Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
So by that logic, any team in NFL history that lost a game during the season is more or less on par with everybody else, for the single fact they lost to someone? That's a bit of a stretch if you ask me. My argument is that the 49ers are a significantly better team, and the way the game went based on the play by play I saw, it was not indicative of how the 49ers of that season would have gone about doing business. 24 of 25 games would be wins, and more than likely by multiple touchdowns. They lost that game by more points than they lost any game the entire '89 season, and it wasn't even really close. The offense was completely ineffective the entire game. Nah, I'll stick to my original stance.
|
Not on par. Travis and I both agree that your 49ers are a better team and would win more often than not. But 24 out of 25 is absolutely absurd. They lost 1 in 8 games during the regular season to teams not as good as that Seattle team. Your conjecture is that their only loss to the '05 Seahawks would be a complete fluke. Evidence shows that the '89 Niners can be beaten and were beaten more often than you contend.
That game showed just how that '89 team could be beaten, much like how any great team gets beat -- ball control and avoiding mistakes. That offense was one of the best all time; the defense was great in context of the season but hardly historically so.
You do also realize that the '05 Seattle head coach knew the '89 49er offense as well or better than anybody on that team?