Were 10-6 49ers of '91 as good as record indicated?

[CSKreager]

We hear a lot about how the 1991 San Francisco 49ers were hot at the end of the year, how they were playing as well as any team in the NFL, that the Redskins might have caught a break because SF didn't make it.

Personally, I disagree.

I don't know if they were quite as great as some have made them out to be.

Yes, they beat the Lions/Bears/Saints/Chiefs/Eagles, but...... their other 5 wins were against less than stellar competition (Rams, Seahawks, Cardinals, Chargers).

The 6 game winning streak seemed to paper up the red flags this team had all year.

They were 3-5 on the road (after winning 18 straight away at one point).

They seemed to do most of their damage at home. They scored 27+ points in 7/8 games at Candlestick (248 of their 393 points), but only scored 24+ points in two road games.

It was almost like a hothouse flower- thrive in their normal habitat, but for whatever reason, they went from 18 straight road wins to not the same team (and go figure they were 7-1 on the road next year!)

Not to mention they had shaky special teams (ATL blocked a punt, they missed an extra point, and had a kick return for a score in one game, Mike Cofer missed 4 FG’s in another).

We all know about the Hail Mary against Atlanta, but I think the first game that year- SF's only home loss- was just as damaging. Not to mention the Vikings/Giants losses and scoring a combined 9 points at the Raiders/Saints. How do they score 9 points in two road games but can practically score 30 at home in their sleep? And this was a team usually great on the road but this year they somehow lost that road touch.

Their leading rusher- Keith Henderson- had under 600 yards! At times, their best running game was either short passing game or one of the Quarterback Steves.

When 75_75_78_79 did his 1991 NFL Power Rankings, he had them ranked #3 and almost put them ahead of Buffalo at #2.

I would have had them a fringe top 10 team because they had a lot of flaws that get overshadowed because of the lore of the 6-game run.

Partially, I think this was a one-dimensional team that in 1991 couldn't win on the road by their usual standards, couldn't run the ball, didn’t have the greatest special teams, basically had an offense that only played well at home...... and still many think they were one of the best teams to ever miss the playoffs.

I think this team had too many flaws to go deep into the playoffs had they got in.

Your thoughts?

[lastcat3]

A big reason why people assume that about the '91 49ers is because they went 14-2 the next season. And it is often largely true that whenever a team goes on a big winning streak one year and then has an excellent record the next that they were starting to morph into the team they would be the next season. We can probably say the same thing about the '91 Cowboys in that they were starting to morph into the team they would be in '92 during the latter half of the '91 season.

1991 was the first year they were trying to play without Montana so it would be understandable that they would have some early season struggles and then start playing better once they started getting use to their new quarterbacks (surprisingly most of their wins in that late season run came from Steve Bono and not Steve Young). In anycase Ricky Watters wasn't on the team yet in '91 so they didn't have nearly as good as running game (I think 1990 was Roger Craig's last season with the team) as they did in '92 so they probably wouldn't have been able to beat the Redskins in the playoffs. However I do think they would have given the Redskins a far better game in the playoffs than either the Falcons or Lions did.

[JuggernautJ]

My short answer is I don't think the '91 Niners were as good as previous years (with Joe Montana) nor as good as they would become under Steve Young in the very near future. However, I do feel they were probably better than your post indicates.

Regardless, I think it unlikely they would've beat the Redskins in the playoffs that year.
1991 was a year of destiny for Joe Gibbs and his team.

[lastcat3]

My short answer is I don't think the '91 Niners were as good as previous years (with Joe Montana) nor as good as they would become under Steve Young in the very near future. However, I do feel they were probably better than your post indicates.

Regardless, I think it unlikely they would've beat the Redskins in the playoffs that year.
1991 was a year of destiny for Joe Gibbs and his team.

The '91 Redskins didn't have the superstars like a lot of the super bowl champions of that era had but what they did have was numerous players having career years all at once. The '91 Redskins were more of a team of the right time and place than a team of destiny. They were playing in a year in which the 49ers were in transition and just before the Cowboys dynasty got rolling. Also when the Giants were beginning to decline.

[74_75_78_79_]

Maybe I shouldn't have flirted with actually placing them above #2 Buffalo on my regular-season Power Rankings (maybe I shouldn't have placed them above Houston either; maybe-maybe not), but they clearly, to me, by regular-season's end were 2nd-best in the NFC. Maybe not a nail-biter, but a respectable-enough showing in a hypo-playoff date in DC. A 10, maybe 13-point defeat, I guess it would have been.

Even in midst of that Atl-sweep hence slumber, they still mustered-up a combined 58-10 over Detroit and at Philly in back-to-back weeks; and that convincer at the Vet wasn't over Kemp, Goebel, nor Ryan mind you - but vs #9 himself! Not that bad at all of a team during that "slumber" of a 4-6 start. Each of those 6 defeats were close. And then they finish 6-0, highlights being 14-point victories each over playoff-bound Saints & Chiefs and, last-but-not-least, the exclamation point of a finale over a team that was playing for their division title - final score: San Fran 52, Chicago 14! Pretty impressive for a transitional year (yes, Bono winning half those games)! Arguably Seifert's best performance as a HC.

[CSKreager]

Maybe I shouldn't have flirted with actually placing them above #2 Buffalo on my regular-season Power Rankings (maybe I shouldn't have placed them above Houston either; maybe-maybe not), but they clearly, to me, by regular-season's end were 2nd-best in the NFC. Maybe not a nail-biter, but a respectable-enough showing in a hypo-playoff date in DC. A 10, maybe 13-point defeat, I guess it would have been.

Even in midst of that Atl-sweep hence slumber, they still mustered-up a combined 58-10 over Detroit and at Philly in back-to-back weeks; and that convincer at the Vet wasn't over Kemp, Goebel, nor Ryan mind you - but vs #9 himself! Not that bad at all of a team during that "slumber" of a 4-6 start. Each of those 6 defeats were close. And then they finish 6-0, highlights being 14-point victories each over playoff-bound Saints & Chiefs and, last-but-not-least, the exclamation point of a finale over a team that was playing for their division title - final score: San Fran 52, Chicago 14! Pretty impressive for a transitional year (yes, Bono winning half those games)! Arguably Seifert's best performance as a HC.

With no balance and a lack of a running game and basically a 'live by the pass, die by the pass' they would not have fared well in DC.

Outside of the Eagles win, the 49ers only looked great at home. At Candlestick, they looked elite. On the road, they looked like the Jets.

[7DnBrnc53]

I don't think the 49ers were as good as their record in 91, but that was true in several other 90's seasons as well, like 1990, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, and 98. Those teams have more flaws than people give them credit for because people were brainwashed by the 9er-loving media that their players were the "best ever".

For example, some in the media were trying to make their 97 D as good as the 85 Bears at the time. However, when you play against Craig Whelihan and Heath Shuler, you are gonna look way better than you are. However, the Packers exposed them in the NFC Title Game.

Also, the 92 team won several games they should (or could have) lost, like at home against the Rams (if TE Jim Price doesn't fumble with around five minutes left) and both games against the Saints. They fixed their running game issue with Watters, but their D started to get worse.

[CSKreager]

I don't think the 49ers were as good as their record in 91, but that was true in several other 90's seasons as well, like 1990, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, and 98. Those teams have more flaws than people give them credit for because people were brainwashed by the 9er-loving media that their players were the "best ever".

For example, some in the media were trying to make their 97 D as good as the 85 Bears at the time. However, when you play against Craig Whelihan and Heath Shuler, you are gonna look way better than you are. However, the Packers exposed them in the NFC Title Game.

Because Green Bay beating up on Scott Mitchell/Trent Dilfer was soooooooooo impressive. They lost to the goddamn Colts for pete's sake!

[SeahawkFever]

I don't think the 49ers were as good as their record in 91, but that was true in several other 90's seasons as well, like 1990, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, and 98. Those teams have more flaws than people give them credit for because people were brainwashed by the 9er-loving media that their players were the "best ever".

For example, some in the media were trying to make their 97 D as good as the 85 Bears at the time. However, when you play against Craig Whelihan and Heath Shuler, you are gonna look way better than you are. However, the Packers exposed them in the NFC Title Game.

Also, the 92 team won several games they should (or could have) lost, like at home against the Rams (if TE Jim Price doesn't fumble with around five minutes left) and both games against the Saints. They fixed their running game issue with Watters, but their D started to get worse.

Ah yes, the 90's Niners; an interesting team in my book.

I would agree that their defense benefited from playing some weaker opposing offenses, and Brett Favre definitely had their number from the looks of it. But they also went out and executed.

Their defense ranked (by points): 2nd in 1990, 4th in 1991, 3rd in 1992, 16th in 1993, 6th in 1994, 2nd in 1995, 4th in 1996, 3rd in 1997, and 13th in 1998.

Those rankings are certainly elevated by some weaker opponents at various points, but finishing top five six times in that span isn't exactly nothing either. A closer look will unveil a few games where they held top five offenses to 14 points or less (both 1990 matchups vs Washington, 1994's regular season game vs Dallas). There was also the playoff shutout of the ninth ranked Eagles in 1996's wild card round.

Comparing those defenses to the 85 Bears is certainly a stretch as none of them were the number one defense in their own season, but I'd say they were certainly a very good defense.

If you want to argue that those teams weren't as good as their records due to the easier opponents, I could see that, but they are still probably ranking top five in the decade at minimum.

This might be a weird way of looking at it, but an earlier comment on this thread mentioned the 1991 winning streak at season's end being a preview of the team they were about to become. Well if you want to go by that, the 90's Niners best stretch might have been the 1994 playoffs (ending in a Super Bowl title obviously), followed by the 1995 regular season right afterward.

I noticed that you didn't list that team above when you said the teams weren't as good as the records (95 was 11-5 for the record).

When I look at that team I see eight games where their opponents were held to 14 points or less (admittedly none better than against the 11th ranked Falcons), I see eight games where their offense scored at least 28 points (including three on top ten opposing defenses and 38 points against the third ranked Dallas defense in Dallas), and I see two losses (to New Orleans and Carolina) where Elvis Grbac started instead of Steve Young (I presume he was injured).

From a Seahawks fan, I think if Young didn't get hurt in 1995 that the Niners could possibly have repeated.

Assuming they win those two games and go 13-3, they'd be the one seed and get Philadelphia in round one instead of Green Bay who I might take them over. If Dallas still beats Green Bay in 1995 at home, then they'd have gone to San Francisco and if so I'd take San Fran over Dallas at home in 95, and over Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl.

Also, what I find interesting about the 95 team defensively is that they lost Deion Sanders, and they somehow played a better regular season without him, and their schedule in aggregate was harder in 1995 than 1994 at least according to pro football reference's simple rating system.

No knock on Deion at all, but I find that interesting. They went from having the 1994 defensive player of the year in Sanders to having two players who received votes for the award in 1995 in Merton Hanks and Ken Norton Jr.

94 Niners on a side note are the only team to have the MVP and defensive player of the year on the same team, and have them be two different players.

From a Seahawks fan, the 90's Niners may not be as good as their record on paper, but that's still a well above average team if you ask me.

[7DnBrnc53]

No knock on Deion at all, but I find that interesting. They went from having the 1994 defensive player of the year in Sanders to having two players who received votes for the award in 1995 in Merton Hanks and Ken Norton Jr.

Hanks and Norton weren't good players. They got votes because the media had a 49er bias back then.

As for 1995, I must have forgot to mention them. They weren't as good as their record indicated, either. Also, they only played one more game against a team with a winning record than the year before (seven in 95, six in 94). Not much difference as far as schedules go.

They may have repeated with Young, but there were no guarantees. They probably beat Philly, but I have a feeling that Dallas would have played a much better game in the rematch than they did in the regular season.