Don't know who Dan Marino was? THIS is who he was.

royalshank

Not a Game-Changer
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
13,821
Reaction score
8,046
Location
New Jersey
Perhaps it's me who did not recall which season those two NFC teams played. My apologies.

I saw those Bill Walsh 49'ers teams--an outgrowth of Paul Brown's direct edict to Bill Walsh to redesign the offense to accommodate the Bengals' QB (Ken Anderson) who could no longer throw deep. I lived through his realization that there was a very exploitable window for obtaining players with more mobile and less powerful/stout athletic profiles at a great discount. I vividly remember how they utilized spacing so very differently than the rest of the league. I saw that plan hatch, grow, and blossom. Bill Walsh is rightly chided for calling himself a genius ... but he was right. The system he invented, tweaked, and masterminded was truly revolutionary. The concepts of spacing, running horizontally far more than vertically, and avoiding moving the DL's or blocking the LB's was truly ground-breaking. The only revolutionary part of the Bears was the entire overload blitz schemes that became a staple of every defense.

There was a lot more to figure out with the Walsh offensive system than there was for the Buddy Ryan defensive system--but both teams greatness is necessarily predicated on those coaching tactical innovations. To attack the Bears defense, you needed certain qualities, but mainly a different tactical approach, such as more pass protecting RB's, a QB capable of getting the ball out of his hands quickly, and WR's who could read defenses to stay in sync with their QB's. To defend the 49'ers offense you needed physical qualities that were not generally present in the players of that day--30 lb's less muscle and far more speed, great change of direction/lateral quickness, LB's who could see and ride out cut blocks rather than stack and shed power blockers, DL who were mobile rather than powerful, DB's who understood the horizontal routes and could tackle immediately before allowing any YAC. A front 7 who were versatile enough to hide their blitzes because everyone was capable of shooting a gap or executing a stunt/twist to become a pass rusher. Then, once you had those fundamentally different personnel--who would be exploited for lack of power by every other team in the league--you had to teach them an entirely different style of play.

It took the NFL many years to catch up. When it did, you saw teams with old-school coaches like the Harbaughs in Baltimore and San Fran build an offense based on the old power and fullback principles and no team in the NFL had the personnel to match up against them, because they had shifted their roster to defend the Walsh principles.

And while it was harder to defend the Walsh west coast offense system ... in time, it could be done. Just like a team could attack the Ryan overload blitz schemes. It's hard to say who is better from a snapshot, but that is one valid way to look at it. Another might be to try to remove the innovation of those systems and look at the players who executed it, and ask which was greater once the league had figured it out and adapted. That's where I'm coming from I guess ... trying to remove the novelty/gimmic of these innovations and evaluating the team (coaching and players) who executed those innovative systems.

Hope that lends some clarity to my perspective. I see your very valid approach of simply looking at the snapshot--much more clear cut--and respect that view as well. I guess when I'm considering what I see as the greatest of all time in an Undefeated Season, I tend to take a different perspective when I consider which team was closest to going undefeated. Losing in week 1 takes you out of consideration, and not winning the Super Bowl eliminates you from even the discussion IMHO. I can see a greatest player not having a team achievement (e.g. Marino not having won a Super Bowl) because a team is greater than one player. But I can't give a team a top billing if they fail the most significant team achievement (e.g. the Patriots who didn't even win the Super Bowl).

For me, the innovation of the Bears, the overload blitz, was adjusted to by the league. The far more complex innovation of the 49'ers west coast offense took a lot longer to compensate and react to by the league because it fundamentally required different personnel. But, when the NFL did ... even that great 49'ers dynasty was over. Hope that clarifies things regarding my perspective.
Great post. I agree on the logic of not winning the SB and not being in the consideration set. When NE played the Giants on Monday night at the end of the season, Greg Gumbel posed the question to Collinsworth as to where this NE team would rank if it went 16-0 and didn’t win the SB. Collinsworth shared your POV - essentially said it doesn’t even register at all. Gumbel persisted, pressing Collinsworth who finally got fed up (it seemed) and said “if they don’t win the SB this cant be compared to what the ‘72 dolphins did”. It finally shut Gumbel up and made me smile.

Also, I’ve long stumped on this forum for the ‘84 9ers being better than the ‘84 bears for the simple fact that they were a much more balanced team than Chicago and only lost 1 game by 3 points - in OT - to the AFC runner up Steelers while Chicago was ball gagged and ridden all over the field by half time like a rented mule by Dan Marino and the rest of the Miami team. I think one reason the 69ers don’t get the same respect is that they lost earlier in the season. But that ‘84 team was virtually unbeatable.
 

EJay

Scout Team
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,584
Reaction score
1,459
Also, I’ve long stumped on this forum for the ‘84 9ers being better than the ‘84 bears for the simple fact that they were a much more balanced team than Chicago and only lost 1 game by 3 points - in OT - to the AFC runner up Steelers while Chicago was ball gagged and ridden all over the field by half time like a rented mule by Dan Marino and the rest of the Miami team. I think one reason the 69ers don’t get the same respect is that they lost earlier in the season. But that ‘84 team was virtually unbeatable.
Totally agree on all points.

I grew up and still reside in 49ers territory. NorCal. I hate that team and it’s fans with a passion. Because I couldn’t watch many Dolphins games growing up, the Raiders were essentially the NorCal team I followed because, unlike the 49ers at that time, their games weren’t blacked out and they were relevant. When the 49ers started to rise, I was already conditioned to hate them. Once the Raiders moved to LA in 1982, they went from my #2 team to a hated franchise too — except for the great Marcus Allen!

So, considering my hatred of SF, it pains me to admit how great that 1984 team was. I still believe if a series was played instead of just one game, the Dolphins offense excels in most of the games and the games are close and competitive but I digress....

Anyway, that 1984 49ers team was among the greatest of all time. I’d say top 3 of the Super Bowl era. And contrary to what many Niners fans believe, better than their 1994 team.

Circling back to the 1985 Bears, the same roster minus just a couple players (William Perry, I believe) lost to that 1984 49ers team 23-0 in the NFC title game, but went on to go 18-1 and win the SB themselves the very next season.

And most of all, that Niners team beat our most dynamic Dolphins team of all time. And was able to muster an epic defensive performance against one of the most prolific QB’s and offenses of all time.
 
Last edited:

royalshank

Not a Game-Changer
Super Donator
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
13,821
Reaction score
8,046
Location
New Jersey
Totally agree on all points.

I grew up and still reside in 49ers territory. NorCal. I hate that team and it’s fans with a passion. Because I couldn’t watch many Dolphins games growing up, the Raiders were essentially the NorCal team I followed because, unlike the 49ers at that time, their games weren’t blacked out and they were relevant. When the 49ers started to rise, I was already conditioned to hate them. Once the Raiders moved to LA in 1982, they went from my #2 team to a hated franchise too — except for the great Marcus Allen!

So, considering my hatred of SF, it pains me to admit how great that 1984 team was. I still believe if a series was played instead of just one game, the Dolphins offense excels in most of the games and the games are close and competitive but I digress....

Anyway, that 1984 49ers team was among the greatest of all time. I’d say top 3 pf the Super Bowl era. And despite what many Niners fans believe, better than their 1994 team.

Circling back to the 1985 Bears, the same roster minus just a couple players (William Perry, I believe) lost to that 1984 49ers team 23-0 in the NFC title game, but went on to go 18-1 and win the SB themselves the very next season.

And most of all, that Niners team beat our most dynamic Dolphins team of all time. And was able to muster an epic defensive performance against one of the most prolific QB’s and offenses of all time.
Good stuff. The ‘94 Niners were good but not as good as the ‘84 or ‘89 was it - the one that beat Denver 55-10 in the SB and also went 15-1 (I think).
 

Digital

Starter
Finheaven VIP
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
9,541
Reaction score
9,116
Great post. I agree on the logic of not winning the SB and not being in the consideration set. When NE played the Giants on Monday night at the end of the season, Greg Gumbel posed the question to Collinsworth as to where this NE team would rank if it went 16-0 and didn’t win the SB. Collinsworth shared your POV - essentially said it doesn’t even register at all. Gumbel persisted, pressing Collinsworth who finally got fed up (it seemed) and said “if they don’t win the SB this cant be compared to what the ‘72 dolphins did”. It finally shut Gumbel up and made me smile.

Also, I’ve long stumped on this forum for the ‘84 9ers being better than the ‘84 bears for the simple fact that they were a much more balanced team than Chicago and only lost 1 game by 3 points - in OT - to the AFC runner up Steelers while Chicago was ball gagged and ridden all over the field by half time like a rented mule by Dan Marino and the rest of the Miami team. I think one reason the 69ers don’t get the same respect is that they lost earlier in the season. But that ‘84 team was virtually unbeatable.
Awesome brother. Thank you for adding that bit of perspective. I think almost every NFL player would share the same view. It's one thing to be a great player on a team that isn't the best. But to be the best team, you need to win the Championship. Only then can we compare which Champions are better. If you lost the Championship ... you're just another GOOD team, not a GREAT team. Hell, if we're taking victories out of it, the 1973 Dolphins team was probably better than both ... but they didn't go undefeated. They did win a Super Bowl, so they rank HIGHER on my chart than the choking Patriots team of Brady.
 
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Top Bottom