Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

As for whether the better accommodations made a difference -- when I interviewed Louie Kelcher for the book, he specifically brought that up without my asking. He said it indeed made a difference and that the 49ers players appreciated DeBartolo's travel arrangements. He noted the way the Chargers always tried to cram into adjacent seats on Pacific Southwest Airlines flights but with the 49ers they had up to five seats between players.

Brian wolf wrote:The League has never liked dominant teams ... they want parity so point spreads are more complicated. With the Cowboys being the dominant team, the League knew that either SF, Buff or Pitts needed to end it as far as a three-peat and they let it happen. The Niners had too many expensive stars to keep under a salary cap and the NFL knew it IMO ... Yes, I was a Cowboy fan and probably somewhat, delusional ... haha

I had a big party when the Packers won the Super Bowl against New England. After the game, one of my Cowboys fans friends said, "What until free agency ruins YOUR team." It has become that way with the cap and free agency.

As a fan, the dominant teams were so frustrating at the time, unless they were your team. You'd end up cheering for every underdog in the playoffs. Over the years, you often gain an appreciation for how great those teams were. Those Cowboys and Packers teams might have been the last of those dominant teams. Especially the Cowboys with the 3 out of 4 Super Bowls.

I suppose it might be that way if you watched the Celtics always win the NBA or John Wooden and UCLA always win. By the time the Yankees won the 3-straight WS, I had watched sports long enough that I was able to appreciate it while it was happening, in a way that I couldn't appreciate the Steelers in the 70s or the 49ers in the 80s. Especially because it was that homegrown talent that was the core of those Yankees. With the Steelers, I think there was one year, either 78 or 79, when every single player on that team had only played for the Steelers at that point.

At one time, when the Packers and Dolphins were dominant teams, the NFL was somewhat okay with it because they knew that teams like the Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings etc were close by fighting them tooth and nail but when the Jets upset the Colts and especially the cinderella season the 1981 49ers had, the League and Networks felt that parity and cinderella seasons were the way to go, not only for fans but to make gambling more difficult, with teams winning out of nowhere ... The beauty of NFL Postseason history was having great teams fight it out for championships. These teams became great because they had to beat the dominant team to have their chance at a championship. Other than a dominant team like the Brady led Patriots, most teams that win today are either basically one or two year wonders, or a team that gets hot at the right time out of nowhere, though some have been consistently good ...

How about the 1948 team, which went 12-2-0, with both losses coming to the 14-0 Browns?
Frankie Albert had a great season, completing 58.3% of his passes, with 29 TDs to only 10 INTs and a passer rating of 102.9, which was almost unheard of in that era. He also ran for 349 yards and 8 TDs.
The backfield was stacked, with Joe Perry, Johnny Stryzkalski, Forrest Hall, and Norm Standlee. Alvin Beals had 14 TD receptions.
The 1948 49ers led the AAFC in scoring with 35.4 points a game and were second in scoring defense, giving up just 17.7 per game.
Buck Shaw was the coach. In his pro career, he had a 90-55-5 record for a .621 winning percentage and, in his final season, he coached the Philadelphia Eagles to the 1960 NFL chamoionship.

Great call on the 1948 49ers ...

I believe Shaw should be in the HOF, not only for coaching an excellent team that pushed the Browns into greatness themselves but bringing a championship to a Philly team that no coach, including Vince Lombardi, wanted to touch.
He coached many HOF/HOVG players, with Stryzkalski and Beals having HOVG cases as well ...

rhickok1109 wrote:How about the 1948 team, which went 12-2-0, with both losses coming to the 14-0 Browns?
Frankie Albert had a great season, completing 58.3% of his passes, with 29 TDs to only 10 INTs and a passer rating of 102.9, which was almost unheard of in that era. He also ran for 349 yards and 8 TDs.
The backfield was stacked, with Joe Perry, Johnny Stryzkalski, Forrest Hall, and Norm Standlee. Alvin Beals had 14 TD receptions.
The 1948 49ers led the AAFC in scoring with 35.4 points a game and were second in scoring defense, giving up just 17.7 per game.
Buck Shaw was the coach. In his pro career, he had a 90-55-5 record for a .621 winning percentage and, in his final season, he coached the Philadelphia Eagles to the 1960 NFL chamoionship.

Thanks, Ralph!

The '57 49ers also deserve an honorable mention.
They lost a (famous) play off game to the eventual Champs, the Lions and fielded HoFers Y. A. Tittle, Hugh McElhenny, Joe (the Jet) Perry, Leo Nomellini and Bob St. Clair. As well as exceptional talent such as R.C. Ownes, Gordie Soltau, Dickie Moegle and Billie Wilson.

Another fine example of an early Niners team that fell just a little bit short...
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... o/1957.htm

Good calls on both of those teams.

The '57 team was a heartbreaker. They had that huge lead at home in the playoff and lost. McElhenny had a great run to start the second half but was stopped near the goal line. The Lions forced a field goal and then started their rally.

The 70-72 teams under Dick Nolan were also very good. Incredibly, that 1970 season was the first time that the 49ers won a division championship -- including the AAFC years. The Dick Nolan teams weren't as good as the Walsh and Siefert teams IMO, but those Frankie Albert and Million Dollar Backfield teams sure earn some sentimental votes I'm sure. Certainly a golden era for that team even without the championships.

1989

They played a much tougher schedule in a more rugged NFC.

The 84 49ers basically only faced 2 decent QB's, Theismann and Simms, until SB 19.

I suppose it might be that way if you watched the Celtics always win the NBA or John Wooden and UCLA always win. By the time the Yankees won the 3-straight WS, I had watched sports long enough that I was able to appreciate it while it was happening, in a way that I couldn't appreciate the Steelers in the 70s or the 49ers in the 80s. Especially because it was that homegrown talent that was the core of those Yankees. With the Steelers, I think there was one year, either 78 or 79, when every single player on that team had only played for the Steelers at that point.

I don't remember the 60's Celtics, but I remember how the 80's were dominated by them and LA, and was so happy when Detroit knocked them off.

As for UCLA, I can't imagine how sick of them some people may have gotten, especially after Alcindor. It was also really sick when you know know that they were cheating their butts off with Sam Gilbert paying the players off.

What people don't see is it takes a lot of luck with these dynasties. UCLA cheated, but they played in a weak era, and they got lucky several times. For example, it would have been interesting to see how they would have done against Indiana with George McGinnis on their team in 73 (if his dad didn't die, and he could have stayed all four years) and a healthy Scott May in 75. Also, what if Marvin Barnes didn't get hurt in 73, or (as a UTEP fan mentioned to me one time) Bad News Barnes didn't foul out of a 64 tourney game that the Miners lost, and they made it all the way to the Final Four (this person told me that the Bruins would have had no answer for him).

7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 9:34 pm What people don't see is it takes a lot of luck with these dynasties. UCLA cheated, but they played in a weak era, and they got lucky several times.

10 titles in 12 years....luck. That's an interesting take. And 1973 Indiana had the most reprehensible person in college basketball history (Dave Bliss) on their coaching staff, too. Gimme a break.