1984 Niners - 'paper champion' greatest team?

[Bryan]

I recently watched the 1983 divisional playoff between the Lions and Niners, and a few things stood out…how great Billy Sims was (140 yards & 2 TDs virtually on his own)…how bad Gary Danielson was in this game (0 TDs, 5 INTs)…how mediocre the Lions were (Doug English was their only pro bowl player)…and, most importantly, how Eddie Murray missed a very makeable 43-yard FG that would have defeated the Niners at the end of the game.

Which got me thinking about how strange it was for the Niners to be so close to losing at home to Detroit in the postseason in 1983 (Lions outgained the Niners by 100+ yards), and the next year the Niners are arguably the greatest team in NFL history…a year in which the Niners went 15-1 yet almost lost to the mediocre Lions again.

In 1985, the Niners went 10-6, lost to the mediocre Lions (Joe Ferguson at QB! 61 yards passing!), made the playoffs as a wild card and exited meekly by a 17-3 score to the Giants.

Relatively speaking, were the 1984 Niners a ‘paper champion’ greatest team? How many greatest NFL teams had such poor encore performance, one in which they were outscored in the postseason by Don Hasselbeck, 6-3?

The early 1940’s Bears were always in the title game and usually winning. The 1950 Browns went 11-1 in 1951 and lost a classic title game to the talented Rams. The 1958 Colts won again in 59. The 72 Dolphins repeated. The 78 Steelers repeated. The 62 Packers missed the postseason but went 11-2-1. The 85 Bears lost in the postseason in 86, but went 14-2. I guess I find it odd that the 1984 Niners didn’t accomplish more in 1983, 1985, or even 1986.

[rhickok1109]

Obviously, you mean the 1963 Packers went 11-2-1 and misses the post-season. The 1962 Packers were NFL champions.

[Bryan]

Obviously, you mean the 1963 Packers went 11-2-1 and misses the post-season. The 1962 Packers were NFL champions.

Yes, I was talking about what the greatest teams did as an encore. The 62 Packers missed the postseason but went 11-2-1.

[TanksAndSpartans]

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.

[SixtiesFan]

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.

People use the term "made the postseason" about past eras. Before 1967 teams didn't "make the postseason," they won their division. There was no "wildcard" team. If two teams tied, there would be a playoff, as in 1958 (Giants-Browns) and 1965 (Packers-Colts).

Yes, today the playoffs are a second season, making the regular season less relevant.

[Rupert Patrick]

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.

People use the term "made the postseason" about past eras. Before 1967 teams didn't "make the postseason," they won their division. There was no "wildcard" team. If two teams tied, there would be a playoff, as in 1958 (Giants-Browns) and 1965 (Packers-Colts).

Yes, today the playoffs are a second season, making the regular season less relevant.

There is a part of me that wishes they would do away with wild cards and just make all eight division winners eligible for the playoffs. If there are any tied divisions at the end of the season, they would play tiebreaker games in order to advance to the postseason.

[BD Sullivan]

The Niners in the 80's had SB hangovers in '82 and '85. In '86, they lost Montana for two months because of a back injury that almost ended his career, with the team appearing to get back on track by winning the last three RS games--before getting destroyed by the Giants and Montana getting drilled.

In '87, you could probably debate whether the bitter feelings about having some very prominent scabs hurt them, but they were completely flat against the Vikes in the playoff.

[JohnH19]

Each season is an island. What happens in a subsequent season should have no bearing on how we view the previous season.

[74_75_78_79_]

It's not as if '83, '85, and '86 were losing or even non-playoff years. Not counting '82, SF had themselves 17-straight winning seasons (16 of them being playoff-qualifiers). The '84 team is similar to the Patriots' 2003 or 2004 squad - excellent regular-season record, no dispute the best team in the league, but still not viewed as..."sexy"; defense being the better side of the ball in each case.

[sheajets]

Each season is an island. What happens in a subsequent season should have no bearing on how we view the previous season.

True. I guess though for the NFL things were a bit less unpredictable. A monster like the 84 49ers you'd figure would be preceded by a great but not quite all time team and followed by an outstanding team that may be having a small hangover. 85 Bears sort of follow that pattern though no necessarily defensively but in an offense that was sagging. Something like 7 times that year they scored 16 points or less. Left them pretty vulnerable. As was their extremely mistake prone quarterbacking carousel.