How do you feel when some say that the 1994 49ers bought the superbowl....

Originally posted by pasodoc9er:

Originally posted by ChazBoner:

fortunately, you won't have to hear that anymore since we wont be winning any SBs and Jed won't be spending any money on free agents.

Wrong Chaz. Next yr, like it or not, he HAS TO spend money on FA , resignings or he has to take that money and spend it on guys currently on the team. That is a no brainer. He is forced to spend next yr.

Thats what everyone said this offseason.

That they are right.



















But, who gives a s**t?

Bought it? Actually we were I believe number one in defense before we got Dion Sanders so either way we would've won the whole thing.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Bought it? Actually we were I believe number one in defense before we got Dion Sanders so either way we would've won the whole thing.

In 1993, we were middle of the pack in defense (15th pts, 16th yards). With Deion in '94, we finished 6th in pts and 8th in yards. The defense really was the weak link vs Dallas in 1993 and the FA signing in 1994 got us over the top, but statistically the defense were better in the following years 95-97. However, their weak spot was secondary and that ended up derailing us especially against the packers.

As to the OP questions, I've don't care if people say we bought one in 1994. I think the 1991 and 1992 squads were title worthy. The major gaffe of giving Dallas Haley in 1992 made it necessary to spend in 1994.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Bought it? Actually we were I believe number one in defense before we got Dion Sanders so either way we would've won the whole thing.

no we were slow on d esp with the linebackers and without haley had no pass rush. we were good enough to beat most teams but not the cowboys. remember in those days we were the two best teams in the nfl

Originally posted by Niners816:
In 1993, we were middle of the pack in defense (15th pts, 16th yards). With Deion in '94, we finished 6th in pts and 8th in yards. The defense really was the weak link vs Dallas in 1993 and the FA signing in 1994 got us over the top, but statistically the defense were better in the following years 95-97. However, their weak spot was secondary and that ended up derailing us especially against the packers.

As to the OP questions, I've don't care if people say we bought one in 1994. I think the 1991 and 1992 squads were title worthy. The major gaffe of giving Dallas Haley in 1992 made it necessary to spend in 1994.

plus the fact we were unable to draft a good pass rusher to replace haley., we settled for amp lee and such overall turrible drafts from 91-96

New England bought one with Regis for the year. Without him they would of lost to Seattle.

Denver bought one with manning Emmanuel sanders tj ward and Talib. They would of lost without them.

Swagalishis FO personnel.

Originally posted by NinerGod:

Swagalishis FO personnel.

Oh, and they were smart corporate guys.

Originally posted by NinerGod:

Originally posted by NinerGod:

Swagalishis FO personnel.

Oh, and they were smart corporate guys.

I just responed to myself. Awesome time to be akive.

Looking at Ted Washington's career. He played with Montana and Young and won a super bowl with Tom Brady along with playing with Elway and Kelly as well as Urlacher in his career. Niners still could have had a 3-4 defense with Young, Washington, and Stubblefield.

Originally posted by Imfasterthanur:
If you could buy a Superbowl, the Washington Redskins would be professional sports' greatest franchise.

There's more to it than spending.

That's true.

Originally posted by Niners816:
In 1993, we were middle of the pack in defense (15th pts, 16th yards). With Deion in '94, we finished 6th in pts and 8th in yards. The defense really was the weak link vs Dallas in 1993 and the FA signing in 1994 got us over the top, but statistically the defense were better in the following years 95-97. However, their weak spot was secondary and that ended up derailing us especially against the packers.

As to the OP questions, I've don't care if people say we bought one in 1994. I think the 1991 and 1992 squads were title worthy. The major gaffe of giving Dallas Haley in 1992 made it necessary to spend in 1994.

The defense was great in 92 but in 93 they were trying to rebuild and they struggled. Hence going from 14-2 with home field advantage to 10-6 with no home field advantage. They added passing rushing veterans like Charles Mann and Richard Dent who won super bowls with the Redskins in 87 and 91 and the Bears in 85. So they were past their prime. Sanders, Norton, and B. Young were the primary new pieces added to the defense which helped it the most.

Don't care, really. Doesn't make the '94 season any less great. It doesn't even begin to tell the story of the team. Yeah, we made some big FA signings with Primetime, Ken Norton Jr, Gary Plummer, Ricky Jackson..etc... But we also had plenty of homegrown talent, including many talented young players we had recently drafted (Bryant Young, Dana Stubblefield, Ricky Watters, William Floyd, Lee Woodall..etc.). HOF QB and the best WR of all time. We had a SB caliber team prior to the FA signings.

That it's sour grapes.

There were basically two aspects of our strategy that year.

(a) Signal to star veterans on poor teams that this is their one chance for a ring, and that considering our holes in defence (especially) there were starting jobs available. Everybody knew that the only teams who could win in 93 and 94 were either us or Dallas. But Dallas was loaded with young talent and had won the last two NFCGs. We on the other hand needed to upgrade. So, basically we told veterans: here's your one great chance to START for a SB winning team.

(b) Clever cap management in a period when executives were not as familiar with the rules and one could be innovative. All those incentives that circumvented the cap. I can't remember who was the veteran who stood to make 800K if we won the NFCG. They changed the rules on incentives later, but at the time Policy played by the rules as they were

I don't see how it's "buying". In the end every team is owned by billionaires and the cap makes it even more difficult to pump money into acquiring talent (yes, even in 1994). We leveraged our winning tradition, existing talent, passion to make that final step one to a title last time, and teamed it with clever GMing. So, yes, sour grapes sounds about right to me.