My point isn't to pick one, but rather, that it's entirely possible that that could have happened. Which is why just posting one WRs numbers doesn't tell the story at all. I remember him joining the 9ers late and that teams didn't go his way much. That's about it. Love to see an actual breakdown between the two though.
I was talking about your Cowboys comment. There was no drop off from 1993 to 1994. They were 2nd in points in 93 and 94. 2nd in points allowed in 93 and 1st in 1994. They had a +6 turnover ratio in 1993 and a +7 in 1994. They were top 5 in rushing in 93 and 94 and top 10 in rushing defense in 1993 and 94. If the Jimmy Johnson / Jerry Jones was a distraction it didn't show up on the field.
I guess you didn't watch the games? That Dallas team was still incredibly talented but they had a buffoon running the show. Their coach, not a player, got an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in that NFC Title Game. That's really all we need to know. You can compare #s all you want, that Dallas team wasn't anywhere near as good as the previous ones and if jimmy stays that team is beating SF in 1994. The #s do get skewed b/c they had no other good teams in their div in 1994 when they had a challenger in 1993. In 1993 they played 6 playoff bound teams, in 1994 they played 4 playoff bound teams and let's not forget in 1993 they played the first 2 games of the year(both losses) w/o Emmitt. The '94 Cowboys weren't close to the '93 Cowboys.
The unsportsmanlike conduct had no impact on the outcome of the game. Nice try though. There was no dropoff despite injuries to Erik Williams and Emmitt Smith and the loss of Norv Turner. The loss of Jimmy Johnson is not the reason they lost to the 49ers. The 49ers deserve a lot more credit. They played 5 games against playoff teams winning 3 of them (1 loss was in the meaningless season finale aganst teh Vikings). They are considered to have one of the greatest offenses ever put together run by Mike Shanahan. In the NFC Championship the Cowboys turned the ball over 3 times and the 49ers scored 3 TDs off of them. That doesn't have anything to do with Barry Switzer especially considering they had a better turnover ratio in 1994 than they did in 1993. I'm not saying Switzer is equal to Jimmy Johnson in coaching ability, but the 1994 49ers were going to beat that Cowboys team no matter who was coaching. The 49ers were by far a superior team.
Wow! they played 5 whole games against playoff teams! what a brutal sched:lol: they also played in a division w/ ZERO other teams with winning records. If you think dallas 1994 was anywhere neat Dallas 1993 you are nuts. W/ JJ they easily beat SF like they had the 2 previous years. The 1993 Cowboys were so much better than the 1994 49ers it wsn't even close. If JJ returns Dallas beats SF.
Theat 1 less than teh 1993 team you were saying played 6 whole games. The 1994 Cowboys aren't beating the 1994 49ers no matter who is coaching them. The 1994 team was near the same as the 1993 team. Not as good but where was the dropoff? They weren't as effective running the football in 1994 but Emmitt was injured and Erik Williams was severly injured. But that's about it. That has nothing to do with Jimmy Johnson leaving. They also lost Tony Casillas and Ken Norton on defense. Prove to me how the 1994 Cowboys beat the 1994 49ers with JJ coaching? You have not provided anything to prove that they would have.
I agree w/ 2878 94 was the 9ers year. Both were great teams. Winner of that game won the Bowl. Dieon was a hired gun that year... signing a 1 yr deal
2 if take into account the meaningless final game. The 94 Cowboys easily beat the '94 Niners if JJ is still coaching. There's no way to prove this one either way. I just know how great those '92 and '93 Dallas teams were(MUCH better than SF '94) and if they continued on the same path they would have kept winning. They dominated SF w/ Jimmy, they didn't w/ the buffoon coach. They beat them twice in postseason and once in the regular season by an average of 12 pts(and the final scores weren't as close as the games). Jimmy leaves and Dallas loses to SF twice in 1994. If jimmy is coaching they most likely beat them in the reg season which would have meant SF going to dal in the title game. There's no way to prove this one either way but I have little doubt if jimmy stayed they would have beaten SF. It was too much of a coincidence that all of a sudden jimmy leaves and dallas becomes vulnerable.
So, how does JJ replace Erik Williams and Ken Norton? How does JJ being there not allow Troy Aikman to throw an INT or Michael Irvin or Kevin Williams not to fumble? Those three t/o's allow SF to get 21 of their 38 points in the first 5 minutes of the NFC Championship Game. You can't say if Jimmy is coaching they most likely beat reg season when they turned the ball over 3 times in SF. And you still don't acknowledge how dominant that 1994 49ers team was. They upgraded their LBs with Norton, Gary Plummer and Ricky Jackson and upgraded their secondary by adding Deion. What about the play of their rookies William Floyd, Bryant Young and Lee Woodall? They all were outstanding. How does JJ being there defeat a team that was as dominant as the 1994 49ers were??
If that team was so dominant how come they couldn't get to another SB? It's a different mindset w/ Jimmy vs. Switzer. Maybe-maybe not Aikman doesn't turn it over, maybe-maybe not they get Young to turn it over like usual? We don't know. This is not one of those argumetns that can be proven either way, from watching those teams I have little doubt dallas would have won. I think that '94 Niner team was incredibly overrated and they beat a lesser Dallas team along w/ a joke of a Chicago team and maybe the worst SB team of all time against San Diego.
I'm curious what you think is going to change that will suddenly make Deion a more deserving candidate. With the exception of Rison, every receiver on that list was not only the top receiver for the team that season, but the top receiver in that game. If your argument is that Sanders would either be asked to cover a #2 receiver or shift off to a lesser receiver during the game, it doesn't bode well for any comparison. Revis has limited receivers to much worse numbers, and consistently against the top receivers the NFL has to offer. As far as team defense is concerned, we can all see that Revis has made the unit as a whole stronger. Sanders wasn't playing for the top unit in the league in any category but INTs. In fact, they were 17th in yards allowed (3501), 3rd in TDs against (17). The Jets ranked first in both categories this season by a large margin (2459, 17). The 49ers actually had better yardage numbers (3197) and similar TD numbers (19) the season before with NO Deion! To add an extra opinion, I asked my brother in law about Revis last night. He played opposite Deion for 2 seasons during his career and consistently calls him the best he's ever seen. As a 12 year NFL vet at CB, he says he's never seen anyone have a better season than Revis. It's something we all knew, but it's an awfully educated opinion right there.
I'm curious as to why you'd think I'm trying to make a case for Sanders. I've never stated that either player had the better year or is the better CB. All I've said is that the stats used in the article don't give a gauge as to how he played. How can you give a fair assessment if you don't know or don't remember for sure who he lined up against or what he was asked to do? That's all.
I can compare the results by hypothetically assuming that he was asked to do what Revis did this season. If he wasn't, then there's absolutely no reason to compare. Nothing short of taking on a team's #1 receiver week in and week out can even measure up to Revis's accomplishments this season. So, either he took on that role and didn't measure up OR he wasn't deemed strong enough to do so. Either way, the comparison falls heavily in Darrelle's favor.
We're not talking about the 1995, 96, 97, 92 or 93 49ers or the 92 or 93 Cowboys. We are talking about the 1994 teams. The 1994 49ers team was absolutely not incredibly overrated. It was one of the best assembled teams of the 1990's. I notice you never addressed how JJ would have done losing Erik Williams or Ken Norton. And you never addressed the additions to that 1994 49ers team and their impact on the team. Jimmy Johnson never defeated a 49ers team that had William Floyd, Deion Sanders, Ken Norton, Gary Plummer, Ricky Jackson, Bryant Young and Lee Woodall on it. And just because the 1994 49ers played jokes of teams in the playoffs doesn't mean they are overrated. And if Jimmy Johnson is what made those Cowboys teams so good then why did they win the SB in 1995? And why didn't JJ win a SB with Miami?
If I was ranking teams of the 90s; 1. Dallas 1993 2. Dallas 1992 3. washington 1991 4. Denver 1998 5. SF 1994 6. SL 1999 7. GB 1996 8. Denver 1997 9. Dallas 1995 10. NYG 1990 Their D was good but alot of big names that were past their prime. The '95 squad won in spite of Switzer, '95 there weren't any other big teams Dallas had to go through. They won on talent, they had the talent in '94 but it was a transition year w/ a buffoon caoch.
The Cowboys did have talent in 1994. And I do think Jimmy Johnson is a much better coach than Switzer. But the 1994 49ers would have defeated the Cowboys no matter who their coach was. The 49ers D was good. But they only had two starters over 30.
