THE SPORTING NEWS:
Continuing forum for the 49er Problem

One of the roles of NHS is to be the watchdog of the media, exposing how they go about shoveling 49er propaganda on the unwitting public. Lately, The Sporting News has been particularly egregious in that they've given Bill Walsh of all people an open channel for his unadulterated 49er-stroking. But that's not all -- various other writers at this online magazine have followed this "genius" practice and smooched some 49er-butt of their own. So scroll on down to follow the antics of this rag turned waste of web space ...

December 22, 1998 -- Step aside, Dan Pompei and Old Man Walsh. Your colleague Dave Kindred has just made his bid for recognition on the NHS page, and he's looking to take you guys one step further.

Yes, Kindred has now joined the ranks of Sporting News writers cracking the bandwagon whip. Seems he takes offense at anyone that has the gall to call John Elway the "best quarterback ever". We already know where this is going, don't we?

"Elway is great," Kindred acknowledges, "but he's no Joe Montana. Never has been, never will be."

Leave it to Kindred to try to set everyone back on the correct track of thinking: that is, that Montana is the Best Ever, will never be challenged, and no one should ever commit blasphemy by stating otherwise. Kindred goes on to say that the reason that Elway is considered by some to be better than St. Joe is nothing more than "short memory".

"At the time [Montana retired], almost by acclamation, he was considered the best quarterback ever," Kindred goes on to say. So basically, almost by popular consensus, Montana was known to be the Best Ever. This had us fooled; we thought he was officially named the "Best Ever" by the magical Committee of Football People That Determines Who Is Best.

This farce continues as Kindred notes that Montana's best years occurred at the same time as Elway's best years, and Montana was known as the better quarterback then, so he should be known as the better quarterback now.

Uhhhh, no.

Based on the NFL's Passer Rating System -- which is highly flawed, but since people use it as a benchmark for determining how great Montana and Steve Young are, we'll use it for Elway -- the best four-year consecutive stretch in Elway's career have been the last four years, a.k.a. the years AFTER Montana retired. In fact, while St. Joe was playing, Elway only topped 80 points on the rating system three times. Since Montana's retirement, he's topped it four times. Clearly, the stats show that Elway has played his best ball over the last six years, the latest four of which Montana has been hiding away in some cave coming up with new ways to peddle his wife's exercise machine on infomercials with that annoying English guy.

(A quick side note: is there any coincidence that Elway's numbers finally became consistently good after Mike Shanahan showed up and installed the West Coast Offense in Denver? Wonder how Montana's career numbers would look under a Dan Reeves offense ...)

As his misguided "concurrent year" argument wasn't enough, Kindred ties things up nicely by noting that Joe won four Super Bowls, and Elway's won only one. Aside from the standard but often-overlooked fact that TEAMS win Super Bowls, not just quarterbacks, this begs the question: what about Terry Bradshaw? He won four Super Bowls. Is he the Best Ever? Of course, that overrated Johnny Unitas only won one Super Bowl (and two other NFL championships), so he doesn't even merit discussion. And those silly QBs that led their teams to multiple titles before the 70's don't count either (because then it was only a championship without a cute name).

We end with our standard disclaimer that we are not arguing that Elway IS the Best Ever, only that Montana is NOT, because these things can't be accurately determined. Montana had some nice accomplishments; so have Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Unitas, Bradshaw, and a plethora of others down the years. To try and assert that it's an unequivocal fact that somebody is the Best Ever does a disservice to the others. Until Niner fans and the media understand this, we'll be here to blow the whistle whenever the latest unthinking jackass gets all dreamy on the greatness of Montana, Rice, Young, Lott, ad nauseum.

***

October 26, 1998 -- We turn our heads for a couple of weeks and look what happens. The ol' geezer himself (Bill Walsh) is back with more "enlightening" comments regarding the state of the NFL.

This time he offers up his view on stellar Vikings rookie Randy Moss: "As Jerry Rice's first NFL coach, I am amused by the comparisons between Rice and Randy Moss, as if Moss' fast start portends a spot in the Hall of Fame for him like the one Rice already has earned. Moss has played well in his first handful of games, no question, but let's not overdo it. No rookie deserves that kind of pressure. Moss has benefited from playing in an offense geared to his talents, playing with teammates talented enough to get him the ball and coaches willing enough to put it there."

Now, far be it from us to bestow any Hall of Fame predictions on Moss. Sure, he's had a great start, but only time will tell if he can continue to excel, as well as to keep his past demons from rearing their ugly heads. Right now, he looks like a steal. In five years, he could be the best receiver in the game, or a complete bust. We won't know for a while.

We're happy, though, to get the benefit on Walsh's insight; having been Rice's first NFL coach, he's obviously the best coach in NFL history. Or is Walsh's point that since he was Rice's first coach, that makes Rice the best receiver in history? That he is "amused" by the comparisons is basically another way of saying "Yeah, Moss looks good, but he can't be mentioned in the same breath as The Best Receiver Ever, Jerry Rice."

The fact is, right now Moss has better numbers than Rice this season, with more touchdowns, a better average per catch, and only a handful fewer catches despite that his team puts up seven fewer passes every game than the 49ers. True, on the grand scale, Moss has a long way to go to get close to Rice in terms of career numbers, but the fact that he's putting up these numbers already, as a rookie, indicates that he has the talent to do so. Will he have the luck of Rice to last as long? Few humans possess that sort of luck (just ask Isaac Bruce), but since he has more talent and should put up better numbers per year, he won't need to hang around that long.

What's really hilarious about Walsh's assessment is that last part, about the "benefits" Moss has received this year. You may want to read it again, because we couldn't believe it either.

While Walsh's narcissism may be annoying, his hypocrisy is galling. Has Moss benefited from playing in a offense geared to his talents, with teammates talented enough to get him the ball and coaches willing to put it there? Sure. Yet, those conditions perfectly describe the exact scenario Jerry Rice has enjoyed throughout his ENTIRE CAREER. In fact, if there has been a receiver that has benefited more from his surroundings, we'd like to hear about it. An offense geared to his talents? Rice -- big but not lightning-fast -- was dropped right into Walsh's West Coast Offense, the most passing-friendly system in the history of football. Talented teammates? Steve Young and Joe Montana, statistically two of the most accurate quarterbacks in NFL history, have been on the throwing end of Rice's receptions for the vast bulk of his career. Coaches willing to give him the ball? Seeing as the Niners have always been a pass-first, run-second team in Rice's career, and he's been the primary target, no quibbles there.

In short, before Walsh starts making excuses for why Randy Moss is putting up great numbers in just his first year in the league, maybe he should look at his own guy, Mr. Best Ever, and see that Rice has had the best of all worlds while playing with the 49ers.

Put another way: if Rice had spent his career with Indianapolis, would we even be seeing these comparisons? Probably not.We're waiting for his next column, when Walsh will probably explain how you can't really compare Terrell Davis to Roger Craig just yet...

***

October 1, 1998 -- In our continuing effort to stay on top of the media problem, we once again pay a visit to "The Genius", Bill Walsh, over at The Sporting News.

It sure is nice for The Sporting News to provide us with expert football commentary. Unfortunately, more often than not, Walsh's commentary is about the 49ers and not about the 29 other teams that happen to be in the NFL as well.

This week, Walsh devotes his main article to the subject of "Why Bad Teams Aren't Always the Coach's Fault". Now, on the surface this may seem like one big excuse for his last tenure at Stanford, but surprisingly the old codger doesn't once bring mention his spectacular failure at the Farm in the early 90's. He does, however, note that "Not every team will win the Super Bowl in its third season under a new coach (as we did in San Francisco in 1981)." Thanks for adding that humble last part, Bill.

And then, of course, comes the mailbag. Bill responded to six handpicked questions from lucky readers this time around. Two of those questions involved the 49ers. Again, we appreciate the expert "NFL" commentary. And let's not forget some of these gems: "I don't think the 49ers have or will miss (Dana) Stubblefield much at all" -- of course not, even though the 49ers are 16th defensively against the rush; "Bryant Young is the NFL's best defensive lineman" -- sure, obviously Young is unequivocally the best defensive lineman, end or tackle, in the NFL, without question; "Overall the 49ers have one of the top four defenses in the league" -- despite the fact that the defense is currently ranked 29th out of 30 teams; and, finally, it appears that "Tim McDonald and Merton Hanks are two of the greatest safeties to ever play the game" -- sure, if you are making a list of the 500 best safeties to ever play, that's probably true.

Again, Bill, thanks for giving us an inside look at the NFL. And thank you, Sporting News, for providing such an unbiased, impartial observer for us readers, because otherwise we might adhere to the silly notion that the Niners AREN'T the Best Team Ever and their players AREN'T the best in the NFL at every position. Silly us. Regardless, as we promised before, we'll be sure to stay on top of this magazine, as they continue to be one of the biggest examples of the 49er Problem.

***

September 23, 1998 -- A couple weeks back we told you about one of the latest additions to the Niner-loving media: Sporting News columnist Dan Pompei, who went out of his way to glorify the "talent" that the Niners possess at most of their positions (see below). As if that wasn't bad enough, the Sporting News has completely topped itself by bringing the "Genius" himself aboard to write columns. That's right, Bill Walsh -- last seen completely confused, lying on the floor of a Lake Tahoe casino, after being decked by in response to his arrogance -- is now employed by the print rag to spread his knowledge to fortunate readers.

After failing miserably in his attempted return to right the 49ers sinking ship in 1996, the Genius has been mostly quiet lately, his biggest blather being to anoint Arizona quarterback Jake Plummer as the "next Joe Montana". Plummer's play last season gave some fans hope that Walsh was on the money, but most people seem to conveniently forget that Walsh has made this prediction before, most notably with former Notre Dame star Rick Mirer, who is on his third team in the last year-plus and embodies the term "bust".

How Plummer ultimately fares remains to be seen. But thanks to the Sporting News, which continues to drop lower and lower in our estimation, Walsh is now given free rein to spout his opinions about the current state of the NFL. And it comes as no surprise which team Walsh favors when he puts pen to paper for his column or, even worse, answers questions from fans in his "mailbag".

Consider Walsh's article from September 18, following two weeks of play in the NFL. After (we assume) some careful thought and consideration, along with numbers crunching, listening to outside sources, and reviewing game film, Walsh offers up this measured opinion:

"Of the NFL's 11 unbeaten teams, none has looked better than the San Francisco 49ers."

And there you have it. Don't worry about the Packers, who downed two 1997 playoff teams to open the season. The Broncos, defending champs, took down New England (a playoff team) and the Cowboys, who have a winning record at this point. The Vikings kept the scoreboard moving a mile a minute. Even the lowly Seahawks, who crushed their first two opponents to the tune of a 71-14 point differential, looked strong. But according to the Genius -- surprise! -- it's the Niners who look the best.

Forget about the fact that they barely defeated a Jets team, at home no less, and surrendered 400 yards passing to the inexperienced Glenn Foley. Well, we can't forget about that, but at least Walsh can, because he seems to be basing his opinion solely on the Niners' crushing of wretched Washington (now 0-3) on Monday Night Football. Given his advancing years, we'll forgive Walsh his memory lapse, seeing as his latest stint with Stanford already proved that he has forgotten many things, like how to win.

Even so, it's unfortunate that yet another national publication has to make way for yet another Niner shill. We've already got to avoid the CBS pregame show, which brought us this classic exchange prior to the Opening Day kickoff:

Jim Nantz: All right, let's get our Super Bowl predictions out of the way. Brent?

Brent Jones: I'm gonna have to go with the 49ers to go all the way.

Nantz: Great. George?

George Seifert: Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Niners too.

And people wonder why we spend so much time complaining about the media. Your average NFL fan, poor sap that he is, watches that pregame show, hears the predictions made by not one but TWO former 49ers, and concludes that the 49ers MUST be great, because the "experts" think they're going to the Super Bowl. And now we have Bill Walsh spouting the same sort of drivel over at the Sporting News. One can only hope that readers of the magazine, and of the online website, are more discerning.

Even so, 1998 is shaping up to be even worse than 1997. The talent in the NFC appears to be weaker, and with their usual cream-puff schedule, the Niners probably won't face any tests until the Packer game in November. Between now and then, you can bet we're going to hear a lot more "expert" opinions from Bill Walsh about how the Niners are the best ever. The Sporting News will continue to compete with Sports Illustrated over who can smooch more 49er butt (although it will be difficult to dethrone SI's Michael Silver). Thankfully, readers will be able to get the real truth from NHS, and we'll be sure to add Walsh to the growing list of the writers and announcers that we have to expose on a regular basis for their blatant pandering.

THE POMPEI PROBLEM

September 4, 1998 -- Sure, we've got our smooch scale list, but it's tough to maintain it because every year it seems more writers slither out of the woodwork and trip over each other to see who can kiss the most Niner ass. Understandably, much of this is centered in the Bay Area, but there are a lot of problems on the national level as well. Now, direct from a magazine that to this point has distinguished itself mostly for the even-handed writing (and even occasional Niner-bashing) of T.J. Simers, comes the newest problem: Dan Pompei.

In his latest Sporting News column, Pompei decides to rank the three best position units across the NFL, and surprise, surprise, he feels that the Niners rank in the top three in five of the eight units. Apparently, they're just that good.

Two weeks ago, Pompei wasted an entire column on the genius of Niner offensive-line coach Bobb McKittrick, he of the legendary leg-whipping teachings. Well, if the latest column is any indication, we at the NHS are going to have a long season policing this guy's asinine opinions, which unfortunately he gets to promote on a national scale.

For Pompei's original article, see: http://tsn.sportingnews.com/voices/dan_pompei/index.html.

Then, check out the letter we fired off to him below, one that we expect will go unanswered, just like the one we wrote regarding his fawning piece on McKittrick. Please note that the references to Seattle are made for comparison reasons only and do not indicate any NHS allegiance to the Seahawks:

September 4, 1998

To: Dan Pompei
The Sporting News

Dan,

After reading your preseason unit rankings, we're convinced that The Sporting News must have hired you to offset that evil Niner-basher T.J. Simers. We're also amazed that you actually forgot to put the 49ers' offensive line on your top three list. I mean, gee, the Niners qualified pretty much everywhere else, didn't they?

To put your opinions in perspective:

QBs:
1. 49ers. Are you kidding? Yes, Steve Young is still an elite, if not fragile, QB, but he's on his way down. One good hit and he's out, which leaves you Detmer -- who is mediocrity defined as a backup -- and Druckenmiller, who has shown almost nothing that merits him being a first-round selection. A team like the Seahawks, who you neglect throughout your whole article, rank just as high as the Niners. Moon is on a par with Young (although slightly below), Freisz and Detmer are washes, and Jon Kitna's been FAR better than Druck in the last year-plus. Hell, flip-flop 'em, and Kitna is better than Detmer and Freisz is better than Druck. Any way you slice it, the Niners shouldn't be #1.

Thankfully you left their RBs off the list for fear of losing all credibility.

WRs:
2. 49ers. This is somewhat accurate. A good group, although Stokes and Owens will need at least one more year of decent production to be considered elite. Again, you neglect the Seahawks, who feature one of the best WRs in the game in Galloway, a good #2 in Pritchard, an up-and-comer in McKnight, and even stalwart Brian Blades, who is not too far behind Stokes or Owens even at his advanced age. Also consider that Seattle had the #1 -- yes, that's #1 -- passing offense in the NFL last year, and everyone has returned. So how is it that neither Seahawk unit made the QB, WR, nor TE list, but the Niners, who ranked 18th, merit inclusion on all? If you are basing your rankings somewhat on stats -- and it appears you must be to include two Niner defensive units -- then something is very wrong here.

TEs:
2. 49ers. This blew us off the scale. Can you really be serious that the 49ers have one of the best TE units in football? Greg Clark has done practically nothing to this point. He's all potential, nothing more... and then, of course, Irv Smith "might" become one of Young's favorite targets. So this merits a #2 ranking? You're nuts. By himself, Chmura is better than the Niners' unit. Tight ends like Dudley and Gonzalez not only have more potential than Clark but they are better NOW.

The Niner O-line, which you lauded just two weeks ago (isn't there ANYTHING else you could be writing about?), again is thankfully left off the list, although we wonder how much of a struggle it was for you to omit them.

Defensive line? You must have been bitter when Stubblefield bolted for the 'Skins; otherwise, you would have been more than happy to put them on this list. Now, they're just Bryant Young and a bunch of veteran retreads.

LBs:
3. 49ers. Sure, they all "could" make that wonderful popularity contest, the Pro Bowl, which in essence means nothing. For reasons why, check out why Merton Hanks keeps making it every year (more on him later). As for their LBs now, Norton is on the downside of his career, Woodall has been nothing if not average for the last two years, and Tubbs is actually pretty good. This merits a #3 ranking? Apparently the state of the NFL must be weaker than we thought.

DBs:
2. 49ers. This is another area which made us question whether or not you were taking some sort of hallucinogens. The second-best secondary in the NFL? Please. McDonald, again, is on his way out and not as effective as he once was (and he was once very effective). Hanks continues to be the most overrated player in the NFL. Never has a player gotten so fat from good press received because he happens to benefit from every tipped pass or fumbled ball bouncing right to him, followed by people going nuts over his silly chicken dance. For a more accurate representation of Hanks' talent, see last year's NFC Championship game, where Hanks spent much of the contest on his backside watching Dorsey Levens run right over him. It was either that or Hanks running to catch up to Antonio Freeman after being burned inside on a slant. Take your pick, but ask yourself, if Hanks is so good, why was he such a COMPLETE non-factor that day? Great players don't do that, especially in big games, which the Niners rarely play because their schedule is such a joke. As for the rest of the secondary, Langham is pretty good but not great, and Pope is a better hitter than he is cover guy, probably more natural as a safety than corner. Overall, #2 is way too high. We won't bore you with a Seahawks comparison, but suffice it to say that Daryl Williams is better than either Hanks or McDonald, and Springs and Williams are comparable at the corners. But this note isn't about underrating the 'Hawks or any other team -- it's about overrating the 49ers.

Dan, resist the urge to look at the Niners' stats and rank their units too highly because of how good they look on paper. Statistically, their defense was #1 last year, and we all know what good it did them when facing the Packers in the playoffs. Of course you are going to be around #1 when you play the 10 weakest NFL offenses repeatedly, as the Niners did last year. Check the numbers. Through the first ten weeks, when everyone was busy comparing the Niner D to the Bears' defenses in the mid-80's, the average rank of their opponents' offensive units was 23rd! That would make anyone look pretty good. The real Niners were exposed in losses to KC, Seattle and of course Green Bay in the playoffs, when the Niners couldn't do a thing defensively when it really counted, save for make excuses.

Overall, a disappointing article. Stories like these are a big part of the reason we have to endure hearing the lusty tales of the "Best Ever" 49er players every year on TV broadcasts. At this point, your "journalism" reeks much more of 49er favoritism, and we expect more from a writer in a national publication. Hopefully sometime this year you will be able to watch the Niners without your red-and-gold-colored glasses and see that while possessing some talent, the Niners are successful much more these days due to a rancid schedule and their once-innovative offensive system, which hopefully sometime soon will go the way of the dinosaur before it ruins the NFL by turning every team into a bunch of three-yard dink finesse sissies.

Return to Table of Contents

We welcome all comments.

Want to become a member? Go to membership.

THE SPORTING NEWS: Continuing forum for the 49er Problem

THE POMPEI PROBLEM

THE SPORTING NEWS:
Continuing forum for the 49er Problem