1998

[SeahawkFever]

Not only do I think those Falcons are overrated, the hate they get is deserved.

5 losing seasons in 6 years and sandwiched in between they just randomly made a Super Bowl with....... Chris Chandler

Jamal Anderson was an average RB whose numbers looked good because he got a million carries against a weak schedule.

They never felt SB worthy and it showed.

The 49ers were pretenders after 1994.

Ok this is bogus. When your floor from 1995 to 1998 is the divisional round with a floor of at least 11 regular season wins, you aren't a pretender to win the SB or at least get there. Those 49ers teams could have gotten back to the SB, and the only blowout loss was against Green Bay in 1996 on the road without Steve Young. I think they beat Atlanta on the road in 1998 if Garrison Hearst doesn't get hurt on the first play of the game. The Packers were a consistent stumbling block, but that was the only team really for SF. That doesn't negate being a SB contender.

I’ve talked a decent bit about this stretch of the 49ers.

From what I know of it, it was not without its faults.

The offensive line was older (they still had a couple linemen that blocked for Montana in his later Super Bowls I think), the running game in 95 and 96 with Derek Loville was pretty bad (though at least solid in 97 and 98 with Hearst I’d argue), and in 1998, the defense showed its age (even if you think it was all beating up on bad teams, the defenses in 95, 96, and 97 were each top five by points, whereas 98 was only 13th).

In 96, 97, and 98, the schedules they played in the regular season were easier in aggregate (third easiest by win percentage in 96, fifth in 97, and sixth in 98; and similarly in the 24th-36th percentile by opponents score percentage in those years).

In 95 however they were handed the 14th hardest strength of schedule by opposing win percentage and the 68th percentile schedule by opposing score percentage; I’m pretty sure both were the hardest of all the 10+ win teams in 1995.

That said, this team was not without its high points too.

Steve Young was still very good when healthy (led the league in passer rating twice in the span ultimately). Jerry Rice was at or near the peak of his career (his highest individual yardage was in 1995), and they had a young Terrell Owens next to him (far from his best numbers but in 98 he had his first 1,000 yard season).

And though they showed their age towards the end, the defense as I said was top five in 95, 96, and 97.

1995’s defense in particular had five first or second team all pro players, is one of three post merger defenses to allow both the lowest passer rating and fewest yards per carry in the same season, and the recently released DVOA metric from FTN Fantasy lists the 95 Niners defense as the 19th best season of defense in the last 75 seasons of the NFL.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that’s one of your all time defenses or anything, after all they didn’t play well at all against Favre in the divisional round loss that season, but they played the regular season of a great defense, and if you put a title on the 95 season, I think it could’ve gone down as one of the best of its generation.

Also, while the final score of that game is not one of a blowout, I believe at least one of the touchdowns they scored was later after the game was more out of reach.

Me personally, I think this was a really good team overall, and if fully healthy the best in the game in 94 and 95.

In 96, not quite as good, and they weren’t beating Green Bay; a prospective rematch with Carolina is also kinda questionable given how their regular season game went.

97 they probably benefited from their schedule the most due to age (as I’ve said 11 starters 30+), but credit them for parlaying that schedule into a 13-3 season, over the 90th percentile score percentage, and following it up with an appearance in the NFC Championship Game (they lost fairly convincingly to Green Bay, but I’ve also heard some claim that Gary Plummer was robbed of a pick six).

98 played excellent offensively, but average defensively, and were lucky to beat Green Bay (Catch II is a cool play, but Rice was stripped before it). The Atlanta game also had a possession the officials gave them on a fumble by Terry Kirby too.

As for which teams were “fraudulent”. I’d say 96 and 98 you could sell me on that being the case as I see one, maybe two NFC teams that may have been better both years (Green Bay and Carolina in 96, and Minnesota and Atlanta in 98). As I’ve said for 95, I could see a world where they win it all without injuries to Steve Young so that one isn’t fraudulent to me.

97 had an easy schedule but beat up their opponents and seemed to look dominant while doing it. They lost the NFC Championship Game, but it could’ve been closer. I could see this one going either way. As someone said earlier on this thread, Green Bay wasn’t quite the same as the year prior, and I might agree with that.

Even if they were somewhat fraudulent, these 49ers were probably one of the best teams in the league at the time you could’ve labeled that.

[CSKreager]

The 49ers were pretenders after 1994.

Ok this is bogus. When your floor from 1995 to 1998 is the divisional round with a floor of at least 11 regular season wins, you aren't a pretender to win the SB or at least get there. Those 49ers teams could have gotten back to the SB, and the only blowout loss was against Green Bay in 1996 on the road without Steve Young. I think they beat Atlanta on the road in 1998 if Garrison Hearst doesn't get hurt on the first play of the game. The Packers were a consistent stumbling block, but that was the only team really for SF. That doesn't negate being a SB contender.

I’ve talked a decent bit about this stretch of the 49ers.

From what I know of it, it was not without its faults.

The offensive line was older (they still had a couple linemen that blocked for Montana in his later Super Bowls I think), the running game in 95 and 96 with Derek Loville was pretty bad (though at least solid in 97 and 98 with Hearst I’d argue), and in 1998, the defense showed its age (even if you think it was all beating up on bad teams, the defenses in 95, 96, and 97 were each top five by points, whereas 98 was only 13th).

In 96, 97, and 98, the schedules they played in the regular season were easier in aggregate (third easiest by win percentage in 96, fifth in 97, and sixth in 98; and similarly in the 24th-36th percentile by opponents score percentage in those years).

In 95 however they were handed the 14th hardest strength of schedule by opposing win percentage and the 68th percentile schedule by opposing score percentage; I’m pretty sure both were the hardest of all the 10+ win teams in 1995.

That said, this team was not without its high points too.

Steve Young was still very good when healthy (led the league in passer rating twice in the span ultimately). Jerry Rice was at or near the peak of his career (his highest individual yardage was in 1995), and they had a young Terrell Owens next to him (far from his best numbers but in 98 he had his first 1,000 yard season).

And though they showed their age towards the end, the defense as I said was top five in 95, 96, and 97.

1995’s defense in particular had five first or second team all pro players, is one of three post merger defenses to allow both the lowest passer rating and fewest yards per carry in the same season, and the recently released DVOA metric from FTN Fantasy lists the 95 Niners defense as the 19th best season of defense in the last 75 seasons of the NFL.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that’s one of your all time defenses or anything, after all they didn’t play well at all against Favre in the divisional round loss that season, but they played the regular season of a great defense, and if you put a title on the 95 season, I think it could’ve gone down as one of the best of its generation.

Also, while the final score of that game is not one of a blowout, I believe at least one of the touchdowns they scored was later after the game was more out of reach.

Me personally, I think this was a really good team overall, and if fully healthy the best in the game in 94 and 95.

In 96, not quite as good, and they weren’t beating Green Bay; a prospective rematch with Carolina is also kinda questionable given how their regular season game went.

97 they probably benefited from their schedule the most due to age (as I’ve said 11 starters 30+), but credit them for parlaying that schedule into a 13-3 season, over the 90th percentile score percentage, and following it up with an appearance in the NFC Championship Game (they lost fairly convincingly to Green Bay, but I’ve also heard some claim that Gary Plummer was robbed of a pick six).

98 played excellent offensively, but average defensively, and were lucky to beat Green Bay (Catch II is a cool play, but Rice was stripped before it). The Atlanta game also had a possession the officials gave them on a fumble by Terry Kirby too.

As for which teams were “fraudulent”. I’d say 96 and 98 you could sell me on that being the case as I see one, maybe two NFC teams that may have been better both years (Green Bay and Carolina in 96, and Minnesota and Atlanta in 98). As I’ve said for 95, I could see a world where they win it all without injuries to Steve Young so that one isn’t fraudulent to me.

The 98 Falcons were not better. They just had their 15 minutes of fame and lucked out with the Hearst injury.

They were an 8-8 team disguised as 14-2

[SeahawkFever]

Ok this is bogus. When your floor from 1995 to 1998 is the divisional round with a floor of at least 11 regular season wins, you aren't a pretender to win the SB or at least get there. Those 49ers teams could have gotten back to the SB, and the only blowout loss was against Green Bay in 1996 on the road without Steve Young. I think they beat Atlanta on the road in 1998 if Garrison Hearst doesn't get hurt on the first play of the game. The Packers were a consistent stumbling block, but that was the only team really for SF. That doesn't negate being a SB contender.

I’ve talked a decent bit about this stretch of the 49ers.

From what I know of it, it was not without its faults.

The offensive line was older (they still had a couple linemen that blocked for Montana in his later Super Bowls I think), the running game in 95 and 96 with Derek Loville was pretty bad (though at least solid in 97 and 98 with Hearst I’d argue), and in 1998, the defense showed its age (even if you think it was all beating up on bad teams, the defenses in 95, 96, and 97 were each top five by points, whereas 98 was only 13th).

In 96, 97, and 98, the schedules they played in the regular season were easier in aggregate (third easiest by win percentage in 96, fifth in 97, and sixth in 98; and similarly in the 24th-36th percentile by opponents score percentage in those years).

In 95 however they were handed the 14th hardest strength of schedule by opposing win percentage and the 68th percentile schedule by opposing score percentage; I’m pretty sure both were the hardest of all the 10+ win teams in 1995.

That said, this team was not without its high points too.

Steve Young was still very good when healthy (led the league in passer rating twice in the span ultimately). Jerry Rice was at or near the peak of his career (his highest individual yardage was in 1995), and they had a young Terrell Owens next to him (far from his best numbers but in 98 he had his first 1,000 yard season).

And though they showed their age towards the end, the defense as I said was top five in 95, 96, and 97.

1995’s defense in particular had five first or second team all pro players, is one of three post merger defenses to allow both the lowest passer rating and fewest yards per carry in the same season, and the recently released DVOA metric from FTN Fantasy lists the 95 Niners defense as the 19th best season of defense in the last 75 seasons of the NFL.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that’s one of your all time defenses or anything, after all they didn’t play well at all against Favre in the divisional round loss that season, but they played the regular season of a great defense, and if you put a title on the 95 season, I think it could’ve gone down as one of the best of its generation.

Also, while the final score of that game is not one of a blowout, I believe at least one of the touchdowns they scored was later after the game was more out of reach.

Me personally, I think this was a really good team overall, and if fully healthy the best in the game in 94 and 95.

In 96, not quite as good, and they weren’t beating Green Bay; a prospective rematch with Carolina is also kinda questionable given how their regular season game went.

97 they probably benefited from their schedule the most due to age (as I’ve said 11 starters 30+), but credit them for parlaying that schedule into a 13-3 season, over the 90th percentile score percentage, and following it up with an appearance in the NFC Championship Game (they lost fairly convincingly to Green Bay, but I’ve also heard some claim that Gary Plummer was robbed of a pick six).

98 played excellent offensively, but average defensively, and were lucky to beat Green Bay (Catch II is a cool play, but Rice was stripped before it). The Atlanta game also had a possession the officials gave them on a fumble by Terry Kirby too.

As for which teams were “fraudulent”. I’d say 96 and 98 you could sell me on that being the case as I see one, maybe two NFC teams that may have been better both years (Green Bay and Carolina in 96, and Minnesota and Atlanta in 98). As I’ve said for 95, I could see a world where they win it all without injuries to Steve Young so that one isn’t fraudulent to me.

The 98 Falcons were not better. They just had their 15 minutes of fame and lucked out with the Hearst injury.

They were an 8-8 team disguised as 14-2

Maybe they weren’t as good as the average 14-2 team, but why do you think the 98 Falcons were only as good as 8-8?

True, they fell off hard afterward (though I think they could’ve won another game or two if Anderson didn’t get hurt), and they lost rather convincingly in the Super Bowl to a better Broncos team, but they were fourth by points on both sides of the ball, and their schedule wasn’t one of the easiest that season either.

Also, in the only regular season loss other than the one to San Francisco (vs the Jets), they didn’t have their starting quarterback.

I’d say at least on par with wherever the 98 Niners were (12-4 record, so either 12-4 or 11-5 perhaps).

An average team would not be top five on both sides of the ball in a 30 team league in my opinion.

[ShinobiMusashi]

I think that Falcons team had a certain energy, they were inspired, just the right mix of the right guys where the planets aligned that year and they were able to have an excellent season.

But after digging so deep into 1998, I do believe the Falcons 14-2 record and Minnesota's 15-1 records are inflated due to how weak the NFC had become by that season. Look at how shallow that conference was that year beyond the big 4, it's pretty remarkable, a lot of bad teams bouncing around the NFC in 98 padding records. I do think he has a point if that Falcons or Vikings played in the AFC those records would come down a little at least. AFC was legit tough in 98 down to the teams that finished in the cellars, I mean look at that 6-10 Raven's team playing in their new stadium with Rod Woodson and that defense. Even the Bengals the worst team in the conference looked like a tough ball club at times that year when O'Donnell was healthy.

As we seen in that Super Bowl, there was a big difference in Atlanta's NFC 14-2 and Denver's hard earned AFC 14-2. Swap their schedules and Denver probably goes 16-0, while Atlanta 11-5ish.

[CSKreager]

I think that Falcons team had a certain energy, they were inspired, just the right mix of the right guys where the planets aligned that year and they were able to have an excellent season.

But after digging so deep into 1998, I do believe the Falcons 14-2 record and Minnesota's 15-1 records are inflated due to how weak the NFC had become by that season. Look at how shallow that conference was that year beyond the big 4, it's pretty remarkable, a lot of bad teams bouncing around the NFC in 98 padding records. I do think he has a point if that Falcons or Vikings played in the AFC those records would come down a little at least. AFC was legit tough in 98 down to the teams that finished in the cellars, I mean look at that 6-10 Raven's team playing in their new stadium with Rod Woodson and that defense. Even the Bengals the worst team in the conference looked like a tough ball club at times that year when O'Donnell was healthy.

As we seen in that Super Bowl, there was a big difference in Atlanta's NFC 14-2 and Denver's hard earned AFC 14-2. Swap their schedules and Denver probably goes 16-0, while Atlanta 11-5ish.

The AFC wasn’t THAT good. Beating a bunch of .500 teams doesn’t exactly scream “hard earned”

[7DnBrnc53]

I agree with Seahawk Fever. The late-90's 49ers had weak o-lines and weak schedules, and their defense wasn't all that it was cracked up to be.

Also, I don't think the 98 Falcons were an 8-8 team disguised as 14-2, but maybe a 10-6 one (I predicted that they would go 10-6 and get a wild card before that season). I also don't think they were bailed out by the Hearst injury (that's an excuse that the bandwagon 49er fans used at the time). If there wasn't a blown call early in the game, Atlanta could have been up 21-0.

[SeahawkFever]

I agree with Seahawk Fever. The late-90's 49ers had weak o-lines and weak schedules, and their defense wasn't all that it was cracked up to be.

Also, I don't think the 98 Falcons were an 8-8 team disguised as 14-2, but maybe a 10-6 one (I predicted that they would go 10-6 and get a wild card before that season). I also don't think they were bailed out by the Hearst injury (that's an excuse that the bandwagon 49er fans used at the time). If there wasn't a blown call early in the game, Atlanta could have been up 21-0.

Overall I’d say I’m probably a bit higher on them than you are, but a bit lower on them than a couple others in this thread (I said two of them were probably fraudulent to a degree, and two of them weren’t, and three of them had an easier schedule in aggregate).

As for the defense, I said pretty darn good for the first three years and aging in the fourth one. At its best, really good, but they never matched up well against Favre’s Packers.

Whenever I watch clips of the 49ers of 1995 and more so 96, there’s one guy who I see getting picked on a lot: Tyrone Drakeford.

I see Drakeford and Tim McDonald being thrown at all the time in those clips.

And in 97 and 98 I see RW McQuarters and Darnell Walker thrown at a good amount.

Not saying the others didn’t give anything up, or those guys didn’t provide anything else (McDonald in particular seems to have made more plays in shorter yardage than deeper) but those guys in particular I see teams throw in the direction of the most.

Also, one other thing I realized more recently is that the 95 and 96 defenses were coordinated by eventual Seahawks coach Pete Carroll in between his Jets and Patriots stints.

[7DnBrnc53]

Whenever I watch clips of the 49ers of 1995 and more so 96, there’s one guy who I see getting picked on a lot: Tyrone Drakeford.

I see Drakeford and Tim McDonald being thrown at all the time in those clips.

And in 97 and 98 I see RW McQuarters and Darnell Walker thrown at a good amount.

I don't think Merton Hanks was that great, either. And, I know someone who said that McDonald should have been a LB, with Woodall moved to S.

[SeahawkFever]

Whenever I watch clips of the 49ers of 1995 and more so 96, there’s one guy who I see getting picked on a lot: Tyrone Drakeford.

I see Drakeford and Tim McDonald being thrown at all the time in those clips.

And in 97 and 98 I see RW McQuarters and Darnell Walker thrown at a good amount.

I don't think Merton Hanks was that great, either. And, I know someone who said that McDonald should have been a LB, with Woodall moved to S.

From the footage I’ve seen, I don’t see teams throwing it to Merton Hanks’ side of the field that much. Probably the least of those secondary players actually. I’d probably disagree there, but that’s just me.

If you think Woodall could cover better than McDonald and McDonald could tackle better than Woodall, then I could see why those two should’ve switched.

[ShinobiMusashi]

I think that Falcons team had a certain energy, they were inspired, just the right mix of the right guys where the planets aligned that year and they were able to have an excellent season.

But after digging so deep into 1998, I do believe the Falcons 14-2 record and Minnesota's 15-1 records are inflated due to how weak the NFC had become by that season. Look at how shallow that conference was that year beyond the big 4, it's pretty remarkable, a lot of bad teams bouncing around the NFC in 98 padding records. I do think he has a point if that Falcons or Vikings played in the AFC those records would come down a little at least. AFC was legit tough in 98 down to the teams that finished in the cellars, I mean look at that 6-10 Raven's team playing in their new stadium with Rod Woodson and that defense. Even the Bengals the worst team in the conference looked like a tough ball club at times that year when O'Donnell was healthy.

As we seen in that Super Bowl, there was a big difference in Atlanta's NFC 14-2 and Denver's hard earned AFC 14-2. Swap their schedules and Denver probably goes 16-0, while Atlanta 11-5ish.

The AFC wasn’t THAT good. Beating a bunch of .500 teams doesn’t exactly scream “hard earned”

Maybe less of the AFC being "THAT good" and more of the NFC being that bad. Rams, Saints, Lions, and Bears were really bad. The Panthers and Eagles were the 2 biggest train wrecks in the NFL that year. Washington and New York started off extremely bad but were able to salvage some respect in the second half of the season with 6-10 and 8-8 finishes. That is over half of the conference, 8 of 15 teams. And then think about that how some of these teams were padding their records playing each other, so some of those 6-10 and 8-8's are deceiving. These teams were worse than those numbers.