Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Bryan wrote:A lot to unpack here. First, not a big fan of 'media buzz'. Mariucci had been with the Niners for two seasons and compiled records of 13-3 and 12-4. Not sure why any team would fire a coach after only two seasons when the guy has a 25-7 record. The reason Holmgren went to Seattle was he wanted total control of the football operation. I doubt Holmgren would 'go back' to SF to simply be a HC. The Niners would have had to fire not only their 25-7 HC in Mariucci, they also would have had to fire Dwight Clark and John McVay. I don't see the Niners making wholesale changes after a 12-4 season.

I mean they fired George Seifert after losing to the Packers twice in 1995, and 1996. A man who had won two Super Bowls, and was still going strong. Eddie wasn't afraid to get cutthroat, which got close to doing with Walsh way back before. Now Eddie was MIA at the time due to legal drama, who who knows how it shakes out. But a big reason that there was that media spin with Holmgren was that he was a San Francisco native, had been in the trenches before with the 49ers helping them win two SBs, and had most recently won a SB. Taking him from GB would have been a bonus. Who was Mariucci at that point? Anyway, even if Mariucci loses, or gets beat down at home again against the Packers, maybe he stays, but the standards were so high at the time for that franchise, I could easily see him getting the axe, and trying desperately to get Holmgren back as HC in addition to giving him more power than he wasn't getting apparently with the Packers.

Bryan wrote:That would be an interesting angle if it came from the Philly management, but even then its purely speculative.

Why can it not just come from Reid, and something so trivial be taken at his word? Don't see why he would be wrong or bend the truth about something so small when he was in the trenches himself getting the job. But hey mate maybe it was conspiracy...

Bryan wrote: This doesn't make any sense. After that alleged franchise-crushing loss to the Niners, the Packers would 'bottom out' at 8-8 then post 5 straight winning records with 4 straight 10+ win seasons. They wouldn't return to the playoffs for two 'more' years...OK? I'm guessing the departure of Mike Holmgren and Reggie White had more to do with the decline than the WC loss to the Niners. In subsequent years, Mariucci would post consecutive records of 4-12 and 6-10...and he still kept his job. So the idea is the Niners would fire Mariucci after a 12-4 season, but in reality they would keep Mariucci after a 4-12 season? The Niners had a bad year in 1999, but I would say that was more to do with Steve Young retiring due to concussions than the Niners winning the 1998 WC game. Is the implication that, had the Niners lost to GB, then Young wouldn't have gotten concussed in 1999?

Yup, and that clearly wasn't the same team, and the Packers teams that followed really were never as good as they were in the mid to late 90's. As for the 49ers, Steve getting hurt and the cap strapped squad nuked the franchise over the next two seasons also. The perception in 1998 though was that the 49ers were still a stacked squad that could get the job done, and Mariucci was replaceable, and if Holmgren is available then why not get him? A guy who had just been to 2 Super Bowls, and had already help win the 49ers two others as QB coach, and OC. That wasn't the case the next season when a bunch of other things happened like injuries, being salary shackled, there wasn't a Holmgren available, and whatever. There was also a change in ownership as I mentioned earlier which probably didn't hurt Mooch seeing as cutthroat Eddie could be. BTW, You can "OK???" as many times as you like. I'm sharing MY perspective on the the fallout. It's not my job to convince you to agree.

Bryan wrote:My statement was factual. It was just a wild card game with minimal historic significance. The Niners won an exciting game, got stomped by the Falcons the next week, and the NFL continued forward. The majority of prominent moments in NFL history did not take place during insignificant WC games.

I never argued that it wasn't a wild card game. That was the fact that isn't in question. How you perceive the ramifications or the fallout of that game or really any game in general is subjective. I'm not obligated to acquiesce to your perception of the events that followed. A reality you'll have to deal with sorry.

Bryan wrote:I guess you want to move the goalposts to a different galaxy....you start with the greatest play in NFL history, you incorrectly identify the year of The Drive, and then you end with a mention of Garrison Hearst. Who knew that NFL history had so many hallmarks?

"The Immaculate Reception was the greatest play in NFL History, but the Steelers got bounced the following week so....in my book it might not be that special." Like I said one can say that about anything regardless of the perceived significance of the play by the majority.

My goalposts are simply the playoffs for the most part, and sometimes outside it (OMG DID SOMEONE JUST MENTION GARRISON HEARST!!!??) and a great game or play can still be significant regardless of the immediate future of either team in the postseason. If it's replayed a ton of NFL Films and usually cited as one of the best games, with one of the best plays of all-time on various lists, I feel pretty comfortable with my attitude towards it, and it's place in NFL history. You feel different.

Oh yeah I got the year of The Drive wrong. Yup. Tragic. How does one recover from such an epic clapback? Oh the humanity...

Anyway, Merry Christmas bub. Had a good laugh, but that's enough lunacy for my blood. My regards for you leaving you at the altar, but it's the holidays. Hope you understand.

It was stupid for the Niners to replace Seifert after 1996. Maybe Eddie was tired of losing to a team other than Dallas in the postseason. Seifert deserved better. He probably would have never allowed T.O to be enough of a distraction to lose Rice soon after but Jerry's injury in 1997 affected his play and skills more than people probably realized at the time. He knew he needed another payday somewhere else with Owens, emerging ...

Ness wrote:"The Immaculate Reception was the greatest play in NFL History, but the Steelers got bounced the following week so....in my book it might not be that special." Like I said one can say that about anything regardless of the perceived significance of the play by the majority.

My goalposts are simply the playoffs for the most part, and sometimes outside it (OMG DID SOMEONE JUST MENTION GARRISON HEARST!!!??) and a great game or play can still be significant regardless of the immediate future of either team in the postseason. If it's replayed a ton of NFL Films and usually cited as one of the best games, with one of the best plays of all-time on various lists, I feel pretty comfortable with my attitude towards it, and it's place in NFL history. You feel different.

I guess we'll just have to wait until 1/3/2049 to see if we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of this game in the San Francisco International Airport next to the statue of Terrell Owens.

But perhaps I am underestimating the greatness of "Catch II". I guess we have different 'hallmark' standards....Merry Christmas regardless.

Jay Z wrote:Another knock on Young would be that his 49ers had three home playoff losses (1992 NFC Champ, 1995 Divisional, 1997 NFC Champ) without any road victories.

No road playoff victories for Young is something I never thought of before! Correct and forgive if wrong but that makes he, Namath, Theismann, McMahon, and Mahomes as the only SB-winning QBs with such a "claim".

Young, however, is the only one of them to have ever had an opportunity with those two playoff roadies - one at Big D for the '93 NFCC, and the other being the '98 divisional in Atlanta. The former is obviously very understandable. The latter? Though Atlanta weren't a paper-tiger, just a "one-year-wonder", it should still be seen as very winnable considering Young & Co's obvious experience as a contender the years leading up. Still, just two opportunities. No insane crime.

Broadway Joe's only two non-SBIII playoff games were each at Shea. The other Joe never played on the road in his three post-seasons. And as for Theismann's last-ever playoff game, at home vs da Bears in '84, it was Steve Fuller as the opposing QB and not McMahon! So no road playoff opportunities for Jim either.

Patrick? Simply a testament to how outstanding a regular season team KC has been the last five years for there to be no road playoff game yet! He could have played in Atlanta tomorrow, but 'neutral-site' and road games are two different things.


Super Bowl V? Well, "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and the 1968 NFLCG were both on the road - Bronx and Cleveland respectively - so that covers both U and Earl.

EDIT - mistake, Unitas won at Cleveland in '71

Young also started but couldnt finish the divisional playoff game in GB in 1996/97 that Grbac finished and lost ...

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Super Bowl V? Well, "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and the 1968 NFLCG were both on the road - Bronx and Cleveland respectively - so that covers both U and Earl.

EDIT - mistake, Unitas won at Cleveland in '71

I don't like attributing wins to quarterbacks, but I think Unitas also won kind of an obscure road playoff game against one of the New York teams back in the late '50s ...

Bob Gill wrote:

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Super Bowl V? Well, "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and the 1968 NFLCG were both on the road - Bronx and Cleveland respectively - so that covers both U and Earl.

EDIT - mistake, Unitas won at Cleveland in '71

I don't like attributing wins to quarterbacks, but I think Unitas also won kind of an obscure road playoff game against one of the New York teams back in the late '50s ...

Yes, that was already mentioned as quoted. What I should have said was that Unitas also won at Cleveland in '71 (that makes two). And if you count Earl for also being the winning-QB of SBV due to playing half the game, then you look to '68 at Cleveland.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Yes, that was already mentioned as quoted. What I should have said was that Unitas also won at Cleveland in '71 (that makes two). And if you count Earl for also being the winning-QB of SBV due to playing half the game, then you look to '68 at Cleveland.

You're right, it WAS mentioned -- and in the specific part I quoted, too! I must need reading glasses.

Bob Gill wrote:

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Yes, that was already mentioned as quoted. What I should have said was that Unitas also won at Cleveland in '71 (that makes two). And if you count Earl for also being the winning-QB of SBV due to playing half the game, then you look to '68 at Cleveland.

You're right, it WAS mentioned -- and in the specific part I quoted, too! I must need reading glasses.

It's all good.

Assuming that I didn't leave anyone out by mistake, I did think that Mark Rypien would have made the list; but then there was Wash winning at Minny the following year in the 1st-Rd. Bob Griese even came to mind, but then came Christmas Day, '71. For a moment I thought Drew Brees would have actually been on, but there was that win in Philly, '2013. Without looking further, I'm not sure if that's the only one or not. Nick Foles won the 'Double Doink' in '18...