NFLN: 1983 NFCC Game (Skins vs Niners, POLL ATTACHED)

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Lastly those Niner teams (1981-1990) not only had the best coach, best QB, and best WR (for part of that run), they also had an extraordinarily good defense from 1981-1985, and from 1987-1994.

:slap:

Nothing that you can say or do could ever convince me that this is a true statement.

:saber:

[redskins55]

I group in the bay, so i had more reason to hate the niners and there fans more than anyone on the planet back in the day and I have to call b.s. on this. I agree that the niners division was a joke. No doubt, depending upon what year it was, generally only one other team in their division at any given time was ever worth a damn, and usually they were wild card arse kicking fodder for any NFC East foe or Chicago come playoff time if by some miracle they made the playoffs. That being said. Back in those days the niners set the record for most consecutive road wins, consistently won at home and on the road against NFC East foes as well as the bears too. Indeed, their trips to the playoffs back in those included many an NFC East scalp. They beat up the Cowboys, and the redskins, and the bears in the playoffs, and the only team they struggled against were the giants (as much because of injuries to Montana, as anything else). Lastly those Niner teams (1981-1990) not only had the best coach, best QB, and best WR (for part of that run), they also had an extraordinarily good defense from 1981-1985, and from 1987-1994. Their '81, '83, and '84 defenses were terrifying, and they were absolutely crushing in 1989 and 1990 in terms of defense, and if not for an injury to Montana, and a Roger Craig fumble when they were running out the clock they would have threepeated.

They get severely underrated by people because they and their bandwagon fans were annoying as hell, their coach was snarky and smart as hell, and they played in a crap division. Let there be no doubt though, that was if not the greatest team ever, damn close to it, particularly in 1984 (missed out on a perfect record by a flukey play/call in a 1 point loss), and 1989.

How can you call BS on that statement? It's true the 49ers played in the weakest division in the league duing the 80's. Now yea there were some very good 49er teams that deserved to win the superbowl, but you can't deny the fact that playing in a weak division enhances your chances of staying healthy,making the playoffs and gaining home field throughout the playoffs. These elements are crucial to the success of a team, just look at the 2008 Cardinals as a perfect example. They make it to the Superbowl after winning the NFC west @ (9-7) ,the worst division in the league. The same teams they beat in the playoffs they lost to during the regular season. During the regular season they got slautered by the eagles and whipped by the panthers, but because they were able to stay healthy and mount wins against sorry teams in their division, they got homefield against the eagles. If the cardinals wouldve been in the NFC East they would've been 4-12.

The 83' 49ers were only in the NFC Championshp game against the Redskins because Eddie Murray from the Detroit Lions missed the game winning 40yd field goal in the divisional round agianst them.The Lions had them beat!! If they wouldve been in the east playing philly, ny,dal, and the redskins twice a year they wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs that year. And like someone else pointed out, they wouldve been blown out in the NFC championship game anyway if Mosley would've hit the four field goals he missed. So let's remember that even though the 49ers beat alot of good teams head to head and won alot of superbowls in the 80's they had alot of help from their weak division and fortunate plays too. I'm sorry to tell you but even the 84' 49ers that went 15-1 wouldn't have had that record if they would've played the nfc east teams twice a year. They barely beat the Skins at CandleStick that year (37-31). So they were a good team but you exaggerate their greatness a bit.

[hail2skins]

1983 NFC East: Skins 14-2, Boys 12-4, Cards 8-7-1, Philly 5-11, NYG 3-12-1

1983 NFC West: 49ers 10-6, Rams 9-7, Saints 8-8, Falcons 7-9

Based on records, doesn't seem like the West was THAT weak.

Yes, we beat the Rams 51-7 in the playoffs, but those same Rams beat the Cowboys IN Dallas 24-17 the week before in the wild card round.

Finally, that 37-31 game you were referring to? At one point that game was 27-0 49ers.

Funny how we complain about the weaklings in the NFC West but yet we can't seem to beat the teams on their home turfs in the playoffs. Gibbs was 0-2 in the playoffs against the 49ers in SF in his first stint, and 0-2 against the Seahawks in Seattle in his second stint.

It helps to be objective.

[toolman28]

How can you call BS on that statement? It's true the 49ers played in the weakest division in the league duing the 80's. Now yea there were some very good 49er teams that deserved to win the superbowl, but you can't deny the fact that playing in a weak division enhances your chances of staying healthy,making the playoffs and gaining home field throughout the playoffs. These elements are crucial to the success of a team, just look at the 2008 Cardinals as a perfect example. They make it to the Superbowl after winning the NFC west @ (9-7) ,the worst division in the league. The same teams they beat in the playoffs they lost to during the regular season. During the regular season they got slautered by the eagles and whipped by the panthers, but because they were able to stay healthy and mount wins against sorry teams in their division, they got homefield against the eagles. If the cardinals wouldve been in the NFC East they would've been 4-12.

The 83' 49ers were only in the NFC Championshp game against the Redskins because Eddie Murray from the Detroit Lions missed the game winning 40yd field goal in the divisional round agianst them.The Lions had them beat!! If they wouldve been in the east playing philly, ny,dal, and the redskins twice a year they wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs that year. And like someone else pointed out, they wouldve been blown out in the NFC championship game anyway if Mosley would've hit the four field goals he missed. So let's remember that even though the 49ers beat alot of good teams head to head and won alot of superbowls in the 80's they had alot of help from their weak division and fortunate plays too. I'm sorry to tell you but even the 84' 49ers that went 15-1 wouldn't have had that record if they would've played the nfc east teams twice a year. They barely beat the Skins at CandleStick that year (37-31). So they were a good team but you exaggerate their greatness a bit.

The one thing I remember about the 37-31 '84 game is way Monk abused Lott, who was a CB then, that night.

[redskins55]

1983 NFC East: Skins 14-2, Boys 12-4, Cards 8-7-1, Philly 5-11, NYG 3-12-1

1983 NFC West: 49ers 10-6, Rams 9-7, Saints 8-8, Falcons 7-9

Based on records, doesn't seem like the West was THAT weak.

Yes, we beat the Rams 51-7 in the playoffs, but those same Rams beat the Cowboys IN Dallas 24-17 the week before in the wild card round.

Finally, that 37-31 game you were referring to? At one point that game was 27-0 49ers.

Funny how we complain about the weaklings in the NFC West but yet we can't seem to beat the teams on their home turfs in the playoffs. Gibbs was 0-2 in the playoffs against the 49ers in SF in his first stint, and 0-2 against the Seahawks in Seattle in his second stint.

It helps to be objective.

I'm a big fan of objectivity my friend, but come on !! I dont see how that argument proves anything. Just because the 83' NFC West was comparably decent doesn't mean anything ..SF still lost to the Skins. In 84' when SF was the top dog they had better teams but the NFC West still wasn't as good as the NFC East. The NFC East teams outside of the Skins had a higher winning percentage than the NFC West teams outside of the 49ers. But this is a mute point anyway because everyone knows the NFC East was truly the best division in football throughout the 80's anyway.

The 84' MNF game was SF biggest game of the season. Bill Walsh even admitted this. They came out obviously very emotional but the skins battled back from halftime to make it a 6 point game in the end. Does this prove that the 49ers wouldve gone 15-1 if they were in the NFC East? NO!

Your point about the skins not beating the niners on their home field is rediculous because the niners never beat the skins at RFK in the playoffs either! And the reason Gibbs was 0-2 @ SF is because SF always had home field advantage by winning their WEAK division. THe one time they played in Washington Gibbs won.

Finally, let me share something with you about the GREAT 49ers the so called team of the 80's. The niners went 3-6 in 82', and 3-4 against the NFC East in the playoffs during those SB runs. So if they had to play the east teams twice a year to get to the playoffs chances show it wouldve been difficult.

[The Consigliere]

:slap:

Nothing that you can say or do could ever convince me that this is a true statement.

:saber:

Nothing I could ever say or do, makes me want to believe it. I took mountains of merde, everyday of my life at school dealing with niner fans growing up in San Mateo. It was absolute freaking torture, and the fact that the Niners beat the redskins every single time they played them, every single year of my educational life save for this title game, and the 1986 monday nighter made life excruciating, and my niner fan friends never forgot to remind me.

However, it is what it is, as tired as it is to say that, dude was the best OC of the decade, best game planner, best tactician, best coaching tree, a natural leader in a new and unusual way, and he was as responsible for Montana and Young being HOF's as anyone (nobody thought anything of Montana when he was drafted, and Young was seen as a total washout when the niners traded for him in '86) though the players were obviously just as responsible. And of course there's his drafting, which was easily the best drafting of the decade, despite consistently drafting near the bottoms of the rounds. He was the best in the eighties, there is no doubt of it in my mind, and is on coaching's mount rushmore of the Super Bowl era along with Gibbs and Lombardi, and I suppose Noll and Landry.

[The Consigliere]

How can you call BS on that statement? It's true the 49ers played in the weakest division in the league duing the 80's. Now yea there were some very good 49er teams that deserved to win the superbowl, but you can't deny the fact that playing in a weak division enhances your chances of staying healthy,making the playoffs and gaining home field throughout the playoffs. These elements are crucial to the success of a team, just look at the 2008 Cardinals as a perfect example. They make it to the Superbowl after winning the NFC west @ (9-7) ,the worst division in the league. The same teams they beat in the playoffs they lost to during the regular season. During the regular season they got slautered by the eagles and whipped by the panthers, but because they were able to stay healthy and mount wins against sorry teams in their division, they got homefield against the eagles. If the cardinals wouldve been in the NFC East they would've been 4-12.

The 83' 49ers were only in the NFC Championshp game against the Redskins because Eddie Murray from the Detroit Lions missed the game winning 40yd field goal in the divisional round agianst them.The Lions had them beat!! If they wouldve been in the east playing philly, ny,dal, and the redskins twice a year they wouldn't have even sniffed the playoffs that year. And like someone else pointed out, they wouldve been blown out in the NFC championship game anyway if Mosley would've hit the four field goals he missed. So let's remember that even though the 49ers beat alot of good teams head to head and won alot of superbowls in the 80's they had alot of help from their weak division and fortunate plays too. I'm sorry to tell you but even the 84' 49ers that went 15-1 wouldn't have had that record if they would've played the nfc east teams twice a year. They barely beat the Skins at CandleStick that year (37-31). So they were a good team but you exaggerate their greatness a bit.

The Niners crushed the skins in '84. Go look back at the game's box score (Niners lead 27-3 at the half, and 37-17 heading into the 4th). The Niners were up a ton, and let the Redskins back in towards the end, but still dominated the game. It was pretty similar to the Giants beat down on MNF of the redskins in October of '86. The scoreline suggests it was close, but it wasn't . The Giants dominated, and the Redskins got a couple of late scores to make it look respectable. The Niners kicked our heads in that day, we mounted a nice comeback to get some honor back, but still we're clowned overall (another example is XXVI). We absolutely killed the Bills that day, but the scoreline suggests they were in it. They weren't, they were down 34-10 heading towards the 4th quarter.

Your point has some merit, in the sense that their road was made easier by that, but in my view, the proof is in their performance. When they weren't quite good enough, it showed. 1985-1986 they were off their game, and in 1988 they spent 2/3's of the season finding their '87 form, once they did they ran off an absolutely dominating performance (winning 39 of their next 43 games in the regular season and playoffs until Montana went down and Roger Craig fumbled on the last clock killing drive). They beat a whose who in the league, home, and away. To me, that's the proof, you can't help your schedule but how do you do when you had to play the powers back then?

'81:

Vs Dallas: W 45-14

VS NYG: W 17-10

Playoffs

VS NYG: W 14-3

Vs Dallas: W 28-27

'83:

@ Philly: L 17-22

@ St L. W 42-27

Vs Dallas: W 42-17

Playoffs:

@ Washington L 21-24

'84:

Vs Washington: W 37-31

@ Philly W 21-9

@ NYG W 31-10

Vs NYG: W 21-10

Vs Chi: W 23-0

'87:

@NYG: W 41-21

Vs St L: W 34-28

Vs Chi: W 41-0

'88:

@NYG: W 20-17

@ Chi: L 9-10

@ Phoe: L 23-24

Vs Was: W 37-21

Playoffs:

@ Chi W 28-3

'89:

@ Philly: W 38-28

@ Dallas: W 31-14

Vs NYG: W 34-24

Playoffs

Vs Chi W 26-0

'90:

Vs Was: W 26-13

@ Dall: W 24-6

Vs NYG: W 7-3

Playoffs

Vs Was: W 28-10

Vs NYG: L 13-15 infamous fluke Roger Craig Fumble Loss.

So against NFC East teams and the Bears (the only other consistent quality team) in the 80's era (I include '90 as it was the last of their epic great teams) when they were in their prime:

Record Vs NFC East and the Bears: 24-5 if I counted right, im in a rush so i can't double check. I threw out '82, and '85-'86 because I figured we were discussing the great niner teams, and those were '81, '83, '84, '87, '88, '89 and '90 of this time frame.

In my view, that's the telling point. The niners won at home, and on the road against NFC East foes and Chicago exceptionally consistently w/the exception of their transition years ('85 and '86, and the bizarre '82), and I haven't actually checked those years. They were actually 1-0 in '82, 3-1 in '85 and 0-3 in '86, so other than '86, they essentially continued their dominance then.

I know some like to think that if the niners had it more difficult, then history would have been very different. I don't happen to think so, and i think the record supports the argument. Even in bad transition years, they were still 4-4 against the Bears+the NFC East, and had only one season w/a losing record against those opponents in total between '81 and '90. If the Niners had played in the east, I think they would have been the best team in the east, and probably won the same exact super bowls they did win, and who knows, maybe even more. I very much doubt they would have won fewer. The only potential year in question is '88, where they spent the first 10 games of the year in disaray. The NFC East might not have been so forgiving back then, then again, maybe playing in the NFC East would have toughened them up more, after all that's the argument a lot of us make as to why the NFC east was so dominant in the non-niner years between around 1972-1995.

[The Consigliere]

The one thing I remember about the 37-31 '84 game is way Monk abused Lott, who was a CB then, that night.

That was a morning game on the west coast, a 1pm game on the east. You definitely got Monk right though. 10 catches for 200 yards. Very impressive. Maybe that's one of the reason's Lott always propped Monk? He did seem to play well fairly often against the Niners (was the lone highlight in the 28-10 arse kicking we took in January '91). Looked it up and it was a night game. Weird, I have a distinct memory of a sunday preview that focused on Montana and Theismann, and their wives and all sorts of other crap.

[hail2skins]

That was a morning game on the west coast, a 1pm game on the east. You definitely got Monk right though. 10 catches for 200 yards. Very impressive.

I could swear that 37-31 game in '84 was on MNF.

[The Consigliere]

You're right. I was wrong. For some reason i thought it was a day game, what I was remembering was an NFL Today preview of the game, I imagine.

[Arsenic]

I voted Baby..

what is this sarcasm thing you speak of?

[RFK Lives]

Great poll.

It always bothered me that this broadcast seems to focus more on the 49ers losing than the Redskins winning.

[The Consigliere]

Great poll.

It always bothered me that this broadcast seems to focus more on the 49ers losing than the Redskins winning.

There was a huge controversy that involved utterly bogus calls at the end of the game that really screwed the niners. What usually bothers me, and didn't, was that unlike a lot of times when a team gets hosed, the broadcast paid special note to the mugging Monk took on a deep ball in the 4th quarter that if it had been called correctly, would have iced the game for the redskins. Monk was blatantly interferred with on a play that would have almost certainly allowed us to run out the clock, or even possibly make the score 28-14. Most reporting will forget that entirely and focus on the awful late calls. This broadcast showed the play, showed the replay, and went to interviews w/Mark May and possibly another player to underline that if the Niners got jobbed late (and they did) the redskins got jobbed badly earlier in such a fashion that if it actually been called properly, would have almost certainly have rendered the late bogus calls immaterial.

It also was the one and only meeting between Walsh and Gibbs in the playoffs, it's a damn big game. I was always bummed we couldn't have matched up in other years (like '85 or '86), but certainly not '87, as we got that '87 Lombardi because the Niners imploded in very un-Niner like fashion at home against the Vikes. That niner team was the class of the NFL that season, but simply didn't show up, and it cost them huge, was very similar to the devastating "didnt show up" game we had against the Raiders in XVIII. A massive shocker that contributed to the rift between Montana and Young, and got Walsh to start packing his suitcases (he'd leave a year later largely because of how Debartolo handled the defeat).

[scruffylookin]

The Niners crushed the skins in '84. Go look back at the game's box score (Niners lead 27-3 at the half, and 37-17 heading into the 4th). The Niners were up a ton, and let the Redskins back in towards the end, but still dominated the game.

You would be incorrect in characterizing that game this way. I just skimmed through the game itself and here's how it went down.

The 49ers came out guns a blazing and wanted to get revenge for the 83 game and did put a whipping on the Skins in the 1st half and led 27-0 before the Skins scored late in the half to make it 27-3.

But you're wrong about the rest of the game.

The Skins came back and made it a legit game by closing the score to 27-17. The Niners scored to make it 34-17 very early in the 4th. Joe Theismann led the Skins down the field on the ensuing drive and the Skins closed to 34-24 early in the 4th. Montana led the Niners down the field on the ensuing drive but had to settle for a FG and extended the lead to 37-24 with just under 10min left. Skins are forced to punt on their next drive. The Skins d force a fumble on the 49ers next drive and have the ball down by 13 with 8 min left. Theismann leads the Skins deep inside the 49ers territory but the Skins fail to score and go for it on 4th down and fail. So the 49ers are up by 13 with 5 and a half left to go. Skins D stones the 49ers deep in their end and force a punt. Skins get the ball back at the 49er 40. Theismann leads them down the field with ease and scores quickly on a TD to Virgil Seay that cuts the 49er lead to 37-31 with 3 and a half min to go in the game. The 49ers chew up the rest of the clock by converting a big 3rd down on their first series of downs and then get the benefit of an awful personal foul penalty on Dexter Manley that gave them an automatic first down at the 2 min warning and then they were able to sit on it to finish the game.

While the 49ers dominated the first half, the second half was all Redskins but the 49ers were able to do just enough to hold the Skins off and win the game.

Had they met again in the 84 NFC Title and the Skins had been healthy, that would have been an epic game. A true clash of two historic teams battling it out for supremecy.

[The Consigliere]

You would be incorrect in characterizing that game this way. I just skimmed through the game itself and here's how it went down.

The 49ers came out guns a blazing and wanted to get revenge for the 83 game and did put a whipping on the Skins in the 1st half and led 27-0 before the Skins scored late in the half to make it 27-3.

But you're wrong about the rest of the game.

The Skins came back and made it a legit game by closing the score to 27-17. The Niners scored to make it 34-17 very early in the 4th. Joe Theismann led the Skins down the field on the ensuing drive and the Skins closed to 34-24 early in the 4th. Montana led the Niners down the field on the ensuing drive but had to settle for a FG and extended the lead to 37-24 with just under 10min left. Skins are forced to punt on their next drive. The Skins d force a fumble on the 49ers next drive and have the ball down by 13 with 8 min left. Theismann leads the Skins deep inside the 49ers territory but the Skins fail to score and go for it on 4th down and fail. So the 49ers are up by 13 with 5 and a half left to go. Skins D stones the 49ers deep in their end and force a punt. Skins get the ball back at the 49er 40. Theismann leads them down the field with ease and scores quickly on a TD to Virgil Seay that cuts the 49er lead to 37-31 with 3 and a half min to go in the game. The 49ers chew up the rest of the clock by converting a big 3rd down on their first series of downs and then get the benefit of an awful personal foul penalty on Dexter Manley that gave them an automatic first down at the 2 min warning and then they were able to sit on it to finish the game.

While the 49ers dominated the first half, the second half was all Redskins but the 49ers were able to do just enough to hold the Skins off and win the game.

Had they met again in the 84 NFC Title and the Skins had been healthy, that would have been an epic game. A true clash of two historic teams battling it out for supremecy.

I view that as an arse kicking, just as I view XXVI as an arse kicking. I can see how some might say it was close, particularly by the final score, but the 49ers were essentially in command throughout, the Redskins had one opportunity in the game to make it a game, as you say, and did not succeed in doing so. It's not a whupping like say, what we did to the lions twice in the 1991 season, but it's still a whupping.

I also think they would have killed us in the playoffs. They absolutely dominated in the playoffs, shutting down NYG, and absolutely killing the Bears and the Dolphins, they also steam rolled the majority of their opponents with only two exceptions in the last nine games of the year (and they won both those exception games). That was a hugely powerful 49er team (although I think the '89 version was a lil better), and the '84 Redskins were just starting to head downhill at the begining of the year, and the fall would continue as the season wore on, finally collapsing in the first 10 games of '85. The Redskins were good enough for the playoffs in '84 because the division was essentially terrible (for its standard). Dallas was beginning its decline, the eagles had completely collapsed, the Giants were climbing up but not there yet, and the redskins of course were heading downhill too. These Redskins weren't a great team, like the '82, '83, '86, '91 teams, or even a very good team like the '87, and '90 Redskins, they were somewhere just below the latter two examples, and not capable of what those other teams showed (winning a super bowl despite not being close to the best team in the league in '87, and beating perhaps the best Eagles teams of the '80-'00 era, save for maybe the Super Bowl XV version).

[hail2skins]

The Redskins were good enough for the playoffs in '84 because the division was essentially terrible (for its standard). Dallas was beginning its decline, the eagles had completely collapsed, the Giants were climbing up but not there yet, and the redskins of course were heading downhill too. These Redskins weren't a great team, like the '82, '83, '86, '91 teams, or even a very good team like the '87, and '90 Redskins, they were somewhere just below the latter two examples, and not capable of what those other teams showed (winning a super bowl despite not being close to the best team in the league in '87, and beating perhaps the best Eagles teams of the '80-'00 era, save for maybe the Super Bowl XV version).

To be fair to the '84 Skins.....after losing their first two games to the teams which would ultimately meet in the SB, they did go 11-3 the rest of the way. Not too bad.

But the Niners were a beast that year, and, like you said, thoroughly dominated the Bears team which had given us what still remains our only home playoff loss in the "modern" era.

[The Consigliere]

To be fair to the '84 Skins.....after losing their first two games to the teams which would ultimately meet in the SB, they did go 11-3 the rest of the way. Not too bad.

But the Niners were a beast that year, and, like you said, thoroughly dominated the Bears team which had given us what still remains our only home playoff loss in the "modern" era.

In the spirit of fairness, you make a good point as well, 11-3 after mid-september is nothing to sneeze at. I suppose I just felt the team slowly went into the crapper, and it began in '84, with some of the old trusty vets and young guys going straight into the crapper (like Vernon Dean, and Charlie Brown) and other guys showing signs of fading (John Riggins started to go downhill). The running game didnt seem to work as well, the passing game was all about Monk, Mike Nelms was done as an elite return man, the secondary needed refurbishment, the OL was in a bit of transition...11-3 to finish was solid,d but i think if we coudl see things the way we could today, we would have seen the rot in the foundation. Luckily Beathard and Gibbs and company found lots and lots of options in the USFL, college ball, and in the NFL to help fix things, we'd still get reamed a few times (like in the trade for Malcolm Barnwell and Calvin Muhammad) but their mid-dynasty rebuild would give us another seven or eight years of quality football starting in the second half of '85.