other teams fans but they are the worst. I was so happy we kicked the sh*t out of them last year. I would rather lose to the niners twice if it means we thrash the Cowboys.

LOL!

I'm surprised, but well said...