1983/84 SB ... Had the SF 49ers played the LA Raiders

[Brian wolf]

A pure hypothetical game ...

Had the Niners played the Raiders in the 1983/84 SB instead of the Redskins, a different outcome or still a Raiders victory ?

[Bryan]

I think in 83 the Raiders would have won because the Niners run defense wasn't that great and the Raiders were a much better team after acquiring Mike Haynes, but it could have gone either way, IMO. I don't see how the Niners weren't better than 10-6 in 1983; they had a very strong team and a very efficient offense. One thing I noticed about the 83/84 Raiders was how good the defense was on a yards-per-play basis yet they tended to give up a lot of points. The Raiders offense was a turnover machine, and I think this really handcuffed the defense in terms of points allowed.

In 84 I don't see the Raiders beating the Niners. Maybe it would have been a tighter game because the Raiders defense was even better in 84 than in 83, but their offense couldn't score against good defenses. It seemed like the Raiders could win shootouts in 1984, but then had a tendency to lose games 14-7.

[7DnBrnc53]

In 84 I don't see the Raiders beating the Niners. Maybe it would have been a tighter game because the Raiders defense was even better in 84 than in 83, but their offense couldn't score against good defenses. It seemed like the Raiders could win shootouts in 1984, but then had a tendency to lose games 14-7.

Also, in 1985, the 49ers crushed the Raiders (that is the game where Jeff Stover seemed to try to hurt Plunkett and knocked him out).

[Brian wolf]

Its interesting that the bad calls in that Championship game in RFK, seemed to galvanize the team for the upcoming 1984 season. I think had the 49ers beaten the Redskins, they would have lost to the Raiders in the SB but it would have been a much closer game than what the Redskins gave due to a superior Niner secondary. Having lost Dwight Clark hurt the offense but with Haynes playing on top of his game with the Raiders, Clark may not have done alot anyway but who knows?

Without Clark, Wilson and Solomon would have to be relied upon even more but Tyler and especially Craig, with two weeks rest during a long rookie season, could have taken some of the receiving duties but it boils down to the trenches and the Raiders pass rush would have been tough for the Niner offensive line to deal with ...

The Raiders deserved their championship and had a great defense that came together at just the right time but couldnt sustain themselves during the 1984 season in a tough division.

[74_75_78_79_]

I'm a Steelers-fan who is glad that that very core '70s group never actually lost a Super Bowl. I know it's the wrong attitude to have (making it there, but losing, is better than not making it at all), but I'm glad they were knocked out in '77 because of how likely I feel that Dallas wins against the Steelers in SBXII. As he was losing SBs in the '80s, Elway's (correct) attitude always was that he'd rather get that shot, and lose, than no shot at all. That being said, I can live with losing XXX and XLV, but am really glad end-of-day that that Classic Seventies Steelers group (Noll, Greene, Bradshaw, etc) never lost on that Big Stage.

And to those Forty Niner-fans who are glad that Walsh, Montana, Lott & Co never lost a Super Bowl, perhaps they should be glad that their 4th Q comeback at RFK came up just short. I mentioned before elsewhere how strange that '83 Forty Niner squad was. Starting with their opening day loss to Marion Campbell in his Eagles' HC-ing debut, they were 1-4 in their first five home games. However, they won their first five road games thus launching their lengthy run of overall significant success outside of Candlestick. They barely beat the 9-7 Lions at home in the divisional round yet come real close to pulling off that comeback the following week at Washington for the NFCC.

Had they completed things, they sure would have gone into SBXVIII on high-momentum. The Genius and Joe Cool in their white jerseys vs the Silver & Black and all their swagger and mystique! Something would have had to have given. Someone would have had to lose. I also don't feel it would have been anything like the game we actually had. But I think the Raiders win, Forty Niners offer competitiveness throughout, but I feel it's not a nail-biter either. Raiders win by at least ten IMO. San Fran wasn't ready to win it again just yet.

Weird sweep to Seattle as well as a late strange home-loss to the Cards aside, the Raiders were really a 14-win team in guise of 12-4. Their DOMINATING post-season performance ought to tell you that albeit, yes, Cliff Stoudt and then a 9-7 team being their AFC roadblocks. Still, 106-33 total is 106-33 total; and to beat Washington, 38-9...

And one thing I did not know all of this time until practically just now - Marcus Allen was OUT in their close, Classic, regular season 37-35 loss at RFK! I was just 13-years old at the time, but had I been aware of that at the time which I obviously was not while watching the AFCCG with my uncle, I would not have made a bet with him that Washington would win in two weeks yet alone heavily assume that they would prevail. The other thing I just found out...the defending-Champs actually were "just" a 3-point-favorite going into that very Tampa event. I always thought they were initially favored by much more.

[Brian wolf]

The Steelers always got up for the Cowboys and beat them during the 1977 season, with Franco running wild. I am not so sure the Cowboys would beat them had they played in the SB.

The 49ers did beat the Raiders in 1985 and the Raiders beat them in 1982 but in both games, the pass rush got to Montana and probably would have in the SB ...

[7DnBrnc53]

In this matchup, I see the Raiders playing close, physical coverage on their WR's. That's what you needed to do against the WCO. That is a key in what I think would have been a Raider victory.

[74_75_78_79_]

The Steelers always got up for the Cowboys and beat them during the 1977 season, with Franco running wild. I am not so sure the Cowboys would beat them had they played in the SB.

Of course I've always been aware of the regular season match. It's not really a good 'what-if' anyway being that Denver and Oakland were clearly the top-two teams in the AFC that year. If Broncos all get the flu that divisional, the Steelers would have still had to play the Raiders who so, by that point, had their # and would for over five more years. Raiders also "all get the flu"? I think more likely than not that Steelers don't get it done this time vs Doomsday. Maybe they do, but not as likely (Bert's Colts, despite them never winning at that level, eliminate Steelers in a '77 hypo playoff as well IMO). The same applies with me thinking that Dallas may have beaten GB in the '96 NFCCG, but I think more likely the Pack finally overcomes them in such an event.

Both '77 Cowboys and '96 Packers are one of the same. Both were #1 in both offense and defense, both didn't have to play in the post-season against the team who always beat them, but IMO I lean toward each finally getting it done in each case (which, again, makes me glad the 'Burgh didn't make it in '77). There are those who feel that each SB-runner-up installment the following year ('78 Boys, '97 Pack) were actually better than their SB-win predecessors. I, for the longest time, felt both were true but now disagree in each case. '77 Cowboys are Landry's best-ever team (although some argue its '71), and '96 is Holmgren's best-ever.

Again, IMO, that Forty Niner Dynasty (like Lombardi in '60) would have indeed experienced a Super Bowl loss had they came back at RFK.

[JuggernautJ]

I wish we could actually play this game so I could cover all these bets against Joe Montana in a Super Bowl....

[Brian wolf]

Haha ... I see what youre saying JuggernautJ, betting against Joe in a SB is risky business but without Clark, a Raider team with Allen running beautifully, Long, Kinlaw and Alzado on the defensive line ?
A tough bet ...

Had the Niners played them, I think they would have tried to attack an aging Hendricks and Millen on pass coverage, especially with the backs but Hendricks was smart and Rod Martin was very underrated, so the Niner offensive line would have really been under the gun. I think the Niners could have gotten to Plunkett but stopping Branch, Christensen and Allen would have kept their great secondary occupied. The Niner linebackers, like the Raider ones, would have to play a helluva game.