1984 49ers = Overrated

[7DnBrnc53]

Denver and Buffalo could beat teams like Washington and San Fran in the regular season, but then in the Super Bowl they'd just get stomped.

I think Buffalo would have done better playing the 49ers in those SB's instead of the smashmouth Giants, Skins, and Cowboys.

[CSKreager]

I get the feeling that you are a little bitter because those late '90's Bronco teams are kind of forgotten about because they fell in between that NFC run of dominance and the Patriots dynasty.

As for the Bills, they should have won the first one, but those teams weren't as great as people think. They got there the last three years (1991-93) because the AFC was so inept.

I actually think Dallas’ 3 SB wins came about because the NFC really wasn’t THAT good if not slightly less inept. Outside of SF, who did they REALLY beat those years- GB? An aging Philly team?

Outside of the Cowboys and 49ers, was any other NFC team from 1992-1995 REALLY good?

[7DnBrnc53]

Outside of the Cowboys and 49ers, was any other NFC team from 1992-1995 REALLY good?

Good points. Heck, the Packers had better offenses in the early-00's with a great offensive line, Ahman Green, and WR's like Driver and Javon Walker. You also had perennial pretenders in the Eagles, Lions, and Vikings during that time, and one-hit wonder playoff teams like the 94 Bears and 95 Falcons.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Those Cowboy teams were pretty complete, IMO. Aikman was great - great leader, tough, very accurate, played his best in the biggest games, and extremely poised. Awesome offensive line, Emmitt who was excellent, Darryl Johnston who was an outstanding blocking back and Jay Novacek, who was as huge part of that offense. And then there was Michael Irvin - fade route to the back corner of the end zone - he perfected that catch as well as any WR I can remember. That offense literally didn't have any weaknesses that I remember. I think they could have competed in any era. I would put that team up head-to-head against the Patriots dynasty without any qualms.

Defensively, once Haley got there, that defensive line was really tough. Maybe the other guys like Maryland and Tolbert and Casillis and Hennings didn't get the accolades, but they were solid players. Leon Lett has his famous gaffes, but other than that he was a very good player. People seem to blame Kelly for the famous play at the goal line but plays like that, IMO, get caused by the defense. That Dline made their linebackers and secondary better, and the secondary was pretty good with Woodson and Brown even before Sanders got there.

Whether or not the NFC was "down", that doesn't take away from how complete a team that was. And at the time, San Francisco was pretty much the consensus #2 team in the NFL.

The Packers had Sterling Sharpe on offense then, Robert Brooks, Mark Clayton for a while - Sharpe was better than 3 Javon Walkers. I'd put a health Brooks above Walker by quite a bit, too. Edgar Bennett was a pretty good running back - Ed West might have been the best blocking tight end of the era. Jackie Harris was a good receiving tight end. Then they had a defense with Reggie White, LeRoy Butler, Sean Jones, Steve McMichael, Bryce Paup. Jurkovich could make plays. George Teague made some big plays. Plus they had an incredible list of names on that coaching staff. Green Bay just flat out couldn't beat the Cowboys. Period. Especially at Dallas. Once free agency/age/injury hit the Cowboys, then the Packers took over for their back-to-back NFC titles. Those Packers weren't as good as the Cowboys and 49ers in the mid-90s but they were very good. Any team with Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense with Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe on offense is a threat. And they knocked out SF in 95 after losing Sharpe.

[Bryan]

Plus they had an incredible list of names on that coaching staff. Green Bay just flat out couldn't beat the Cowboys. Period. Especially at Dallas. Once free agency/age/injury hit the Cowboys, then the Packers took over for their back-to-back NFC titles. Those Packers weren't as good as the Cowboys and 49ers in the mid-90s but they were very good. Any team with Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense with Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe on offense is a threat. And they knocked out SF in 95 after losing Sharpe.

I remember being relieved when the Panthers beat the Cowboys in the 96 playoffs. I knew the Packers could beat Carolina, but they always had problems with Dallas. They destroyed the Cowboys in the 97 regular season, but there wasn't really anything at stake in that game.

The 96-97 Packers were more statistically dominant than any of the Cowboy title teams, but they only won one title. The Packers probably should have accomplished more in that era, but history is what it is, and the Broncos of 97-98 were an extremely tough team. Had the Packers faced the Bills in the Super Bowl, they could have won more titles. It also would have been interesting to see those Cowboy teams face off against the Broncos in the Super Bowl, because I think those teams had very similar styles. But in the end the Cowboys took on all comers and beat everyone (including GB).

[CSKreager]

Plus they had an incredible list of names on that coaching staff. Green Bay just flat out couldn't beat the Cowboys. Period. Especially at Dallas. Once free agency/age/injury hit the Cowboys, then the Packers took over for their back-to-back NFC titles. Those Packers weren't as good as the Cowboys and 49ers in the mid-90s but they were very good. Any team with Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense with Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe on offense is a threat. And they knocked out SF in 95 after losing Sharpe.

I remember being relieved when the Panthers beat the Cowboys in the 96 playoffs. I knew the Packers could beat Carolina, but they always had problems with Dallas. They destroyed the Cowboys in the 97 regular season, but there wasn't really anything at stake in that game.

The 96-97 Packers were more statistically dominant than any of the Cowboy title teams, but they only won one title. The Packers probably should have accomplished more in that era, but history is what it is, and the Broncos of 97-98 were an extremely tough team. Had the Packers faced the Bills in the Super Bowl, they could have won more titles. It also would have been interesting to see those Cowboy teams face off against the Broncos in the Super Bowl, because I think those teams had very similar styles. But in the end the Cowboys took on all comers and beat everyone (including GB).

Or SB 30- what if they found a way to get past DAL (they led after 3 quarters). Do they match up better with Pittsburgh?

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Plus they had an incredible list of names on that coaching staff. Green Bay just flat out couldn't beat the Cowboys. Period. Especially at Dallas. Once free agency/age/injury hit the Cowboys, then the Packers took over for their back-to-back NFC titles. Those Packers weren't as good as the Cowboys and 49ers in the mid-90s but they were very good. Any team with Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense with Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe on offense is a threat. And they knocked out SF in 95 after losing Sharpe.

I remember being relieved when the Panthers beat the Cowboys in the 96 playoffs. I knew the Packers could beat Carolina, but they always had problems with Dallas. They destroyed the Cowboys in the 97 regular season, but there wasn't really anything at stake in that game.

The 96-97 Packers were more statistically dominant than any of the Cowboy title teams, but they only won one title. The Packers probably should have accomplished more in that era, but history is what it is, and the Broncos of 97-98 were an extremely tough team. Had the Packers faced the Bills in the Super Bowl, they could have won more titles. It also would have been interesting to see those Cowboy teams face off against the Broncos in the Super Bowl, because I think those teams had very similar styles. But in the end the Cowboys took on all comers and beat everyone (including GB).

True all of that. I also was so excited after Carolina beat Dallas. It just kind of seemed like the Packers were going to do it for sure that year. The next year, there was that rainy NFC Championship vs San Francisco - I was a bit more worried about that game as a Packer fan going in.

The Broncos vs Packers - they had an OUTSTANDING game plan. Shannahan is thought of as an offensive guy, but that defensive game plan was magnificent. Atwater really made a difference on that Broncos team, as did bringing in Neil Smith, Michael Dean Perry, and Rod Smith.

The other thing that cost the Packers big time in terms of championships, IMHO, was the loss of both Sterling Sharpe and LeRoy Butler. Both of those guys end up playing 10-15 years, there might have been more SBs. I think the same with the loss of Desmond Bishop and Nick Collins from the McCarthy SB team.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Plus they had an incredible list of names on that coaching staff. Green Bay just flat out couldn't beat the Cowboys. Period. Especially at Dallas. Once free agency/age/injury hit the Cowboys, then the Packers took over for their back-to-back NFC titles. Those Packers weren't as good as the Cowboys and 49ers in the mid-90s but they were very good. Any team with Reggie White and LeRoy Butler on defense with Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe on offense is a threat. And they knocked out SF in 95 after losing Sharpe.

I remember being relieved when the Panthers beat the Cowboys in the 96 playoffs. I knew the Packers could beat Carolina, but they always had problems with Dallas. They destroyed the Cowboys in the 97 regular season, but there wasn't really anything at stake in that game.

The 96-97 Packers were more statistically dominant than any of the Cowboy title teams, but they only won one title. The Packers probably should have accomplished more in that era, but history is what it is, and the Broncos of 97-98 were an extremely tough team. Had the Packers faced the Bills in the Super Bowl, they could have won more titles. It also would have been interesting to see those Cowboy teams face off against the Broncos in the Super Bowl, because I think those teams had very similar styles. But in the end the Cowboys took on all comers and beat everyone (including GB).

Or SB 30- what if they found a way to get past DAL (they led after 3 quarters). Do they match up better with Pittsburgh?

That's a really good question and I think they had a great chance to beat the Steelers. Neil O'Donnell might have made even more mistakes against Reggie White and that DLine and LeRoy Butler and George Teague in the secondary. I respect that Steelers team, but I think GB had a better chance to beat Pittsburgh than they had to beat Dallas.

I remember that Packers team and that NFC Championship Game very well. I grew up in Wisconsin and I'd been waiting my whole life for the Packers to be in a position like that. That NFC Championship - the Packers returned a fumble back for a TD early - Jukovich recovered and ran it back. I can't remember exactly what happened, but it got called back.

Farve - and people will remember this if they saw him early - Favre came out and got off to his typical overhyped start. He be so fired up he'd overthrow receivers and it would take him a quarter and a half to calm down sometimes. So, that also helped Dallas early on.

The Packers were good that year - but Dallas was better overall. Even though the Packers had the lead at points and even going into the fourth quarter, Dallas was driving as the 3rd quarter ran out. They scored a TD on that drive, Favre threw a pick, and the Cowboys scored again within maybe two or three minutes of their last TD,

In retrospect, though I was hopeful at the time, my opinion now it might have been almost the opposite of the 60s Packers/Cowboys matchups. In 95, the Cowboys knew how to win those big games. They also knew how to beat the Packers. And even though GB had excellent defensive players (like the 60s Cowboys), Dallas really knew how to spread defenses too thin with the combination of Emmitt, Novacek, and Irvin. Aikman wasn't going to make late mistakes, either. Although the Packers played really well overall - and had the lead at times - the entire game it still seemed like Dallas was going to find a way to win and that GB just wasn't quite there yet.

One more quick note on that day - Harbaugh threw a Hail Mary at the end of the Steelers / Colts AFC Championship Game which was played before the NFC, and it was really close to being complete - so much so that I remember Harbaugh making the TD sign but also having a confused look on his face as he ran to the refs. So, it was really close to being the Colts against the either Dallas or GB.

[CSKreager]

I remember being relieved when the Panthers beat the Cowboys in the 96 playoffs. I knew the Packers could beat Carolina, but they always had problems with Dallas. They destroyed the Cowboys in the 97 regular season, but there wasn't really anything at stake in that game.

The 96-97 Packers were more statistically dominant than any of the Cowboy title teams, but they only won one title. The Packers probably should have accomplished more in that era, but history is what it is, and the Broncos of 97-98 were an extremely tough team. Had the Packers faced the Bills in the Super Bowl, they could have won more titles. It also would have been interesting to see those Cowboy teams face off against the Broncos in the Super Bowl, because I think those teams had very similar styles. But in the end the Cowboys took on all comers and beat everyone (including GB).

Or SB 30- what if they found a way to get past DAL (they led after 3 quarters). Do they match up better with Pittsburgh?

That's a really good question and I think they had a great chance to beat the Steelers. Neil O'Donnell might have made even more mistakes against Reggie White and that DLine and LeRoy Butler and George Teague in the secondary. I respect that Steelers team, but I think GB had a better chance to beat Pittsburgh than they had to beat Dallas.

I remember that Packers team and that NFC Championship Game very well. I grew up in Wisconsin and I'd been waiting my whole life for the Packers to be in a position like that. That NFC Championship - the Packers returned a fumble back for a TD early - Jukovich recovered and ran it back. I can't remember exactly what happened, but it got called back.

Farve - and people will remember this if they saw him early - Favre came out and got off to his typical overhyped start. He be so fired up he'd overthrow receivers and it would take him a quarter and a half to calm down sometimes. So, that also helped Dallas early on.

The Packers were good that year - but Dallas was better overall. Even though the Packers had the lead at points and even going into the fourth quarter, Dallas was driving as the 3rd quarter ran out. They scored a TD on that drive, Favre threw a pick, and the Cowboys scored again within maybe two or three minutes of their last TD,

In retrospect, though I was hopeful at the time, my opinion now it might have been almost the opposite of the 60s Packers/Cowboys matchups. In 95, the Cowboys knew how to win those big games. They also knew how to beat the Packers. And even though GB had excellent defensive players (like the 60s Cowboys), Dallas really knew how to spread defenses too thin with the combination of Emmitt, Novacek, and Irvin. Aikman wasn't going to make late mistakes, either. Although the Packers played really well overall - and had the lead at times - the entire game it still seemed like Dallas was going to find a way to win and that GB just wasn't quite there yet.

One more quick note on that day - Harbaugh threw a Hail Mary at the end of the Steelers / Colts AFC Championship Game which was played before the NFC, and it was really close to being complete - so much so that I remember Harbaugh making the TD sign but also having a confused look on his face as he ran to the refs. So, it was really close to being the Colts against the either Dallas or GB.

It's amazing how the Mike Holmgren/Barry Switzer coaching mismatch on paper never materialized.

Despite the presence of Bozo the Coach (as he was called by some after 4th and 1), Dallas' top heavy roster (not the same depth as prior) knew how to win big games even though they knew Barry had nothing to do with any of those big game wins.

It didn't matter the coaching mismatches and the other team having far better head coaches. they found a way to win in 95 despite having the inferior coach in just about every game. Holmgren was a far better coach, yet somehow DAL knew their talent basically cancelled out any coaching advantage GB had.

Like Barry Switzer went 3-0 against Cowher, undefeated vs Parcells/Marty, won 5 straight vs Holmgren!

Dallas in 1995 was truly exhibit A of 'who needs coaching'

It was so frustrating seeing a real coach getting beaten by a guy pretended to be a head coach

[Brian wolf]

GB had every chance to beat Dallas but the pressure of scoring points--the defensive front seven had no chance against that non-finesse offensive line--was too much for Favre, who should have kept throwing to Robert Brooks, who had a monster game and helped put the Packers in the next two SB games, without Sharpe.
Would Brooks or Antonio Freeman have continued to develop had Sharpe not been injured?

Brooks wasn't as physical or talented as Sharpe but wasn't a diva either and had great quickness. His career would have been much better had he not had the injuries. I feel GB and Pitts would have been a great matchup but the Packers probably would have won a close one ... you just have to wonder which QB would make the big passing mistake at the worst time. Had Favre led the team by Dallas, the SB was his for the taking. It was probably meant to happen in 1996/97 however. To go from horrific accident in college to winning the SB less than 60 miles away from his hometown was the ultimate feel-good story.

The Cowboys players were motivated to go all the way once SF was upset by GB but in 1996, Switzer simply couldnt keep complacency from affecting the team. Paying Primetime affected their depth as well, as free agency took away players.