1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Reaser
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:58 am
Location: WA

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by Reaser »

JohnH19 wrote:Each season is an island. What happens in a subsequent season should have no bearing on how we view the previous season.
This is how I see it, as well. The 1984 49ers aren't the 1983 49ers or 1985 49ers, they're the 1984 49ers, obviously.

Also the era prior to "making the playoffs" I think is always viewed backward, as if it's a lesser accomplishment.

Agree with what Rupert said and have said it myself a bunch of times, I can't stand wild cards in any sport. Also defies logic to have a team finish 3rd in a little 4-team group get a chance to be "champion" when in reality they're already behind two other teams in their own little 4-team group. Bugs me much more in college football when a team doesn't win their conference but gets to play for the "national championship" and even moreso in high school when teams finish 4th out of 6-teams in a district but "make the state playoffs". More playoff teams isn't more competition, it's actually anti-competition and makes each game throughout the season less meaningful.
lastcat3
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:47 pm

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by lastcat3 »

Taking away Wildcard teams would be a good way to make the regular season more exciting. That is a big reason why I like college football more now than I do the NFL because each game on a teams schedule is far more important in college than it is in the league because in the NFL teams can afford to lose five to six games and still be in great shape to make the post season. In college if you only lose two games your chances of getting to the championship tournament are severely harmed.

However if they were to get rid of wildcards in the nfl I also think they should just do away with the division system altogether and just have the four to six teams with the best records in each conference go to the playoffs. In no way would it be fair for a 9-7 or 8-8 team to go to the playoffs but a 12-4 team miss it just because the 12-4 team played in a division that had a 14-2 team.
sheajets
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by sheajets »

Reaser wrote:
JohnH19 wrote:Each season is an island. What happens in a subsequent season should have no bearing on how we view the previous season.
This is how I see it, as well. The 1984 49ers aren't the 1983 49ers or 1985 49ers, they're the 1984 49ers, obviously.

Also the era prior to "making the playoffs" I think is always viewed backward, as if it's a lesser accomplishment.

Agree with what Rupert said and have said it myself a bunch of times, I can't stand wild cards in any sport. Also defies logic to have a team finish 3rd in a little 4-team group get a chance to be "champion" when in reality they're already behind two other teams in their own little 4-team group. Bugs me much more in college football when a team doesn't win their conference but gets to play for the "national championship" and even moreso in high school when teams finish 4th out of 6-teams in a district but "make the state playoffs". More playoff teams isn't more competition, it's actually anti-competition and makes each game throughout the season less meaningful.
well not all conferences or divisions are made equal. For example Team X is very very good but is saddled with a historic dynasty in its same division. Team X could miss the playoffs despite being better than every other team in every other division. They're penalized for nothing other than random or possibly geographic groupings.

I don't like massive playoffs letting in every also ran. But things like the 1993 San Francisco Giants missing the playoffs should never happen
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

sheajets wrote:
Reaser wrote:
JohnH19 wrote:Each season is an island. What happens in a subsequent season should have no bearing on how we view the previous season.
This is how I see it, as well. The 1984 49ers aren't the 1983 49ers or 1985 49ers, they're the 1984 49ers, obviously.

Also the era prior to "making the playoffs" I think is always viewed backward, as if it's a lesser accomplishment.

Agree with what Rupert said and have said it myself a bunch of times, I can't stand wild cards in any sport. Also defies logic to have a team finish 3rd in a little 4-team group get a chance to be "champion" when in reality they're already behind two other teams in their own little 4-team group. Bugs me much more in college football when a team doesn't win their conference but gets to play for the "national championship" and even moreso in high school when teams finish 4th out of 6-teams in a district but "make the state playoffs". More playoff teams isn't more competition, it's actually anti-competition and makes each game throughout the season less meaningful.
well not all conferences or divisions are made equal. For example Team X is very very good but is saddled with a historic dynasty in its same division. Team X could miss the playoffs despite being better than every other team in every other division. They're penalized for nothing other than random or possibly geographic groupings.

I don't like massive playoffs letting in every also ran. But things like the 1993 San Francisco Giants missing the playoffs should never happen
'93 San Francisco Giants...Amen to THAT! No, I am not a SFG-fan at all! I am a Yankees-fan; a rare Yankees-fan who does actually like the Phillies - just as long as those Phils never beat my Yanks hence I'd forever hate the Phils had they beat them in the '09 (or '50) WS! And that '93 Phillies team was a great story! But SF whooped them quite a bit that '93 season! They did have a better record than Philly as well! Sure-enough had Giants been allowed in, they'd topple Phils as well as Atl in the NLCS (likely Blue Jays as well). Two 'big' (6 teams or more) divisions in a conference (or league) allowing the two best non-division winners getting in is more-than all right! Only a third of the teams per-conference should be allowed in. And the less divisions (thus reducing the chance of 9-7s; or 8-8s), the better!

But in this actual, current NFL just-4-teams-per-division format, I'm not against the idea of having strictly division-winners getting in; with tie-breakers having to be played amongst the top-two in each division if necessary.
JohnH19
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by JohnH19 »

sheajets wrote: I don't like massive playoffs letting in every also ran. But things like the 1993 San Francisco Giants missing the playoffs should never happen
Outliers like the '93 SF Giants missing the playoffs after a 103 win season was part of baseball's lost charm. It was a riveting division pennant race with winner take all stakes. The Giants had a big lead over the Braves but couldn't hold it. Too bad. It was far, far better than what we have now with wild card teams having a chance to win the World Series.

Here's an example of what the wild card has done to ruin baseball. In 2006, the Tigers had a big early lead over the Twins. Minnesota caught fire in June and won 71 out of their final 105 games to catch and pass Detroit at the wire. It should have gone down as an historically great division race. The Twins lost to the Yankees in the playoffs and the Tigers, who still got in as a wild card, went all the way to the WS where they lost to the Cardinals. Does anyone else remember that great run by the Twins? Anybody? Bueller?
sheajets
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by sheajets »

JohnH19 wrote:
sheajets wrote: I don't like massive playoffs letting in every also ran. But things like the 1993 San Francisco Giants missing the playoffs should never happen
Outliers like the '93 SF Giants missing the playoffs after a 103 win season was part of baseball's lost charm. It was a riveting division pennant race with winner take all stakes. The Giants had a big lead over the Braves but couldn't hold it. Too bad. It was far, far better than what we have now with wild card teams having a chance to win the World Series.

Here's an example of what the wild card has done to ruin baseball. In 2006, the Tigers had a big early lead over the Twins. Minnesota caught fire in June and won 71 out of their final 105 games to catch and pass Detroit at the wire. It should have gone down as an historically great division race. The Twins lost to the Yankees in the playoffs and the Tigers, who still got in as a wild card, went all the way to the WS where they lost to the Cardinals. Does anyone else remember that great run by the Twins? Anybody? Bueller?
Well in the Twins case I think baseball has pretty much remedied that with the institution of the Wild Card 1 game playoff. Teams can no longer coast, slip out of a division lead but still comfortably settle into a wild card. Now it's all about grabbing that division again. Though yes that leaves the door open for a wretched 2nd wild card team sneaking in.

Also in 1993, perhaps if things were arranged a bit differently, not only could we have gotten that great division race but a Giants/Braves NLCS as well as the final word as to which team is the best in the National League
Reaser
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:58 am
Location: WA

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by Reaser »

The Giants and Braves played eachother enough times that season, one team won more. Correct team went to the NLCS. They played a series to start the final month of the season, one team won more games. Did the Giants not get a chance to match the Braves record in game 162, were they somehow robbed of that opportunity or did they lose?

Or we can just say 162 games and what, 13 H2H wasn't enough so we should just let them in, too. Shoot, Expos were only 3 back, let them have a chance so it's "fair". Meanwhile, over here the M's had a winning record! They 'deserve' a chance too or it's not "fair".

Or we can just have competition and if you finish 2nd to someone in a smaller group see that it's illogical to then have a chance to finish 1st overall in the larger group.

But that's how I think and as said, never liked wild cards or 3rd place teams "making the playoffs". Never going to go back to how I like it so doesn't matter, I suppose.
7DnBrnc53
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by 7DnBrnc53 »

I think the 84 49ers weren't dominant after that for a few seasons because they started undergoing a transition.

WR: Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark would be out, Rice and John Taylor would be in.
TE: Russ Francis would be out, and be replaced by John Frank (and then Brent Jones)
DB: Ronnie Lott would move to FS, and Don Griffin and McKyer would replace him and Eric Wright (with Fuller replacing Williamson at the other S position) at CB.
ILB: Hacksaw and Dan Bunz would be replaced by Riki Ellison and Mike Walter.
OLB: Fred Dean would be replaced by Charles Haley. And, while Keena Turner would stay until 1990, Bill Romanowski would become a major contributor in the late-80's.
DL: Dwaine Board and Lawrence Pillers would be replaced by Michael Carter, Kevin Fagan, Larry Roberts, and Pierce Holt.
RB: Earl Cooper and Wendell Tyler would be out, and Craig and Rathman would be in (although Craig and Tyler played together for a few years).
James
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:01 am
Location: San Antonio, Texas

1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by James »

lastcat3 wrote:Taking away Wildcard teams would be a good way to make the regular season more exciting. That is a big reason why I like college football more now than I do the NFL because each game on a teams schedule is far more important in college than it is in the league because in the NFL teams can afford to lose five to six games and still be in great shape to make the post season. In college if you only lose two games your chances of getting to the championship tournament are severely harmed.

However if they were to get rid of wildcards in the nfl I also think they should just do away with the division system altogether and just have the four to six teams with the best records in each conference go to the playoffs. In no way would it be fair for a 9-7 or 8-8 team to go to the playoffs but a 12-4 team miss it just because the 12-4 team played in a division that had a 14-2 team.
I wish they would take away Wildcards in football and baseball. Don't like them at all. Though I love it that my Giants as a wildcard beat New England twice in the Super Bowl.

If it were up to me, not only would I do away the the wildcard, I would also reduce the number of teams, then have the winner of the NFC play the winner of the AFC in Super Bowl. Same with baseball, the winner of the AL plays the winner of the NL in World Series.
Axes Grind and Maces Clash!
Saban1
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:14 pm

Re: 1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

Post by Saban1 »

TanksAndSpartans wrote:If you take a higher level view, 4 SB wins in the same decade isn’t too shabby. I think the issue with comparing with what some of the earlier teams did as an encore may not be apples to apples. The playoffs became kind of a second season rendering the regular season less relevant at some point. For the Graham era Browns to go to so many title games for example, they didn't have to win many playoff games - those only came up when a tie breaker was needed. Also, so much can change from season to season. A great example is the '50 Eagles - its really no great achievement that the Browns defeated them although I've read in lots of different sources a big deal being made out of that. They were great from '47-'49, but they were done in '50.

I don't think that the Eagles were done in 1950. I believe that the competition was just much stiffer with the addition of the Cleveland Browns and the massive improvement of the New York Giants with the addition of a bunch of players from the 1949 AAFC Yankees including Arnie Weinmeister, one of the best defensive linemen of the era, and some pretty good defensive backs like Tom Landry, Otto Schnellbacher, and Harmon Rowe. These changes were the result of the 1950 merger of the NFL and AAFC.

Even though Philadelphia could not beat the Browns or the Giants in 1950, they did manage to beat the Western Conference Champion Rams by the score of 56 to 20, and other teams by scores of 33 to 0, 45 to 7, and 35 to 3. That doesn't sound like a very weak team to me.

The Eagles were 6 wins and 2 losses in their games other than with Cleveland and the Giants. I believe that they would have won the Eastern Conference again in 1950 if not for the merger of the NFL and AAFC.
Post Reply