Two San Fran what-ifs (’88/’89, and early-’90s)

[7DnBrnc53]

Out of curiosity, other than Buffalo and Cincinnati, did anyone else really do a “no huddle” offense back then?

Honestly, I don't think so.

[Brian wolf]

Youre right, 74_75_78_79, the 49ers had an awesome defense and might have dominated even with Steve Young, but we all know that Joe was a surgeon-like passer who could demoralize an opponent while firing up his own team and defense. Was Young at that level yet? Not quite ... he still tended to take off and run, which could infuriate both Walsh and Holmgren but he was in full grasp of the offense by 1991; unfortunately, the team defense tailed off and Young had no room for error in the postseason, which Joe might have had.*

Like I speculated, Young might have won those early big games in the postseason, which could have given him his chance at numerous championships but it really was a while before he won a playoff game in dominating fashion, starting with the dismantling of the Giants in the 1993-94 postseason before having a tough game against the Cowboys in Texas Stadium. Once the team defense improved, then he had his chance to finally hoist the trophy but another hungry team, with his former offensive coach and a young up-and-coming QB --were just around the corner.

*Yes, Steve Young would go on to be a great QB, but when I watched he and Montana play in games back then--87-90--it seemed like the team was just off with Young at QB compared to Joe. The team had more a swagger but like you said, with superior coaching and defense, Young might have acclimated more quickly and gotten the same results.

[Brian wolf]

It would be fun to do a thread about teams with HOF QBs facing off against each other in championship games--conference, league and SBs--just to show how close certain QBs and teams get to one, or more championships.

Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers are great examples. They are both champions but have missed out on multiple championships, due to team and game circumstances. Young and the 49ers lost three championship games to Aikman and Favre, fellow HOFs, while Young also beat Aikman, preventing the Cowboys from a possible SB three-peat.

Rodgers like Young, won his only SB appearance, against Roethlisberger's Steelers but lost championship games to Wilson?, Ryan? and Brady*

*Wilson, Ryan ... HOF?

[CSKreager]

With the 88 49ers, my what-if is different:

They were two miracle plays (Hail Jerry, Young's crazy run) from 4-7

What if they lose those Giants/Vikings games? Even at 8-8/9-7, they'd have missed out entirely

How differently do the 88 playoffs play out with no SF?

[Brian wolf]

That Giants game is an example of why I feel Young would have been different leading the team in the playoffs compared to Montana. Young struggled and found out quickly that he needed more experience rather than just pure athleticism to help beat the Giants. As soon as Joe enters the game, the team responds and the Giants simply underestimated his arm strength, which was a perfect TD pass. Maybe the team responds to Young against Philly, Minn or the Bears and wins but with Montana they dominate.

That win over the Vikes was incredible as well, with the Niners somewhat, getting revenge for the playoff loss but I still feel that Walsh messed up by not letting Joe finish that game in Candlestick in the 87' playoffs. Joe knew that Walsh wouldnt hesitate to go to Steve in 1988.

Had the 49ers not gone to the playoffs, I believe the Vikings and Bears would have had a slugfest for the NFC championship. Could Anthony Carter or Jimmy Mac had been the difference?

[7DnBrnc53]

With the 88 49ers, my what-if is different:

They were two miracle plays (Hail Jerry, Young's crazy run) from 4-7

What if they lose those Giants/Vikings games? Even at 8-8/9-7, they'd have missed out entirely

How differently do the 88 playoffs play out with no SF?

if they lost those games, they would have been 8-7 going into week 16, with nothing to play for except being the spoiler. The week before, they hurt NO's season, and now they would have tried to knock the 9-6 Rams out of the playoffs, and get momentum going for 1989. I think they are successful, and they beat the Rams on a Mike Cofer FG with 30 seconds left, ending LA's season.

Since the Giants and Vikings beat SF, they win their respective divisions. 12-4 Minnesota is the 1-seed, 11-5 NY Giants the 2, and 10-6 New Orleans the three-seed, with the Eagles at Chicago for the Wild Card.

Since they are playing in a non-foggy environment, I think the Eagles beat the Bears, and go on to Minnesota, while the Giants host the Saints.

I like the Vikings and Giants at home, and I like the Vikings to beat the Giants. It would be their first SB berth in twelve years.

[SeahawkFever]

With the 88 49ers, my what-if is different:

They were two miracle plays (Hail Jerry, Young's crazy run) from 4-7

What if they lose those Giants/Vikings games? Even at 8-8/9-7, they'd have missed out entirely

How differently do the 88 playoffs play out with no SF?

if they lost those games, they would have been 8-7 going into week 16, with nothing to play for except being the spoiler. The week before, they hurt NO's season, and now they would have tried to knock the 9-6 Rams out of the playoffs, and get momentum going for 1989. I think they are successful, and they beat the Rams on a Mike Cofer FG with 30 seconds left, ending LA's season.

Since the Giants and Vikings beat SF, they win their respective divisions. 12-4 Minnesota is the 1-seed, 11-5 NY Giants the 2, and 10-6 New Orleans the three-seed, with the Eagles at Chicago for the Wild Card.

Since they are playing in a non-foggy environment, I think the Eagles beat the Bears, and go on to Minnesota, while the Giants host the Saints.

I like the Vikings and Giants at home, and I like the Vikings to beat the Giants. It would be their first SB berth in twelve years.

Who do you think wins the Super Bowl then: 1988 Vikings or Bengals?

Minnesota and Cincinnati on a side note show up as the best and fifth best teams that regular season by my score percentage stat.

San Francisco who won by contrast was sixth. Their worst finish in a season from 1983-1998.

[74_75_78_79_]

With the 88 49ers, my what-if is different:

They were two miracle plays (Hail Jerry, Young's crazy run) from 4-7

What if they lose those Giants/Vikings games? Even at 8-8/9-7, they'd have missed out entirely

How differently do the 88 playoffs play out with no SF?

if they lost those games, they would have been 8-7 going into week 16, with nothing to play for except being the spoiler. The week before, they hurt NO's season, and now they would have tried to knock the 9-6 Rams out of the playoffs, and get momentum going for 1989. I think they are successful, and they beat the Rams on a Mike Cofer FG with 30 seconds left, ending LA's season.

Since the Giants and Vikings beat SF, they win their respective divisions. 12-4 Minnesota is the 1-seed, 11-5 NY Giants the 2, and 10-6 New Orleans the three-seed, with the Eagles at Chicago for the Wild Card.

Since they are playing in a non-foggy environment, I think the Eagles beat the Bears, and go on to Minnesota, while the Giants host the Saints.

I like the Vikings and Giants at home, and I like the Vikings to beat the Giants. It would be their first SB berth in twelve years.

Who do you think wins the Super Bowl then: 1988 Vikings or Bengals?

Minnesota and Cincinnati on a side note show up as the best and fifth best teams that regular season by my score percentage stat.

San Francisco who won by contrast was sixth. Their worst finish in a season from 1983-1998.

An '88 post-season without San Fran...

As I said before, you should not be able to judge a hypo Bengals/Vikings SBXXIII by what happened the following year in that Monday Night finale. They were each different, and lesser, in '89 than the season before. Yes, the Bengals pass-D was their weakness in '88, and Minny sure had the passing game especially with Anthony Carter. But I'm thinking if that Bengals D held up San Fran the way they did (yes, Cincy via Wyche were familiar/matched up well vs the WCO), they should have done even better vs Minny, And LeBeau was an even better DC than Floyd Peters; he would have made crucial-enough things happen. And Cincy did have the much better run-game! I give Cincy the edge!

I do feel that the Bears beat Philly even without the Fog. Ditka always beat Buddy Ryan head-to-head anyway. But maybe I'm wrong. And if I am wrong, then you got to place Philly as having even-odds in getting out the NFC. To me, that would have been the only time they could have done it. First year in, they're real young and dangerous and cocky, don't know nor wanna know that they're not supposed to do any damage, teams aren't as ready for them, don't have that '89 off-season to study them better and prepare for them, etc. And the Forty Niners not being there would make it quite easier! And they gave Cincy a good game early on! They gave the Vikings a good game early on as well - both games within that 3-game September skid before the winning started.

Eagles/Giants in a PLAYOFF game during this immediate time?? The Birds SO had their # at the moment! But for post-season stakes makes it interesting! '88 would be Philly's better chance given what I said last paragraph. But 1990 the lesser chance in that NYG did beat them finally in that Sunday Night opener! If G-men could do it then, then all money would be on Parcells if they played in a '90 playoff!


I can't help but to think that the main 'fuel'/momentum-boost/re-shot-in-the-arm that made the 1989 Forty NIners campaign indeed what it was is they actually winning that very Super Bowl the year before! Especially the way they rallied all the way from uncertain 6-5! Had San Fran NOT made the playoffs in '88, and Walsh gets fired which would have happened, I'm thinking more likely than not that winning-it-all in '89 does not happen in Seifert's first year by the Bay as HC.

Yes, I've opined before that there is a chance that the shift-in-gears from Walsh to Seifert (if however seemingly very unnecessary it would be; no, you WANT to keep Walsh in-charge) may have very well (again, with the addition of Matt Millen) been the reason why that '89 campaign was as special as it was (you know, like BIlly Martin to Bob Lemon, mid-'78; or, regular season wise, Parcells to Wade Phillips, 2007). But I think in order for Seifert to provide that..."breath of fresh air" (again, if however very seemingly unnecessary), I'd think they would have had to win that Vince the year before for all the cylinders to already be running, wheels spinning so very fast into the following campaign. Otherwise, gloom, another failure thus uncertainty going into '89.

But you never know! Had San Fran not made the playoffs in '88, Walsh gets fired, George takes over in '89 and wins-it-all as they actually did - then Seifert is Don McCafferty, plain and simple! SF the best record in '87 but suffers a huge post-season upset as '68 Colts did (of course Balt on the Biggest Stage), then in '88 they miss playoffs as '69 Colts did - Legends Shula and Walsh get fired - and then Don and George get hired and win-it-all in '70 and '89 respectively...

[Brian wolf]

I will agree, had the 49ers not made the playoffs in 1988, Walsh might have been fired, and not co-written two influential football books. Then again, maybe he still would have, questioning his possible handling of the "quarterback controversy" starting with his benching of Joe Montana during the 1987/88 playoffs.

Though he would have still made the HOF, people would have questioned the franchise for cutting him loose despite success, but the team did the exact same thing with successor, George Seifert in 1998. Had Walsh and the team blown those games against NY and Minn and he gotten fired, would Seifert had still gotten the job? Or does DeBartolo go in a different direction? Had the 49ers missed the playoffs, would Walsh still had kept his job and went into 1989? With a bad season, I am not sure he would have wanted to come back ...

Then there are the QBs--had the team missed the playoffs, would Young get the job over Montana, or a competition for a possible new head coach? Walsh himself might have chose Steve over Joe but the questions are moot. Montana got stronger, helped beat the Redskins and Saints and got his chance to face the Vikings again. Walsh watched as his team rose to the challenge of winning his third SB, before retiring and giving way to Seifert, who had the team on a mission in 1989.

[74_75_78_79_]

I will agree, had the 49ers not made the playoffs in 1988, Walsh might have been fired, and not co-written two influential football books. Then again, maybe he still would have, questioning his possible handling of the "quarterback controversy" starting with his benching of Joe Montana during the 1987/88 playoffs.

Though he would have still made the HOF, people would have questioned the franchise for cutting him loose despite success, but the team did the exact same thing with successor, George Seifert in 1998. Had Walsh and the team blown those games against NY and Minn and he gotten fired, would Seifert had still gotten the job? Or does DeBartolo go in a different direction? Had the 49ers missed the playoffs, would Walsh still had kept his job and went into 1989? With a bad season, I am not sure he would have wanted to come back ...

Then there are the QBs--had the team missed the playoffs, would Young get the job over Montana, or a competition for a possible new head coach? Walsh himself might have chose Steve over Joe but the questions are moot. Montana got stronger, helped beat the Redskins and Saints and got his chance to face the Vikings again. Walsh watched as his team rose to the challenge of winning his third SB, before retiring and giving way to Seifert, who had the team on a mission in 1989.

Interesting take, Wolf! Yes, maybe Seifert doesn't get the job had Walsh gotten fired. Perhaps Eddie hires a totally different HC from the outside who would be allowed to pick his very own staff. Another question, though, DOES Walsh still make Canton if he gets fired after '88 and never comes back, hence not win that third SB that would be quite vital? But, yes, if Flores got in - and one-title HCs gotten in as well - I'd guess Walsh gets in, but perhaps at a much later time.

Bill, I think, really had to get through that turbulent '88 campaign that would end with he being 'King of the Mountain' to clinch that arguable-All-Time-Great legendary status thus make those books he wrote more of a go-to among aspiring coaches who want to be the best that they can possibly be. And though he was not onboard for '89, that very season he does get added Legendary 'points' for. If they don't make playoffs in '88, and they don't win-it-all in '89 the year after he gets fired, it'd be a longer steeper path to make Canton as well as his forever 'status' being quite beneath 'All-Time-Great'.

And if San Fran wins-it-all in '89 with the new HC (Seifert or not) after Walsh not making playoffs and getting fired in '88, he most likely doesn't get the 'credit' for that. Yes, Bill NEEDED 1988 to be exactly what it ended up being in real-time for his Legend to be what it is (and, again, for he to get 'credit' for '89, essentially being 'treated' like a four-time SB-winner)!


What's your take on a Bengals/BEARS SBXXIII? McMahon vs Boomer? Chicago would have a chance to pull it off. And if they would, that Championship campaign would forever be seen as the ugly little brother of '85; practically forever ignored in that city, always overshadowed. Three years removed, no #34, no Buddy Ryan, etc; simply not as nostalgically exciting. Two Lombardis in the Ditka Era better than just one, but I guess that's how Chicagoans would forever see it. Like a lesser sequel to a Classic.