Green Bay's 1995-96 playoff upset of San Francisco

[CSKreager]

In retrospect, how big a surprise was Packers 27, 49ers 17 in the 1995-96 NFC Divisional Playoffs?

I remember it was very surprising considering everyone just assumed DAL-SF was a foregone conclusion again for the NFC-CG.

For what it's worth, Green Bay and San Francisco both finished 11-5 (SF had the better conference record- in terms of common opponents, GB lost to the Rams/Vikings/Cowboys and SF beat all three teams). Despite both having the same record, The 49ers were a 9.5 point favorite.

And let's not also forget this matchup only happened because the 49ers blew a shot at the #1 seed with a week 17 loss at Atlanta, which was a surprise considering how well the 49ers had been playing (38-20 at Dallas, MNF beatdown of Miami, primetime wins vs. Buffalo/Minnesota).

How truly surprising was this playoff outcome?

[lastcat3]

Back then everyone assumed that either Dallas or San Fran were locks for the Super Bowl. The mentality we have now that we have been in the salary cap age for sometime hadn't kicked in yet at that time so it's not surprising that they had the '9ers favored by so much.

I think the biggest issue with the Dallas/San Fran/Green Bay situation is that the '49ers built themselves to beat Dallas. So while they matched up extremely well against the Cowboys the Packers were a different situation.

[BD Sullivan]

The Niners were defending Super Bowl champions playing at home, though they had two inexplicable back-to-back midseason losses at Candlestick to the 1-6 Saints and expansion Panthers. What's odd is that the week after the Carolina loss, they went TO Dallas and won 38-20. San Fran's five losses on the year were by a combined 15 points--including the 13-7 "blowout" by the Panthers.

[74_75_78_79_]

Going into that post-season I felt quite confident that the Steelers would finally break out of the AFC, but felt the least optimistic of they possibly going up against SF for I thought they were the best team as well as matching up so much better against them than anyone else. In my heart, I wanted it Steelers/Dallas not just for '70s nostalgic reasons but because I wanted revenge (as well as Lloyd; they were real cocky) for that opener a year earlier. A much more even game (as it would actually turn out) being that Cowher's early/mid-'90s Steelers never were at their best in September; especially openers.

When GB beat SF, it instantly made the NFC a three-headed-monster if only for those '95 NFC playoffs (GB clearly #1 the following two seasons). It was all just a matter of who played/eliminated who. Still, with the Pack still not having peaked quite yet in '95, I would still have to place them a tad beneath both SF and Big D. If the three did a round-robin playing against each other a few times, GB likely at bottom (3rd place) of such final standings. And as I stated in another thread, I unbiasedly think Steelers very likely beat that still-not-at-their-peak-yet GB in a hypo-SBXXX. Yes they had Favre, but I think Neil as well as the entire Steelers' O plays a much better game. Reggie (like Charles Haley) in Neil's face entire game, but Pack having no Deion for he to throw away from.

One thing that prevents GB over SF from being too much of an upset - as well as the Pack being better yet in '95 - is that we never really got to see the two square off against one another in the immediate years leading up whereas we saw quite a few GB-vs-Dallas games with Cowboys having quite their way.

[Citizen]

What was shocking to me wasn't so much that the Packers won, but how easily they won. The game was all but over by the middle of the second quarter.

[7DnBrnc53]

I remember being fairly surprised at the game's outcome. However, knowing what I know now, it wasn't a big upset. GB played defense the right way against SF (tight man and under zone, chucking people off the line), and it paid off.

Also, I think that game was the end of the 49ers as a serious SB contender. I know that they had 10+ win seasons the next three years, but those teams were paper tigers. Their offensive lines and running games were suspect, and their defenses were overrated.

[conace21]

The 49ers running game wasn't suspect with Garrison Hearst...when he could stay healthy. The 1995 team suffered the same misfortune as the 1990 team; they could not run the ball. That was never more obvious than in the playoff loss. The team put up 87 rushing yards.... 77 by Young (41 came on a scramble at the end of the half, but led to no points) and 5 on a Rice reverse. Derek Loville carried 8 times for 5 yards.

San Francisco actually opened 1996 with Loville as their starter again. He had rushed for 10 TD's in 1995, and caught 70+ passes, but his yards per carry was a dismal 3.3. SF traded for Terry Kirby in the preseason, but didn't start him until he had time to learn the offense... and blocking assignments.
SF had offered a 6 year deal to Rodney Hampton, a transition player, but the Giants matched it. That was fortunate for the 49ers. Hampton was only 26, but he was mediocre in 1996 and didn't play for most of 1997 due to injury. He then retired.

[7DnBrnc53]

SF had offered a 6 year deal to Rodney Hampton, a transition player, but the Giants matched it. That was fortunate for the 49ers. Hampton was only 26, but he was mediocre in 1996 and didn't play for most of 1997 due to injury. He then retired.

I remember that. I was happy that the Giants matched (I didn't want to see Hampton in SF).

I also remember the Niners going after ex-Cardinal and Jet RB Johnny Johnson around that time, but he wasn't interested in their contract, and I don't think that he ever played again.

[conace21]

Johnson made it to training came, but retired before the season began. That prompted the trade for Kirby.