1998

[Mark]

It may have been unfair to put my complaints in this thread though as it wasn't really directed at the OP but rather just an overall complaint about a recurring theme.

[SeahawkFever]

Honestly people commenting that some teams are more overrated because their division was easier or their schedule was easier was part of why I calculated the opponent win percentage of every team's schedule in that one post.

For everyone's reference when they are making their arguments.

Me personally: Teams definitely benefit from their schedules being easier if that was the case, and the data of opponent strength of schedule is not typically well known, but that itself doesn't automatically make the team overrated if people don't know the data points that others do about them.

I personally view it as a tiebreaker if you think its close which team is better when you are comparing two of them.

[Ness]

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.

Homeslice, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I know the history as I saw it for myself. And my opinion on your perspective hasn't changed. They weren't pretenders after the 1994 season.

[Ness]

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.

The 49ers from 1995 to 1997 had a top 5 defense every season. Advanced metrics via DVOA even back this up. So this is wrong.

[Ness]

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.

And that person is high as a kite. Especially with Woodall moving to safety??? That would be beyond stupid.

[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.

And that person is high as a kite. Especially with Woodall moving to safety??? That would be beyond stupid.

I think Lee was a safety in college. And, McDonald was getting older. Plus, this guy is an extremely knowledgeable football fan.

[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.

The 49ers from 1995 to 1997 had a top 5 defense every season. Advanced metrics via DVOA even back this up. So this is wrong.

And as I said above, the 95 team ranked 19th since 1950 in DVOA on defense.

It wasn’t flawless defensively, but very good.

[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.

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.

Homeslice, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I know the history as I saw it for myself. And my opinion on your perspective hasn't changed. They weren't pretenders after the 1994 season.

Is the way I described the team accurate?