1985 49ers

[CSKreager]

Their 10-6 record was the same that got them a 1st round bye and #2 seed in 1983, but landed them the lowest playoff seed in ‘85

(Keep in mind the Giants were also 10-6 and they didn’t play each other, so why didn’t SF get the tiebreaker)?

Coming off a dominant 1984, this 49er sequel statistically looked the part of a defending SB champ: had the #5 scoring offense, #2 scoring defense, Roger Craig had his legendary 1000/1000 season.

And yet they not only had to win on the final Sunday just to get into the playoffs, SF failed to win the NFC West for the only time in the 1981-1990 Montana heyday (not counting 1982 when there were no division races)

They had standout road wins over Washington, the Rams, and the Raiders…… but losses to New Orleans/Detroit/Minnesota!

And that’s not including the Bears beatdown and Denver snowball debacle

And yet in spite of all of this..... had they gotten by the Giants, I think they might have had a real puncher’s chance in Chicago considering what they had done the year before to CHI and what they did in 1987/1988 vs Da Bears

[Citizen]

(Keep in mind the Giants were also 10-6 and they didn’t play each other, so why didn’t SF get the tiebreaker)?

I presume it's because they had the better conference record (8-4 vs. 7-5). San Francisco held the advantage in both points for/against and record against common opponents, but I believe those factors were lower on the list of tiebreakers then.

[65 toss power trap]

The 1984 tiebreakers were head-to-head, conference W-L, common games W-L, net points in conference games, net points in all games, strength of schedule, and net touchdowns.

With no H2H, the conference win percentage became the tiebreaker.

Here are the tiebreakers broken down by years:
https://www.quirkyresearch.com/2018/12/ ... r-systems/

[ChrisBabcock]

I've always been interested in the history of tiebreakers. Thanks for finding and posting this!

Here are the tiebreakers broken down by years:
https://www.quirkyresearch.com/2018/12/ ... r-systems

[74_75_78_79_]

I don't think San Fran does any better at Soldier than the G-men themselves did had they actually played them instead in the '85 divisional round. Okay, maybe they, at least, score on them! Ten points or less; but a shutout as well still likely. No real difference otherwise.

And even without McMahon, the flawed Bears of '86 beat SF in the divisional round IMO for I feel that was the Forty Niners' weakest playoff team under Walsh. Now starting the following year? Different story. San Fran would rule Chicago for quite some time.

Both Forty Niner installments being just plain 'good', the latter of the two being the lesser if only because of Joe being out for a bit (and, also...49-3!!).

[CSKreager]

What went wrong for SF in 1985?

Again when you go from #1 scoring defense to #2 that shouldn’t mean a 5 win dropoff!

[sheajets]

What went wrong for SF in 1985?

Again when you go from #1 scoring defense to #2 that shouldn’t mean a 5 win dropoff!

They had some very uncharacteristic early season losses. Opening week to Minnesota where they turned it over like 7 or 8 times. A 3 point loss to a bad Saints team and a 2 point loss to a below average Lions team were puzzling. Montana did nothing both games except throw a few picks. After midseason though they got back to being the old 49ers...

[Brian wolf]

Besides having turnovers at the worst times, the 49ers were in transition with the passing game as well. Rice had a great rookie season but dropped alot of passes and Solomon was mostly out with injuries. For some reason the team got rid of Renaldo Nehemiah and Dwight Clark was getting more dinged up as well, where Craig replaced some of his receiving production. The defense was still strong but Dean, Hicks and Williamson were starting to decline and wouldnt be with the team much longer as the 49ers took advantage of an excellent draft in 1986.

[Ness]

I don't think San Fran does any better at Soldier than the G-men themselves did had they actually played them instead in the '85 divisional round. Okay, maybe they, at least, score on them! Ten points or less; but a shutout as well still likely. No real difference otherwise.

And even without McMahon, the flawed Bears of '86 beat SF in the divisional round IMO for I feel that was the Forty Niners' weakest playoff team under Walsh. Now starting the following year? Different story. San Fran would rule Chicago for quite some time.

Both Forty Niner installments being just plain 'good', the latter of the two being the lesser if only because of Joe being out for a bit (and, also...49-3!!).

I would agree. The '85 49ers seemingly ran out of steam against the Giants. They dropped a ton of passes that game, and Craig just didn't look like the same player folks had witnessed throughout that season. I'm planning on actually going back, and watching that season again as I have most of the games. I do agree they probably score more than 0 points against the Bears, and don't seem as hopeless as the Giants offense or even Rams' offense did against the Bears. But the Bears that season were so much better than anyone else, Walsh and his boys probably still lose convincingly.

[Ness]

What went wrong for SF in 1985?

Again when you go from #1 scoring defense to #2 that shouldn’t mean a 5 win dropoff!

They had some very uncharacteristic early season losses. Opening week to Minnesota where they turned it over like 7 or 8 times. A 3 point loss to a bad Saints team and a 2 point loss to a below average Lions team were puzzling. Montana did nothing both games except throw a few picks. After midseason though they got back to being the old 49ers...

49ers overall I think had a harder schedule in '85 compared to '84, but I'd have to double check.