Why did the 49ers struggle so much against GB in the 90's?

I used to hate playing them f*ckers , it was obvious Holmgrem knew how to prepare for us and make adjustments when ever we found success with our attack ...if we had a stronger running game, we would have won a few of them games, we rode and died with Steve and the passing game

I always dreaded playing the Packers. To me, the 49ers had the talent, but the Packers had a big edge in physicality. To me, the 49ers lines were more finesse. Bryant Young and Junior Bryant played with a lot of heart, but they weren't big boys like Gilbert Brown, Santa Dotson, and Reggie White. I remember the OL was the same deal.

So, when the Niners didn't have a running back, it put the onus on Young to provide all the offense (through the air and on the ground). On the other end, the Packers could keep pounding away. Levens was always a tough guy to tackle.

No running game: no Ricky Watters, injuries, etc. It was so bad that at one point the 2nd string FB had to start at RB in a playoff game, with a CAST on his hand and fumbled right off the bat. GB had a TD return on it and never looked back. Not Walker's fault, he was an overachiever trying to help the team. But that was the 90's 49ers-GB series in a nutshell.

We could have overcome Favre closing his eyes and just tossing the ball up for grabs getting lucky, all the bad referee calls, Holmgrem's knowledge of the WCO if fricken Rickey Watters had been less of a diva.

Originally posted by zonkers:
I always dreaded playing the Packers. To me, the 49ers had the talent, but the Packers had a big edge in physicality. To me, the 49ers lines were more finesse. Bryant Young and Junior Bryant played with a lot of heart, but they weren't big boys like Gilbert Brown, Santa Dotson, and Reggie White. I remember the OL was the same deal.

So, when the Niners didn't have a running back, it put the onus on Young to provide all the offense (through the air and on the ground). On the other end, the Packers could keep pounding away. Levens was always a tough guy to tackle.

Ohhh, I didn't even know Santa had a last name! Thanks!

But before the Packers there was the Giants who screwed us over from having a three peat. Replay of the 1991 NFC championship game on NFLN right now, Charles Haley just made a ridiculous sack on Hostetler. John Taylor just made a 61 yard TD catch and run. The play was reviewed, I totally forgot they had replay reviews at the time. Too bad that was the final score the 49ers made in the game. The eventual Craig fumble will be too painful to watch. It's simply amazing the number of HOF players in this game.

Originally posted by ninerjok:
But before the Packers there was the Giants who screwed us over from having a three peat. Replay of the 1991 NFC championship game on NFLN right now, Charles Haley just made a ridiculous sack on Hostetler. John Taylor just made a 61 yard TD catch and run. The play was reviewed, I totally forgot they had replay reviews at the time. Too bad that was the final score the 49ers made in the game. The eventual Craig fumble will be too painful to watch. It's simply amazing the number of HOF players in this game.

That 90-91 NFC title game between the 2 might have been the most physical game of all time.

Originally posted by CullyInTheHouse:
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.

Funny you say physical but 12s over on .NET complained that the Hawks weren't physical when Holmgren coached them....

Originally posted by JTsBiggestFan:

Funny you say physical but 12s over on .NET complained that the Hawks weren't physical when Holmgren coached them....

In my eyes GB physicality under Holmgren was primarily on defense. Pretty much Reggie, fat ass Gilbert Brown, and Leroy butler safety play gave GB the physical advantage in the mid 90s. Holmgren never did build a team in Seattle that rivaled any of his GB squads. I'd argue that the GB teams under Holmgren and the shanny title teams in Denver where the last really good teams in the NFL. By 1999, you really started to see half teams ('99 rams all O, '00 Ravens all D, '02 bucs all D) winning titles.

Originally posted by Niners816:
In my eyes GB physicality under Holmgren was primarily on defense. Pretty much Reggie, fat ass Gilbert Brown, and Leroy butler safety play gave GB the physical advantage in the mid 90s. Holmgren never did build a team in Seattle that rivaled any of his GB squads. I'd argue that the GB teams under Holmgren and the shanny title teams in Denver where the last really good teams in the NFL. By 1999, you really started to see half teams ('99 rams all O, '00 Ravens all D, '02 bucs all D) winning titles.

While I agree with the 00 Ravens and 02 Bucs. The 99 Rams had the 4th ranked defense in the NFL to go along with the #1 offense. The Ravens offense was pretty much all rookie RB Jamaal Lewis. The 02 Bucs was an offense that never really found themselves but did enough to get them to the SB.

Originally posted by 49erFan816:

While I agree with the 00 Ravens and 02 Bucs. The 99 Rams had the 4th ranked defense in the NFL to go along with the #1 offense. The Ravens offense was pretty much all rookie RB Jamaal Lewis. The 02 Bucs was an offense that never really found themselves but did enough to get them to the SB.

That's true on the Rams...some times I let that 2000 rams defense cloud my memory of those years. I do remember though that '99 ram team lost to every team it played with a winning record til the playoffs.

Originally posted by Phoenix49ers:
Lack of a running game mostly.

I would have to agree with this. However, it didn't help that Rice & Hearst both went down right after the Niners began to peak in '97 (they beat down the Broncos on Monday Night Football).

And the Niners lost Hearst & BY for the playoffs in '98; they easily would've beaten the Falcons with those 2 IMO.

Just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes.

Best Offensive Player: Favre
Best Defensive Player: Reggie
Better Head Coach: Holmgren
Better Homefield: Lambeau
Hungrier/Driven: Packers

In the mid to late 90s the Packers had nearly every advantage. WR is the only position we *probably* had an edge and that's assuming Mark Chamura doesn't count

The Running Back complaints I take with grain of salt because Packers were playing Levens and Edgar Bennett. Rather average RB's

Their defense was slightly better and our Offense was in disarray: Grbac starting for injured Steve, the running backs and Rice's knee

Originally posted by Niners816:
In my eyes GB physicality under Holmgren was primarily on defense. Pretty much Reggie, fat ass Gilbert Brown, and Leroy butler safety play gave GB the physical advantage in the mid 90s. Holmgren never did build a team in Seattle that rivaled any of his GB squads. I'd argue that the GB teams under Holmgren and the shanny title teams in Denver where the last really good teams in the NFL. By 1999, you really started to see half teams ('99 rams all O, '00 Ravens all D, '02 bucs all D) winning titles.

Agree with the last bit of your post, the 1996-1997 Packers, 1997-1998 Broncos (and as you added in a later post) the 1999 Rams are probably the last truly complete teams we've seen. Different era in the NFL sadly.

Originally posted by cook80:

Originally posted by mayo49:
Because they had Brett Favre and we had Jeff Garcia.

90s ?

Oh, sorry wrong argument.

Originally posted by Pillbusta:

Originally posted by JimHarbaugh:

Running game.

When we had Watters in the early 90s we had a balanced attack. Defenses could not play just the passing game cuz Watters would torch them in the running game AND ESPECIALLY catching passes out of the backfield.

When Garrison Hearst was 100% we had a similar attack. I believe 100% that the 49ers would have won a 6th ring in 1998 if Hearst did not break his ankle against the Falcons in the playoffs.

Yup. This too!

Don't forget he was banged up in the 97 nfc champ. game.