The Catch II

[TobyTyler]

Note to moderators:

Bemular has become a full-fledged troll. The reason SportsHoopla is better than the old BSPN forum is because people like him were kept at bay. SportsHoopla is being crapped on by this guy's constant ad hominem nonsense. Why have you put up with him this long?

C'mon man. That's not the way to do things.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Nope! But hey, don't let me stop you from flinging your poo, eventually something will stick - most likely to your forehead but as long as it sticks to something right?

watters and deion. then eric davis the year after. plus losing stubblefield too.

 

[Flyingiguana]

How can a Notre Dame fan say this with a straight face?

Or are you e-laughing?

i'm being completely serious. as much of a montana fan as i was, i recognized steve young was gonna be better. unforetunately the team went downhill under poor cap management, but young was amazing.

 

[Bemular]

watters and deion. then eric davis the year after. plus losing stubblefield too.

Steve Young played on offense so I kind of kept my short list focused on notable offensive players. But you make a good point; Young needed all the help he could get to be successful.

As for the salary cap, you are going to continue to spew your garbage claiming the salary cap caused Young heartache and it simply did not. The cap investigation came in '99 - after Young retired - but you can believe what you want.

 

[SFAnthem]

C'mon now, you need to stop this bs Anthem. Look, the advantages of the WCO are still very much alive today and are responsible for more SB victories than any other offense.

I understand what you are saying but in the 90s more offenses adopted the WCO and as Walsh's tree branched out, it's familiarity contributed to opposing teams' ability to defend it.

Have you not heard who is rumored to be the next HC of the Bears? Can you say Jay Cutler is going to get the WCO -if true, Cutler will thrive in a WC style offense!

Simply running a WCO style offense doesn't equal success, there have been a lot of poorly executed versions of it. Forte seems like a good fit and Marshall catches everything. Accuracy is an absolute requirement though, and Cutler hasn't been a model of that thus far.


During the 90's and as the Walsh coaching tree began to grow branches the strategic advantage of the WCO strengthened it did not diminish. The 49ers remained one of the top offenses in the league as did the other WCO disciples.

Has the WCO gone through changes to stay ahead of the DC's? Of course. However the WCO will never entirely diminish because it is a philosophy not a strategy.



Couple facts here - Walsh demanded perfection and with that it may have seemed he was not sentimental but he was. That said, if you didn't perform you were not long for the 49ers of the 80's & 90's. However it should be noted that the two players you mention here played beyond Walsh's years.

I didn't imply that Walsh was void of sentimentality, just that the 49er philosophy was exactly what you said, in different words. Performance on the field would dictate who plays.

As stand-alone statements I would agree but said in the context of a Steve vs. Joe discussion they understandably carry a comparative connation and there is no comparison.

Fair enough. I dont think Steve's hypothetical super bowls weren't intended to be considered on the same level as Joe. But I see your point on how it can be taken as such in a Joe vs Steve discussion

The '83 game was ridiculous. Craigs fumble however, saved us from our 1st SB loss as there was not way in hell Steve Young was ready to play on that stage - again, he was a back-up QB for a reason and one of those reasons was he could not handle pressure.

We'll never know. I was pretty young and felt that that niners team, coming off the 55-10 super bowl win, was unbeatable. That Bills team had a lot of talent and never got the credit for being as good as they were..

Injuries to Montana gave Young a few opportunities to take the starting role but each time he found new and creative ways to combine the very good with the really shitty. When an injury to Montana forced Young into the starting role in '91, he didn't last half the season before being replaced by Steve Bono.

Young was a mess of a QB when he arrived in '87 and remained a mess until 1992 and even then would have received twitter death threats for trying to kill Rice & Taylor - those who actually watched (or studied) "all" of his passes in '91 & '92 will know what I'm talking about.

Once Young settled in he became one of the better regular season QB's to every play, but he will always be a playoff level bed-shitter, and all the excuses in the world will not change that.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you here. The 94 team needed to be loaded at almost every position in order to take out the Cowboys and they needed those early turnovers to hold em off.

Young was scrambling QB whose accuracy didn't come until later in is career. The contrast of styles definitely hurt Young initially, there was a lot of debate at the time on how to treat his penchant for taking off instead of checking down. 94 was when he finally began to evolve into a pocket passer.

 

[Bemular]

C'mon now, you need to stop this bs Anthem. Look, the advantages of the WCO are still very much alive today and are responsible for more SB victories than any other offense.

I understand what you are saying but in the 90s more offenses adopted the WCO and as Walsh's tree branched out, it's familiarity contributed to opposing teams' ability to defend it.

Have you not heard who is rumored to be the next HC of the Bears? Can you say Jay Cutler is going to get the WCO -if true, Cutler will thrive in a WC style offense!

Simply running a WCO style offense doesn't equal success, there have been a lot of poorly executed versions of it. Forte seems like a good fit and Marshall catches everything. Accuracy is an absolute requirement though, and Cutler hasn't been a model of that thus far.


During the 90's and as the Walsh coaching tree began to grow branches the strategic advantage of the WCO strengthened it did not diminish. The 49ers remained one of the top offenses in the league as did the other WCO disciples.

Has the WCO gone through changes to stay ahead of the DC's? Of course. However the WCO will never entirely diminish because it is a philosophy not a strategy.



Couple facts here - Walsh demanded perfection and with that it may have seemed he was not sentimental but he was. That said, if you didn't perform you were not long for the 49ers of the 80's & 90's. However it should be noted that the two players you mention here played beyond Walsh's years.

I didn't imply that Walsh was void of sentimentality, just that the 49er philosophy was exactly what you said, in different words. Performance on the field would dictate who plays.

As stand-alone statements I would agree but said in the context of a Steve vs. Joe discussion they understandably carry a comparative connation and there is no comparison.

Fair enough. I dont think Steve's hypothetical super bowls weren't intended to be considered on the same level as Joe. But I see your point on how it can be taken as such in a Joe vs Steve discussion

The '83 game was ridiculous. Craigs fumble however, saved us from our 1st SB loss as there was not way in hell Steve Young was ready to play on that stage - again, he was a back-up QB for a reason and one of those reasons was he could not handle pressure.

We'll never know. I was pretty young and felt that that niners team, coming off the 55-10 super bowl win, was unbeatable. That Bills team had a lot of talent and never got the credit for being as good as they were..

Injuries to Montana gave Young a few opportunities to take the starting role but each time he found new and creative ways to combine the very good with the really shitty. When an injury to Montana forced Young into the starting role in '91, he didn't last half the season before being replaced by Steve Bono.

Young was a mess of a QB when he arrived in '87 and remained a mess until 1992 and even then would have received twitter death threats for trying to kill Rice & Taylor - those who actually watched (or studied) "all" of his passes in '91 & '92 will know what I'm talking about.

Once Young settled in he became one of the better regular season QB's to every play, but he will always be a playoff level bed-shitter, and all the excuses in the world will not change that.

I agree with you here. The 94 team needed to be loaded at almost every position in order to take out the Cowboys and they needed those early turnovers to hold em off.

Young was scrambling QB whose accuracy didn't come until later in is career. The contrast of styles definitely hurt Young initially, there was a lot of debate at the time on how to treat his penchant for taking off instead of checking down. 94 was when he finally began to evolve into a pocket passer.

Great post! I think we're on the same page.

As to Cutler - I'm thinking that reeling Cutler in, shorting his passes and using his arm strength for timing and tight windows might prove to be just what Cutler needs. If the rumors of Trestman prove to be true and right now the media is all over the place on developments, then we'll be finding out in '13

 

[SFAnthem]

To those who believe Young suffered any "cap" issues you are simply dead wrong. Our cap issues didn't surface until after the 1999 season.

In fact, it was during the 1999 off-season that Steve consulted with Bill Walsh regarding his career. Walsh, in light of Young's concussions, advised Steve that the cap investigation would likely result in the loss of players and thus Steve retired.

The only Notable losses Young suffered since '92 were Watters (after the '94 season) & Rice (97 only) Hell, Young went from having Rice & Taylor to having Rice & Owens - hardly what I would call suffering

I'm not going to pretend to know about the nuances of the salary cap but I thought that even though the full impact was felt in 99 and beyond, the idea of all the deferred cap issues were reasons they couldn't hold onto their talent and prevented acquiring suitable free agent replacements from 95 and on.

They went for broke and 94 and paid for it after (well worth it to beat the Cowboys and get the fifth, IMO)

 

[SFAnthem]

Great post! I think we're on the same page.

As to Cutler - I'm thinking that reeling Cutler in, shorting his passes and using his arm strength for timing and tight windows might prove to be just what Cutler needs. If the rumors of Trestman prove to be true and right now the media is all over the place on developments, then we'll be finding out in '13

Whether we agree or not, it's good niner history discussion.

I've never read "the genius" yet but this topic convinced me to finally make time to and download it to kindle.

 

[gp956]

Young was a mess of a QB when he arrived in '87 and remained a mess until 1992 and even then would have received twitter death threats for trying to kill Rice & Taylor - those who actually watched (or studied) "all" of his passes in '91 & '92 will know what I'm talking about.

Once Young settled in he became one of the better regular season QB's to every play, but he will always be a playoff level bed-shitter, and all the excuses in the world will not change that.

So true. I also remember the niners all but abandoning the wheel route with Young at QB. He just couldn't hit the back on the run the way Montana could.

 

[Bemular]

I'm not going to pretend to know about the nuances of the salary cap but I thought that even though the full impact was felt in 99 and beyond, the idea of all the deferred cap issues were reasons they couldn't hold onto their talent and prevented acquiring suitable free agent replacements from 95 and on.

They went for broke and 94 and paid for it after (well worth it to beat the Cowboys and get the fifth, IMO)

Not at all. As you mentioned, we had a huge FA acquisition in '94 (+6); we were -4 in '95; +5 in '96; +1 in '97, -3 in '98 & + 5 in '99.

Through all of this so-called salary cap debacle we somehow managed to remain a flat nasty football team. In fact, between '92 & '98 we won more games and scored more points than every team in the league - including that other so-called dynasty, the Cowboys.

Truth is, WE were the dynasty during 92-98 - We just couldn't get it done in the post season.

 

[Bemular]

Whether we agree or not, it's good niner history discussion.

I've never read "the genius" yet but this topic convinced me to finally make time to and download it to kindle.

I think we agree more than disagree and there is nothing wrong with disagreeing - As for the book - Make it happen! GREAT read! Always good talking 49ers - historical or otherwise.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Steve Young played on offense so I kind of kept my short list focused on notable offensive players. But you make a good point; Young needed all the help he could get to be successful.

As for the salary cap, you are going to continue to spew your garbage claiming the salary cap caused Young heartache and it simply did not. The cap investigation came in '99 - after Young retired - but you can believe what you want.

no running game and no secondary was a problem.

 

[Flyingiguana]

Not at all. As you mentioned, we had a huge FA acquisition in '94 (+6); we were -4 in '95; +5 in '96; +1 in '97, -3 in '98 & + 5 in '99.

Through all of this so-called salary cap debacle we somehow managed to remain a flat nasty football team. In fact, between '92 & '98 we won more games and scored more points than every team in the league - including that other so-called dynasty, the Cowboys.

Truth is, WE were the dynasty during 92-98 - We just couldn't get it done in the post season.

ya we were an awesome team because of young. those free agent signings in 96 turned out to be a bunch of busts.

 

[Bemular]

ya we were an awesome team because of young. those free agent signings in 96 turned out to be a bunch of busts.