Two San Fran what-ifs (’88/’89, and early-’90s)

[74_75_78_79_]

The first one…what-if Steve Young keeps his starting job for the rest of the ’88 season following week #11? The least that would have to happen was for they to prevent the Cards from coming back which they failed to do - giving up 24 unanswered after being up 23-0.

That would place them at 7-4 instead of 6-5 going into the next game at home vs the Raiders which they did lose in realtime, 9-3 (no TDs). Already struggling with back issues, Montana had a stomach virus as well and also lost weight; he clearly wasn’t 100%. Safe to say that they with Young take that one which would bring them now to 8-4.

Safely assuming that they, with Young, go on to defeat Washington & San Diego as they did in realtime with Joe, how does it go in their final two against division foes who both were also still in the race - the Saints and then the Rams? With they being 10-4 instead of 9-5 going into this scenario, a little more room for error. They could still get in as a wildcard.

If they make the playoffs, either as a division winner or wild card, it’s hard to turn lopsided wins over Min & Chi into actual losses with Young under center. So no obstacle there from either, it’d seem. But how about possible other NFC playoff teams like Philly or those very two division rivals whom they just played?

I say it’s a safe enough chance they get out the NFC even if as a wild card. But then Super Bowl XXIII vs a team who in realtime gave they and Joe all they could handle!! How does #8 do against Dick LeBeau and his defense playing over their heads in Krumrie’s absence??

Whether not making the playoffs, making the playoffs but not the SB, losing the SB, or winning the SB - how does 1989 unfold in each scenario?


——————————————————————-


And onto the SECOND what-if….when if Montana doesn’t get injured in the ’90 NFCCG and plays/starts with SF all the way through 1994 (no going to KC, Young never gets that shot)?

Do they lose to the G-men anyway? And if not do they win or lose SBXXV vs Buffalo? Safe to say they turn that just-miss in ’91 into a division winner and at least a date in DC for the NFCC! And how about ’92 & ’93 vs Big D??

Pretty difficult to imagine ’94 being any different with he instead of Young - still a dominant regular season top-seed, gets by Dallas, crushes SD, Joe named SBMVP, etc.

As for KC, it’d look like Schottenheimer never leading his Chiefs to an AFCCG-appearance.

And when does Young finally get traded?

[Brian wolf]

Those two games against the Saints in 1988 were huge for the 49ers. Joe banged up his elbow pretty good against them in the first win and it would reinjure at different times in 89-90, till it led to him missing the 1991 season. The second win against the Saints allowed them to win the division, after they finally built momentum after the Raiders loss.

Could Young had kept the job and done just as well starting with the Cardinals game? Possibly, but the playoff game against the Vikings might have been entirely different, though Young had one of the greatest runs--or pathetic Viking tackling--to win the regular season game. Personally, even if Young had beaten the Vikings, I dont think he would have lead his team to victory over the Bears in that windy championship game. Joe played the game of his life in that win and easily threw on the Bengals despite their attempt to control the ball with Woods in the SB. Those games would have been interesting with Young at the helm. Joe though, gets hot and wins his third championship which leads to the teams' dominant 1989 season, where Montana's elbow would flare up, but not hinder too much his great season, though Young led the team over Buffalo in wk 15.

Had Joe not gotten injured against the Giants in that championship game, the team goes all the way in 1990--sorry, Bills fans-- but its still hard to speculate from 1991, onward? The elbow still might have had issues but avoiding that great hit by Leonard Marshall might have also sent Steve Young to another team. Its doubtful he would have stayed with the Niners had Joe led his team to a three-peat. Without Young, maybe the team lands Jim Everett as a backup by 1993, since they couldnt get him during the 1986 draft. Imagine he being the "heir apparent" to Montana instead of Young in 1987?

[74_75_78_79_]

My mistake OP. First off, Phoenix was Wk#10, not #11, thus SF would have been 7-3 had they won; and 8-3 after beating the Raiders. Then I skipped Atlanta after both Wash & SD. Beating the Falcons as they did in realtime would have had them at 11-3 going into the final two games.

[Brian wolf]

We cant assume the Niners would have beaten the Raiders even if Young had started, nor the Redskins. They may have won or lost to the Rams as well but I still feel they would have played the Vikings and Bears like they did. Could SF have beaten the Eagles with Young? Interesting to speculate.

Maybe if Young had stayed starter throughout that season, he learns to win big games early towards multiple championships later in his career, but where could have that left Montana? SB win or not in 1988 with Steve, would Joe have had a chance to get his starting job back in 1989? Unlike Young who bided his time, Montana would have wanted to be traded, had he lost the job. Maybe if Young started the remainder of 88 and kept it going into 1989, would Jones and Johnson had tried to obtain Montana for Dallas? They did add Walsh after drafting Aikman ...

[7DnBrnc53]

Had Joe not gotten injured against the Giants in that championship game, the team goes all the way in 1990--sorry, Bills fans--

It's not that simple. For one, the 49ers didn't have the ground game that the Giants had that year. And, secondly (and this is so important), the 49ers didn't have Belichick.

In addition, there's no guarantee that they beat the Giants even if Leonard doesn't knock Montana out of the game. The Giants hung around all day, and still may have won.

[Brian wolf]

Good speculation 7D ... yet I also feel that despite a great gameplan by Belichick against the Bills in the SB, the 49ers defense was better than the Giants and would have shut-down the Bills as well. Yes, the Niners running game was lacking but if OJ Anderson could succeed against the Bills, why not Roger Craig, despite an injury filled season? Nicked or not, Craig might not have fumbled with Joe healthy against NY and played another clutch SB? ... These scenarios are always fun to think about. Since the Bills had taken care of the Giants at the end of the regular season, maybe they would have been more focused and determined against the 49ers, who beat them with Young in 1989?

Yes, Belichick and the Giants defense deserve credit for beating the Bills with a great game-plan but the Bills hurt themselves as well. Despite Thurman Thomas having a great game, the Bills didnt take advantage, especially after his huge 11 yrd run towards the end of the game. Despite a first down at the Giants 29 yrd line, the Bills would waste 20 seconds before Kelly threw an incomplete pass. One of the worst two-minute drills I have ever seen before the Norwood miss. Kelly never threw a TD pass in this game and due to the Bills defense staying on the field for so long--the Bills could never maintain a rhythm on offense. If only Kelly had gotten them 10 yards closer for Norwood ...?

[7DnBrnc53]

Good speculation 7D ... yet I also feel that despite a great gameplan by Belichick against the Bills in the SB, the 49ers defense was better than the Giants and would have shut-down the Bills as well. Yes, the Niners running game was lacking but if OJ Anderson could succeed against the Bills, why not Roger Craig, despite an injury filled season? Nicked or not, Craig might not have fumbled with Joe healthy against NY and played another clutch SB? ... These scenarios are always fun to think about. Since the Bills had taken care of the Giants at the end of the regular season, maybe they would have been more focused and determined against the 49ers, who beat them with Young in 1989?

Yes, Belichick and the Giants defense deserve credit for beating the Bills with a great game-plan but the Bills hurt themselves as well. Despite Thurman Thomas having a great game, the Bills didnt take advantage, especially after his huge 11 yrd run towards the end of the game. Despite a first down at the Giants 29 yrd line, the Bills would waste 20 seconds before Kelly threw an incomplete pass. One of the worst two-minute drills I have ever seen before the Norwood miss. Kelly never threw a TD pass in this game and due to the Bills defense staying on the field for so long--the Bills could never maintain a rhythm on offense. If only Kelly had gotten them 10 yards closer for Norwood ...?

To be fair, that 49er defense was second against the rush that year, and would have had some success bottling up Thomas. However, I don't think they had really seen the no-huddle that much (except against maybe Cincinnati that year). Also, they were 18th in rushing that year, and Craig seemed like he was on the decline by then at age 30 (I don't see them doing what the Giants and OJ did).

Also, here's another angle: The Bills seemed to party a bit too much that week. I don't think they took the Giants as seriously as they would have taken the 49ers, and they would have been more ready to play since it is the two-time defending champs.

[Brian wolf]

Good calls as usual ... I agree Buffalo would have taken the 49ers more seriously and I was a little harsh on their two-minute drill in the SB against NY with so much pressure at the moment, but you would think with them running a no-huddle offense that Marchibroda designed, they would be able to manage the clock better at the end?

We can say the Niners wouldnt have run the ball better with a beat-up Craig, but that doesnt mean the Bills could cover him as a receiver? Rathman I feel could have ran some against the Bills as well. Just covering Rice, Taylor, Jones and Craig would have put enough pressure on their defense.

Yes, the Giants had Belichick but Seifert, Rhodes, and Ronnie Lott as a coach on the field were no slouches either ... that defense would have been after the Bills despite their playoff momentum.

Youre right though, 7D ... I cant assume that the 49ers would have beaten the Giants even if Montana had stayed healthy. A great defensive championship game.

[SeahawkFever]

Good speculation 7D ... yet I also feel that despite a great gameplan by Belichick against the Bills in the SB, the 49ers defense was better than the Giants and would have shut-down the Bills as well. Yes, the Niners running game was lacking but if OJ Anderson could succeed against the Bills, why not Roger Craig, despite an injury filled season? Nicked or not, Craig might not have fumbled with Joe healthy against NY and played another clutch SB? ... These scenarios are always fun to think about. Since the Bills had taken care of the Giants at the end of the regular season, maybe they would have been more focused and determined against the 49ers, who beat them with Young in 1989?

Yes, Belichick and the Giants defense deserve credit for beating the Bills with a great game-plan but the Bills hurt themselves as well. Despite Thurman Thomas having a great game, the Bills didnt take advantage, especially after his huge 11 yrd run towards the end of the game. Despite a first down at the Giants 29 yrd line, the Bills would waste 20 seconds before Kelly threw an incomplete pass. One of the worst two-minute drills I have ever seen before the Norwood miss. Kelly never threw a TD pass in this game and due to the Bills defense staying on the field for so long--the Bills could never maintain a rhythm on offense. If only Kelly had gotten them 10 yards closer for Norwood ...?

To be fair, that 49er defense was second against the rush that year, and would have had some success bottling up Thomas. However, I don't think they had really seen the no-huddle that much (except against maybe Cincinnati that year). Also, they were 18th in rushing that year, and Craig seemed like he was on the decline by then at age 30 (I don't see them doing what the Giants and OJ did).

Also, here's another angle: The Bills seemed to party a bit too much that week. I don't think they took the Giants as seriously as they would have taken the 49ers, and they would have been more ready to play since it is the two-time defending champs.

Out of curiosity, other than Buffalo and Cincinnati, did anyone else really do a “no huddle” offense back then?

[74_75_78_79_]

Interesting take, Wolf, on thinking that had Young played instead in the '88 playoffs against Minnesota or especially in the night Chicago tundra that each case may have been a totally different story than what actually did happen with Joe under center. As I said, its hard to flip two lopsided wins into losses at all because...Steve Young would be QB instead! Yes, #8 was just starting his journey as a San Fran QB. In those first few years as a starter in the early-'90s, Pro Bowler right out-the-gate, he wasn't quite at tour de force/"monkey off my back" level just yet. Well, in '88, he wasn't at that early-'90s level just yet either. But nevertheless he was pretty good in '88! He could start on most teams! Walsh wouldn't have even entertained such a QB-controversy had he NOT been pretty good already!

I did start a thread a while back on what champs still win-it-all anyway had their backup QB started all year instead. This wasn't out of disrespect at all for the actual starter, but on the logic that the rest of the team was just so darn dominant that they still would have taken care of things anyway. I opined things like Marc Wilson and Matt Cavanaugh respectively still winning SBs XVIII and XIX along with Steve Fuller winning it in '85 (also Stan winning it in '91, etc).

I immediately regretted those opinions. One really can't calculate just how important a QB is during a championship campaign. Almost like a 'glue' or chemistry holding the whole thing together (I'll opine this...Banks Instead of Dilfer and Titans win-it-all in 2000). And this leads to even a backup like...Steve Young! Even putting in a "pretty good" QB who'd be a good starter on most teams could have possibly made a, not slight, but maybe a BIG difference vs Minny & Chi-town.

Possibly. Yes, possibly. But I'll respectfully lean toward SF still decisively getting it done with Steve at helm! I've opined this before...yes, Sgt Rock's D was ranked #1 in '88. But, in my opinion, once the mediocrity was out the way, when the Forty Niners started coming down the stretch, I think that Seifert's D was Numero Uno instead from that point on! Joe played brilliantly those games; against two stout D's to boot! And, yes Wolf, that triumph at tundra Soldier was the game of his life! But he wasn't the one who held them to just 3 pts. Nor was he the one that held MInny to just 9. Yes, Boomer didn't play that great in the post-season. But why did he not play that great in SBXXIII??

Awesome defense! And then you add Matt Millen in '89! An extra wrinkle of not just toughness but leadership/coaching-on-the-field (as if that Forty Niner defense needed any more of that with Lott and Seifert though the latter was now HC instead). Vikings were again the #1 defense in '89. But stats don't always tell the tale. I think San Fran was best in that department in '89 instead! And they were AGAIN awesome in '90! Yes with that run-game dropping off, 7Dn. True. But lesser run-games have won-it-all (including, and perhaps especially...1981's); and ones that didn't have a tour de force (not '81 version) Montana, JERRY RICE, and rest of that passing game (yes, including Craig going out for passes in addition to Rathman also getting in on the running; not just Craig & Dexter) along with...AGAIN...that Defense!! And if Hoss could make those crucial 3rd down plays against that Buffalo D, then WHY NOT Joe & Co!! And would Steve have been enough downgrade to prevent SF from beating the Bills had HE started instead? Of course that's also a debate!

Yes, 7Dn, San Fran would clearly be a team to get-up for! They being back-to-back defending-Champs and all. But its hard for me to see NYG as underestimating material. Yes, Hoss starting instead of Simms, but they WERE 13-3 as well! They, after starting 10-0 before finally losing their first the week prior just the exact same as San Fran did, lost to those Forty Niners during that famous MNF Classic by just a score of 7-3 - but BEAT them in the NFCCG at Candlestick when it mattered much more! We're talking PARCELLS as the HC! Regular contenders the past few years with a LOMBARDI in 1986! I mean its not as if the 8-8 Saints suddenly got hot, were Buffalo's opponents instead and now Levy's troops had to try splashing water on their faces and waking themselves up throughout the entire game thus came up just short, lol.

The 1990 Bills of course (of course) are the best of those teams that made the SB! I think they at least give Washington a good game in the following SB along with giving each the '92 & '93 Cowboys decent games as well. But even they were a bit sloppy as well, which would get worse thus - as he himself would say - prevent JImmy Johnson from worrying at all going into his very SB contests vs Buffalo in real-time. Their D simply didn't stop the Giants - nor IMO would they have stopped San Fran - when it mattered most and, yes Wolf, that offense of the BIlls never could get into a rhythm due to just less than 21 minutes of possession.

Maybe Bills DO beat SF even with Montana due to SF's now-lesser run-game. And maybe Bills actually DID take the Giants lightly (though I think that it would have been so foolish for them to do so), but IMO San Fran w Joe and their D wins, and BIlls took NYG serious-enough to prevent an actual excuse for a loss. Again, this is BILL PARCELLS...LAWRENCE TAYLOR...13-3, beat SAN FRAN...1986 WORLD CHAMPS we're talking of! Yes, 7Dn, very good chance - essentially 50/50 - that Giants win even IF Joe doesn't go down and play his best the rest of the way!

YOUNG vs BIlls in SBXXV?? I'll leave that for others to speculate. Just like the other scenarios that I haven't touched. I'll leave them for others to speculate and enjoy reading.

Not the Steel Curtain but are those Forty Niner defenses from that time the most ridiculously underrated of all-time or WHAT?? Never finesse - NEVER!

I'm not a PFHOF voter and never will be (nor deserve to be), but if I was allowed, I'd ignore 1-15 in 2001 and place George in there! Forget HOVG, PFHOF instead. Landry, Noll, Walsh, and Johnson respectfully experienced 0-11-1, 1-13, 2-14, and 1-15. And, yes, 0-11-1 was an expansion team with the other examples being the HC's first year there taking over disasters (yes, Noll also took over an, essentially, "expansion" team, lol). And, yes, George took over Carolina, had respectable years, and then went...1-15! He is not either of the mentioned HCs, but IMO 2001 is not enough at all to penalize him from Canton! His work as DC and his W/L record as HC with two Lomardis regardless of 1989's "reason"...no "made-for-TV"-like persona ("Blame it on the Bossa Nova" karaoke commercial notwithstanding) and for whatever weird reason never getting carried off the field in either SB-win is very likely the culprit and it needs to stop! Yes, Walsh formed the D-philosophy for George to take to build from, but still...

Nostalgia over Buddy Ryan aside (and really want REX to HC again! I LOVE their styles), I opine that Seifert was a better DC than him.