Best ever Forty Niners team?
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:16 pm
With all-due-respect to that very 13-3 "Catch" of a team that swept Landry's Cowboys and Gregg's also-12-4 Bengals, and also with respect to the team seven years later who, yes, started 6-5 but were basically, already, next year's installment right after (and even-more-so in the playoffs), it looks very much like the only candidates are...'84, '89, or '94.
I've always opined that the '89 Forty Niners are at least the NFL's best-ever team since 1980 - the year I started following. Many here have steered me hard toward '84. And they've gained much ground with me as of late. An excellent case to be made with them, always seemingly beneath the shadow of the following year's juggernaut who also finished 18-1. Once I saw the '92/'93 Cowboys as a better team. Thanks to some of you (especially pointing out the [yes Dallas had #22, but] overall rushing stats), I see the '84 Forty Niners now as better than either of those two Jimmy teams. But simple 'star'-power (Rice, etc) is what places the '89 version ahead of '84 with me. For the longest time, and in this order, I've placed the '89 Forty Niners, '85 Bears, and '84 Forty Niners as the 'Holy Trinity' of '80s teams; more times than not in a 1-2-3 sequence but depending in which way the wind blows, either 1-2a-2b or even 1a-1b-1c!
It seems like the '94 version gets lost in the Historic shuffle. Or at least I've been guilty of it. Is it the bias of wanting a Montana team to be the best-ever Forty Niners team? Or a Bill Walsh team (which '89 has been very, very much treated as) having that honor? Ronnie Lott instead of Deion? Craig instead of Watters? A simple '80s-instead-of-'90s? The uniforms, perhaps?
Starting with myself, I've been one to easily forget that they not only had a 'good' (“but nothing special”) defense to complement that attention-grabbing OFFENSE, but really they had a great defense! Very great, perhaps! And, no, not just Deion being added on which is a huge understatement. Without naming every name, simply look at that defensive roster! Is it also the whole front office "buying" a defense in the off-season that also may be a reason this team is pushed aside? This D, I'd think, had more overall speed than '84 or '89!
For the longest time, I've declared the '94 AFCCG as my "worst" Steelers memory. This, of course, because of my wanting to see that 4-0 vs 4-0 Super Bowl of "the Ages". I always strongly felt that the 'Burgh at least gives San Fran a good game if not, just maybe, pull off the win. Yes, the game would have clearly had the obvious Hype going in! It may have broken a record for most-watched-SB-ever! And, yes, Lloyd/Green & Co would have made it tough for Young and that O, Woodson holding his own vs Rice if having to cover him one-on-one, etc. However, San Fran still would have scored on them - #8 and #80 still making key plays, Ricky Watters may have very well been a problem.
The question is, even if the 'Burgh holds San Fran to - say - 21 or 24 pts, is Neil O'Donnell able to top that? Sadly, very likely not! And, no, not just the whole also having to throw away from Deion (field cut in-half) in such an event (maybe throwing two INTs to Eric Davis instead). And even if he would have managed throwing for a sizable amount of yards, would it have automatically translated to scoring TDs? Barry Foster (and Bam) and that O-line keeping that SF offense off the field? Quite a few run-defenders would have had a say in that - and not "just" Ken Norton, Jr (serious understatement as well)! Steelers still "show up", I think, in such a hypothetical. But not as close as I once - up until recently - may have (perhaps biasedly) thought. They lose by 10, maybe 14.
The point is, this San Fran installment should be wedged well into the argument at least! Even if I continue to see '89 as the "best" since (at least) 1980. Away from that '94 defense I just shined light on, back to that offense...they were indeed a Machine once that close win over Detroit (still recovering from the Eagles) was out the way! They SWEPT Dallas who, despite no longer having JImmy, were still extremely championship-caliber! Just one year removed from back-to-back as opposed to two as the case with '95. Dallas "shot themselves in the foot" beginning of that '94 NFCCG, I would always say. Perhaps, but maybe it's a bit of BOTH - San Fran's defense making that 21-0 lead happen as well!
That '89 team, however, will be tough to supplant. Yes, the entire NFL besides them was relatively weak compared to other seasons, especially the AFC. And Dan Reeves, in an otherwise arguable-at-least HOF-career, sadly coached his worst games in the Super Bowl. But beating Reeves, 55-10, with Elway and Wade at his disposal is still beating Dan Reeves with Elway and Phillips, 55-10! And not to mention blasting (for a second-straight-year) that Floyd Peters #1 defense and then a rival Robinson Rams team who normally won at Candlestick, 30-3! Really can't downplay that!
And, yes, that amazing rushing attack and also suffocating defense of '84 who steamrolled through the playoffs concluding with a domination of Marino and Shula - their one loss of the campaign a real close one that could have easily gone the other way...
Let the Debate begin...
I've always opined that the '89 Forty Niners are at least the NFL's best-ever team since 1980 - the year I started following. Many here have steered me hard toward '84. And they've gained much ground with me as of late. An excellent case to be made with them, always seemingly beneath the shadow of the following year's juggernaut who also finished 18-1. Once I saw the '92/'93 Cowboys as a better team. Thanks to some of you (especially pointing out the [yes Dallas had #22, but] overall rushing stats), I see the '84 Forty Niners now as better than either of those two Jimmy teams. But simple 'star'-power (Rice, etc) is what places the '89 version ahead of '84 with me. For the longest time, and in this order, I've placed the '89 Forty Niners, '85 Bears, and '84 Forty Niners as the 'Holy Trinity' of '80s teams; more times than not in a 1-2-3 sequence but depending in which way the wind blows, either 1-2a-2b or even 1a-1b-1c!
It seems like the '94 version gets lost in the Historic shuffle. Or at least I've been guilty of it. Is it the bias of wanting a Montana team to be the best-ever Forty Niners team? Or a Bill Walsh team (which '89 has been very, very much treated as) having that honor? Ronnie Lott instead of Deion? Craig instead of Watters? A simple '80s-instead-of-'90s? The uniforms, perhaps?
Starting with myself, I've been one to easily forget that they not only had a 'good' (“but nothing special”) defense to complement that attention-grabbing OFFENSE, but really they had a great defense! Very great, perhaps! And, no, not just Deion being added on which is a huge understatement. Without naming every name, simply look at that defensive roster! Is it also the whole front office "buying" a defense in the off-season that also may be a reason this team is pushed aside? This D, I'd think, had more overall speed than '84 or '89!
For the longest time, I've declared the '94 AFCCG as my "worst" Steelers memory. This, of course, because of my wanting to see that 4-0 vs 4-0 Super Bowl of "the Ages". I always strongly felt that the 'Burgh at least gives San Fran a good game if not, just maybe, pull off the win. Yes, the game would have clearly had the obvious Hype going in! It may have broken a record for most-watched-SB-ever! And, yes, Lloyd/Green & Co would have made it tough for Young and that O, Woodson holding his own vs Rice if having to cover him one-on-one, etc. However, San Fran still would have scored on them - #8 and #80 still making key plays, Ricky Watters may have very well been a problem.
The question is, even if the 'Burgh holds San Fran to - say - 21 or 24 pts, is Neil O'Donnell able to top that? Sadly, very likely not! And, no, not just the whole also having to throw away from Deion (field cut in-half) in such an event (maybe throwing two INTs to Eric Davis instead). And even if he would have managed throwing for a sizable amount of yards, would it have automatically translated to scoring TDs? Barry Foster (and Bam) and that O-line keeping that SF offense off the field? Quite a few run-defenders would have had a say in that - and not "just" Ken Norton, Jr (serious understatement as well)! Steelers still "show up", I think, in such a hypothetical. But not as close as I once - up until recently - may have (perhaps biasedly) thought. They lose by 10, maybe 14.
The point is, this San Fran installment should be wedged well into the argument at least! Even if I continue to see '89 as the "best" since (at least) 1980. Away from that '94 defense I just shined light on, back to that offense...they were indeed a Machine once that close win over Detroit (still recovering from the Eagles) was out the way! They SWEPT Dallas who, despite no longer having JImmy, were still extremely championship-caliber! Just one year removed from back-to-back as opposed to two as the case with '95. Dallas "shot themselves in the foot" beginning of that '94 NFCCG, I would always say. Perhaps, but maybe it's a bit of BOTH - San Fran's defense making that 21-0 lead happen as well!
That '89 team, however, will be tough to supplant. Yes, the entire NFL besides them was relatively weak compared to other seasons, especially the AFC. And Dan Reeves, in an otherwise arguable-at-least HOF-career, sadly coached his worst games in the Super Bowl. But beating Reeves, 55-10, with Elway and Wade at his disposal is still beating Dan Reeves with Elway and Phillips, 55-10! And not to mention blasting (for a second-straight-year) that Floyd Peters #1 defense and then a rival Robinson Rams team who normally won at Candlestick, 30-3! Really can't downplay that!
And, yes, that amazing rushing attack and also suffocating defense of '84 who steamrolled through the playoffs concluding with a domination of Marino and Shula - their one loss of the campaign a real close one that could have easily gone the other way...
Let the Debate begin...