1vs2-seed CCs & 1vs1-seed SBs we're okay to have missed

[74_75_78_79_]

1982 and 1985: Dolphins vs. Raiders at the Coliseum

I really don't think the Fins win either of those games. The 1982 Fins lucked out when they drew SD instead of Pittsburgh in Round 2, and when the rain came for the AFC Title. As for the 85 Fins, they should have or could have lost a few that year that they won (@Denver, NE, NYJ, TB). You could tell that the wheels were starting to come off.

1987: Bears vs. 49ers at Candlestick

That year, SF blew their doors off on a MNF. I don't think Chicago does much better the second time around.

'82 AFCC? Yeah, probably nothing to get too excited about, but '85? Once Bears cliched vs Rams, I'm sure much excitement would have been directed at it. Either Raiders/Bears 'bad-boys'/'bruiser' Bowl (which I personally, just my opinion, don't think would have been close; Bears roll over them) or Dolphins/Bears for obvious (MNF-rematch/'revenge') reasons.

Poor Bears on this thread otherwise (me mainly being the guilty party), but got to agree with '87 as well. Not just that 41-0 MNF bashing, but late-'80s in-general; '91 as well. Niners sure had their way with them during that time period, '88 regular-season loss notwithstanding. That Niners squad...an uncharacteristic choke to Vikes and Craig fumble away from a likely 4-peat.

Unpopular one: 1984 NFC CG, Redskins/49ers rematch

Wash rallied hard against them for naught Week #2 on MNF. It's easy to forget that just a year earlier they both were in the NFCC. Such a difference a year made. Niners were the juggernaut and Wash now the mere playoff team. I'm sure Gibbs/Theismann don't lose 23-0, but Gibbs did have quite the trouble with the Niners throughout the '80s. Look at next season's home debacle to them when Niners regressed to mere playoff-caliber. It likely wouldn't have been too suspenseful, perhaps not an 'unpopular' pick after all.

[7DnBrnc53]

but '85? Once Bears cliched vs Rams, I'm sure much excitement would have been directed at it. Either Raiders/Bears 'bad-boys'/'bruiser' Bowl (which I personally, just my opinion, don't think would have been close; Bears roll over them) or Dolphins/Bears for obvious (MNF-rematch/'revenge') reasons.

Good point. Didn't think of the potential rematch between Miami and Chicago (I think the Bears win that one if it happened, but not by a 46-10 type score).

[lastcat3]

That Niners squad...an uncharacteristic choke to Vikes and Craig fumble away from a likely 4-peat.

The Bills would have knocked the socks off the '90 '9ers. The 49ers running game had really fallen off that year (Craig's production was cut in half from the previous year.

The Giants matched up with the Bills much better than the SF did that year. Plus the 49ers didn't have Bellichick as Coordinator.

Even if Montana stays healthy in the Championship game I think the 49ers get smashed in the Super Bowl.

They still would have had a good chance to have a three peat though if they didn't lose that '87 game.

[74_75_78_79_]

That Niners squad...an uncharacteristic choke to Vikes and Craig fumble away from a likely 4-peat.

The Bills would have knocked the socks off the '90 '9ers. The 49ers running game had really fallen off that year (Craig's production was cut in half from the previous year.

The Giants matched up with the Bills much better than the SF did that year. Plus the 49ers didn't have Bellichick as Coordinator.

Even if Montana stays healthy in the Championship game I think the 49ers get smashed in the Super Bowl.

They still would have had a good chance to have a three peat though if they didn't lose that '87 game.

If Niners avoid Viking upset they're much more likely to have won SBXXII than they would have won three years later w/out the Craig fumble. Niners/Bills would have been a heck of a game. Bills winning lopsided highly unlikely in my mind. Niners running game fell off from a year prior but Craig/Rathman (SB-experience to boot) and also Dexter still a good enough complement to an uninjured Joe and his weapons. Yes Niners didn't have Belichick but did have Seifert; still had that D. It would have been as competitive as Giants/Bills but a different game altogether. Niners don't chew up clock/have ball for 40 min. However, and I mentioned this before, I feel if Hoss was able to get it done vs Buff's 3rd-down D when it mattered just imagine Joe (or Young; and had he been the one to start, an even more different yet still competitive match). JMO.

[7DnBrnc53]

That Niners squad...an uncharacteristic choke to Vikes and Craig fumble away from a likely 4-peat.

The Bills would have knocked the socks off the '90 '9ers. The 49ers running game had really fallen off that year (Craig's production was cut in half from the previous year.

The Giants matched up with the Bills much better than the SF did that year. Plus the 49ers didn't have Bellichick as Coordinator.

Even if Montana stays healthy in the Championship game I think the 49ers get smashed in the Super Bowl.

They still would have had a good chance to have a three peat though if they didn't lose that '87 game.

I agree with you about the 90 Niners. I think they should have gotten rid of Craig a year earlier in hindsight.

As for 1987, I think that Washington had a decent shot to beat them in Candlestick if they ended up playing. I don't think that 49er team was as good as people make it out to be. They got blown out by Pittsburgh week 1, and needed a mistake by the Bengals to avoid an 0-2 start. Then, they get three wins due to the strike (I think that Montana crossed the picket line for two of those). They also were close to being swept by NO that year.

[nicefellow31]

That Niners squad...an uncharacteristic choke to Vikes and Craig fumble away from a likely 4-peat.

As for 1987, I think that Washington had a decent shot to beat them in Candlestick if they ended up playing. I don't think that 49er team was as good as people make it out to be. They got blown out by Pittsburgh week 1, and needed a mistake by the Bengals to avoid an 0-2 start. Then, they get three wins due to the strike (I think that Montana crossed the picket line for two of those). They also were close to being swept by NO that year.

I'm a lifelong Redskins fan. I guess we would have given them a game but the Niners seemed to have our number. Anyway, what I remember most about 1987 was that the Niners lost that game to the Vikings on Saturday. The Skins and Bears played on Sunday and it seemed like both teams intensity level went up when the Niners went out. I know it was like that in DC because everyone was sure that there was going to be no home playoff games that year, then the Saturday Miracle happens.

[lastcat3]

The '87 season is always difficult to disect due to all the scab games that went on. On the surface it looked like the '87 Vikes/49ers game was a huge upset because the Vikings were only 8-7. Yet their scab team went 0-3. All but one of the games the real Vikings lost was by less than a touchdown and they lost the season finale to Washington in overtime.

If the strike didn't happen the Vikings could have easily had just as good of record (if not a better record) than the 49ers did.

[ChrisBabcock]

The '87 season is always difficult to disect due to all the scab games that went on.

Here's an interesting "what if" article on what could have happened if the 1987 strike never happened.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6415

[74_75_78_79_]

Take away the 3-0 scab record, '87 Niners are still 10-2. Hard to undermine a squad that was #1 in both O & D. Steelers did beat them in the opener - which would turn out to be the 'rubberband' match between Noll & Walsh - but, like '84, it was just an upset. Barely beating weak Cincy the following game was just an example of Wyche being rather familiar with Walsh for obvious reasons (enter SBXXIII the following year and, don't forget, their '84 match).

[lastcat3]

I'm guessing that much of the talk of the '87 49ers being virtually penciled in as appearing in the Super Bowl stemmed from the final three games of the season where they beat Chicago, Atlanta, and the Rams by a score of 41-0, 35-7, and, 48-0.

Say if the Vikings didn't beat the the Saints and New Orleans went on to play the 49ers in Candlestick. The Saints would have won ten straight and split with the 49ers (winning one game by 2 and losing the other game by 2. The Saints likely would have had a good chance at beating the '9ers as well. If that would have happened would the '87 49ers be remembered a lot differently? Because as of now they are simply a great what if as people see them losing to an 8-7 team and view that as a great team that simply choked.

Was it really a choke or were they simply beaten by a better team?