Can we look ahead to the Red 'n Gold elephant in the room?

[RolandDeschain]

Let's just say I'm not convinced you'd look at it that way had you beaten us the last two times we met.

 

[Popeyejones]

Let's just say I'm not convinced you'd look at it that way had you beaten us the last two times we met.

Yeah, if the 9ers had beaten the Seahawks five times in a row I'd be closer to saying that it was meaningful. The same would be true if the Hawks had beaten the 9ers five times in a row going into this upcoming game.

Honestly though, like most people I'm wrong about most things, but I was definitely a voice of dissent among 9ers fans who before the game at the CLink last year had convinced themselves that the 9ers would dominate and that Carroll "couldn't" beat Harbaugh. That was silly of them, just as it's silly in reverse.

 

[RolandDeschain]

There's no such thing as a coach that can't beat another coach in the NFL. There's too much parity in this league for that to ever be the case, and that's a good thing. I'm thankful for the salary cap system the NFL has and I hope it never goes away; screw the New York Yankees School of Buying Championships. (Though every dynasty in the history of the NFL except for the Patriots existed before the hard salary cap existed in the NFL, so you may not agree with my opinion... )

 

[Popeyejones]

:lol:

(9ers dynasty still existed through the first five years of the salary cap era I don't care what you say )

 

[IcedHawk]

My main point is if we beat SF down in SF, I think we could apply "dominance" to the results of our head-to-heads.

Perhaps, but then you'd be guilty of the exact same bluster that 9ers fans were guilty of when the 9ers beat the Hawks three times in a row. 9ers fans were certain of their dominance, and then watched their team got blown the frig out in the next matchup.

I mean, with two perfectly equal teams there is a 1 in 8 chance that the same team will win three times in a row. It's flipping heads three times in a row. That's far from crazy, and certainly not heads "dominating" tails. It wasn't when the 9ers beat the Hawks three times in a row, and it won't be if the Hawks beat the 9ers three times in row.

I think the main aspect is the manner in which we beat you. If we had squeaked out two games, no way I would be talking about dominance. But since the games weren't really close, I think it has greater meaning compared to when you guys beat us three times in a row. Now, granted this could be a result of you guys playing here twice, but if we go down and beat you guys like we have for the last couple of times, I think that "dominance" could be apt. Though, if we squeak out a game I would be less inclined to say dominance, and if we lose, we can just forget about this whole talk.

 

[RolandDeschain]

:lol:

(9ers dynasty still existed through the first five years of the salary cap era I don't care what you say )

So, you're saying that the 49ers dynasty started falling apart after the salary cap was implemented? Well, I'll be damned; I agree! :lol:

 

[Popeyejones]

:lol:

(9ers dynasty still existed through the first five years of the salary cap era I don't care what you say )

So, you're saying that the 49ers dynasty started falling apart after the salary cap was implemented? Well, I'll be damned; I agree! :lol:

Didn't we talk about this in another thread?

In any case, the 9ers dynasty didn't start falling apart after the salary cap was implemented; it kept on chugging along after the salary cap was implemented (a super bowl, 3 nfc championship games and playoffs every year for five years after the salary cap). The 9ers dynasty fell apart when John York took over the team.

The options are that:

A) there is a six year lag time for the effect of the salary cap.
B) a new owner who publicly announced that winning would take a backseat to profitability and then gutted the team had a swift and immediate effect on decreasing winning.


"A" doesn't make a lick of sense, as the salary cap, being a hard cap, should have had an immediate effect, particularly if a team was only winning because it had overspent on talent and "bought" championships, as you are implying. A six year lag time is totally preposterous when that's the claim.

"B", while clearly not only the only explanation, is a pretty obvious place to start before going from there.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Yes, we did, and you still pretend that the fact that the salary cap didn't exist when the 49ers dynasty team was built is irrelevant.

 

[Popeyejones]

Yes, we did, and you still pretend that the fact that the salary cap didn't exist when the 49ers dynasty team was built is irrelevant.

No I don't. You're just changing the claim you're making because your original claim doesn't work.

I have absolutely no idea what the 49ers salary was in comparison to other teams from 1981-1993. And let's be honest, you don't either.

Eddie Debartolo didn't have a reputation for being a profligate spender because of how much he paid players. He had a reputation for being a profligate spender (and attracting players) because of how much he pampered them. He was the original Mark Cuban: the first person to lease private jets for the team, the guy who poured money into the locker room and turned it from a sweaty concrete box into a luxury suite with carpeting and recliners, the guy who monogrammed all the towels and served steak and lobster for team dinners, etc. None of that has anything to do with the salary cap.

Also worth saying that while there is no objective way to define what a "dynasty" is, I think this guys' is pretty reasonable, and it's also illuminating (not about the 9ers, just about dynasties more generally and possibly false assumptions about the salary cap):

See Statement #3:

http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/109116

 

[DrDix]

The 49ers have been playing extremely well, no doubt. Does that make me fear them? Not at all. This is a different team when they lineup against the red and gold. Completely different. The intensity is so much higher than any other game. Not only that, the Seahawks are built to beat the 9ers. They match-up extremely well against them.

 

[Seeker]

We've won 4 straight and are about to get some talent infusion of our own.

 

[Dick Johnson]

Ironically, with no free agency in the eighties, teams had to rely on the draft and player development to build dynasties. Whereas teams within the salary cap and free agency area, are free to sign any number of players to any size contract, as long as they can creatively fit within the confines of the cap. In other words, teams can now "buy" a championship, and persue a strategy of high roster turnover. Coincidently, teams such as Denver and Seattle have employed this strategy towards a high level of success.

 

[NavySeaHawk]

Maybe the 49ers make a game of it, if they don't pyche themselves out before the game is played. They play the Seahawks like they are inferior...or maybe they just are 2nd best these days. I used to think both ball clubs were equal, maybe not anymore. :icon_new: :domotwak: :49ersmall:

 

[RichNhansom]

Ironically, with no free agency in the eighties, teams had to rely on the draft and player development to build dynasties. Whereas teams within the salary cap and free agency area, are free to sign any number of players to any size contract, as long as they can creatively fit within the confines of the cap. In other words, teams can now "buy" a championship, and persue a strategy of high roster turnover. Coincidently, teams such as Denver and Seattle have employed this strategy towards a high level of success.

This is interesting. So players never became available and had the option to sign for other teams? I didn't know that. So essentially the NFL built in the salary cap so that it would be easier for teams to build dynasties? Hmm, that's an interesting take.

I'm curious, when did the Niners draft Steve Young again?

A little exert I took from an article about FA:

The dynasties of old started to crumble during the '90s, and the NFL draft took center stage as a make-or-break moment in each team's future. NFL coaches were tasked with recruiting players just like their peers at the college level.

I'm not sure where your getting your information but it used to be the rich teams (like the Yankees in baseball) could buy players away from other teams. A select number of players were put under a plan B (older style of FA) that essentially was a transition tag meaning the home team had the opportunity to match the offer but just like the contracts the Yankees hand out, most teams could not afford to keep up with the big market teams and the top level players were the ones being lost to franchises who were willing to spend the big money.

Maybe I missed your point but from the way you described it the reality is about the opposite of your description.

 

[Dick Johnson]

Plan B free agency didn't come out until the nineties. Most players who changed teams before that period, were moved with heavy compensation as a requirement, I.E. the Hershel Walker trade. To discredit the Fortyniner teams of the eighties, and compare them to the Yankees is foolhearty. Debartolo was known to treat his players with first class amenities, yet the niners, as a team, were famous for cutting players who were we to get that huge payday. While it may be more difficult now to maintain a dynasty, it is much easier to build one quickly, due to free agency. I believe dynasties in football have everything to do with ownerships ability to identify and maintain solid leadership; New England, Pittsburg, Green Bay, and Baltimore, vs terrible owners, who breed dysfunction; Oakland, Cleveland, San Diego, and Tampa bay.

 

[5_Golden_Rings]

To be honest I have not been very impressed with the 49ers the last few weeks. These wins have ended as blowouts, but what has been going on is that key plays were being made, and then after a couple of scores are obtained the flood gates have been opened as the opposition has lost their cool. The 49ers have not been dominant. They just been consistently solid, and the other teams have choked away their chances. We'll see over the next few games.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Well, 5 Golden Rings, tomorrow's game for you guys should be a hard-fought battle regardless of who wins. That Panthers defense is very good.

 

[Throwdown]

To be honest I have not been very impressed with the 49ers the last few weeks. These wins have ended as blowouts, but what has been going on is that key plays were being made, and then after a couple of scores are obtained the flood gates have been opened as the opposition has lost their cool. The 49ers have not been dominant. They just been consistently solid, and the other teams have choked away their chances. We'll see over the next few games.

I dunno I call that impressive, when you can beat a team into doing stupid stuff, or into giving up (58-0 Cards game, and week 2 last season vs Dallas this happened as well)

 

[JSeahawks]

Elephant? More like a mouse.

 

[Barakas]

The elephant just got poached!!!