Snapshot in time: 1988 Skins go 7-9 after winning Super Bowl

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Just saw a nice site with a profile of the Redskins history year by year, including record, opponents, roster, stats, etc. It's here:

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/teams.nsf/histories/redskins

One year that popped out at me was the 7-9 1988 team, which followed the Super Bowl won with MVP Doug Williams. I noticed the club had decent stats from its QBs (Williams, Rypien) and still had Monk, Clark and Sanders in their prime. Rushing was a committe effort by Kelvin Bryant, Timmy Smith and Jamie Morris, with Morris and especially Smith stinking out the joint (3.5 and 3.0 average per rush, respectively). Since Sanders, Monk and Clark all had big years, it looks like (and I recall this) our rushing was the problem.

But that's not all. I checked the schedule and who we lost against. The schedule was unbelievably brutal. *ALL FIVE* of our non-divisional losses were against playoff teams, including:

49ers (Super Bowl winner)

Bengals (12-4 and Super Bowl loser)

Bears (12-4, NFC runner-up)

Oilers (10-6)

Browns (10-6)

We managed to lose to the Giants twice, but they went 10-6. We split with the Cowboys and Cardinals.

This is just a great example of how a talented team can be undone by a combination of a brutal schedule and something not working quite right. In our case, the rushing sucked -- despite the presence of 200+ yard Super Bowl performer Timmy Smith -- and I recall Williams had some back trouble, though Rypien did well in his place.

The 1988 season has some lessons for our 2002. I have a hunch our 2002 schedule will turn out to be particularly harsh. It's already one of the tougher schedules based on 2001 performance, but also a number of our opponents had "off" years in 2001 and are expected to come back strong (e.g., Colts, Titans). Other teams like the Cowboys always play us tough (to say the least) and are themselves improved.

So strap on your chinstraps. This year is tougher than it looks just to get back to 8-8. We can make the playoffs, but it will take a great team to do it, especially with one fewer wildcard spot available in the new division structure.

Specifically, only five teams on the following list will make it:

Rams

49ers

Packers

Bears

Eagles

Redskins

Seahawks

Cowboys

Vikings

Three of those will be division winners and two will be wild cards.

How sure are we that we are in the top 5 on that list? If we aren't, we're home for Christmas.

[Golgo-13]

Stop it man....you're ruining my high!!!:high:

[kleese]

The 1982 Champs and the 1991 champs were extremely good teams-- teams that could compete with any team from any season. The 1983 and 1986 teams were also VERY good-- one fell short, the other wasn't quite ready.

But IMO, the 1987 Redskins were by no means a great champion. That was all Gibbs. Obviously, much of what we did throughout his tenure was "all Gibbs," but never more so than in 1987. We had a patchwork situation at QB and RB and Monk was hurt that post-season. Our defense was solid, but we in a transition from the great defenses of the early 80's to the great ones of the early 90's.

Also, we got quite lucky in the playoffs. Remember how Anthony Carter exploded on the 49ers in SF and led them to an improbable upset? History may have played out differently had we traveled to San Fran for the title game as opposed to staying home and playing the Vikes.

Don't get me wrong, the 1987 team was a joy to watch, the playoffs that year were thrilling-- I loved that team. But they weren't great. Our coaching was phenomenal.

But we were still in transition from the 80's teams to the team that would eventually win it again in 1991-- that was the genius of Gibbs-- we take a brief break in the rebuilding process to.........win the Super Bowl!

But IMO, the signs of a possible collapse in 1988 were there.

[RF4L]

Hey ASF,

Nice touch leaving the Bucs off of your five of the following teams will make it list.

Hope it was intentional.

[rtandler]

While I agree that the '88 edition wasn't as good as some others, I still think that there was an element of Super Bowl hangover there. They started out 6-4 and were in the thick of things and then lost five of the last six. To me, that indicates less of lifting weights and more of hitting the endorsement and banquet circuit.

[Brave]

"The 1988 season has some lessons for our 2002. I have a hunch our 2002 schedule will turn out to be particularly harsh. It's already one of the tougher schedules based on 2001 performance ..." - Atlanta Skins Fan

I keep hearing this and it's just not true. The schedule may turn out to be tough based on how teams play THIS season, but based on last season it's a cakewalk. Only 5 out of 16 games are against 2001 playoff teams! So how is that tough based on last year?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by RedskinFan4Life

Hey ASF,

Nice touch leaving the Bucs off of your five of the following teams will make it list.

Hope it was intentional.

It was intentional, but not as a slight to the Bucs. I expect them to win their division (NFC South), and I expect no other team from the NFC South will be a factor in the wildcard race.

In short, five teams on my list will make the playoffs, plus the Bucs.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

This year is tougher than it looks just to get back to 8-8. We can make the playoffs, but it will take a great team to do it, especially with one fewer wildcard spot available in the new division structure.

Specifically, only five teams on the following list will make it:

Rams

49ers

Packers

Bears

Eagles

Redskins

Cowboys

Vikings

Three of those will be division winners and two will be wild cards.

How sure are we that we are in the top 5 on that list? If we aren't, we're home for Christmas.

The Skins could make the playoffs at 10-6 and winning a tiebreaker based on conference records against one or more other 10-6 teams. But that's relying on the luck of the tiebreaker.

If the Skins want to control their destiny and make the playoffs, one of two scenarios will have to occur:

1. 10-6 with a sweep of the Eagles. In this scenario, the Eagles are unlikely to finish better than 10-6, and we'd win the East based head-to-head tiebreaker with the Eagles, or (less likely) based on the Eagles finishing 9-7. Also, the Cowboys would need to finish no better than 9-7, assuming we don't sweep them.

2. 11-5 record, which would either win the East or enable a likely wildcard.

Considering the tough schedule and the difficulty of sweeping the Eagles, either of these scenarios is a tall order. So, looking objectively, you'd have to say that the odds are less than 50/50 of making the playoffs. The Skins could have a great year and finish 10-6, but miss the playoffs anyway.

[OrangeSkin]

1988 is a different creature from 2002. There was no salary cap back in the day, so we could pretty safely predict which teams would contend and which teams wouldn't. Nowadays, you have teams like the Patriots, Rams, and Ravens winning the Super bowl.

The Titans and Broncos were the favorites out of the AFC last year, and they barely even cracked .500.

There's too much parity now to assume that we'll have a particularly brutal schedule.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Brave

"The 1988 season has some lessons for our 2002. I have a hunch our 2002 schedule will turn out to be particularly harsh. It's already one of the tougher schedules based on 2001 performance ..." - Atlanta Skins Fan

I keep hearing this and it's just not true. The schedule may turn out to be tough based on how teams play THIS season, but based on last season it's a cakewalk. Only 5 out of 16 games are against 2001 playoff teams! So how is that tough based on last year?

The 2001 Skins had the #23 toughest schedule among 31 teams. Based on last season's records, the 2002 Skins will have the #9 toughest schedule out of 32 teams -- that's a huge jump.

You think strength of schedule doesn't count for much? Of the 13 teams with the toughest schedule last year, only ONE team had a winning record (Tampa Bay, 9-7). In fact, all 13 of those teams make a pretty fair roster of the most disappointing teams in 2001. For example, the teams with the two toughest schedules were the teams that finished the worst in the league (Detroit, Carolina). Take a look at this list of the top 13 schedules and the resulting records of the teams:

1. Detroit 2-14

2. Carolina 1-15

3. Indianapolis 6-10

4. Tampa Bay 9-7

5. Atlanta 7-9

6. Buffalo 3-13

7. Cincinnati 6-10

8. Cleveland 7-9

9. Jacksonville 6-10

10. Minnesota 5-11

11. NY Giants 7-9

12. Tennessee 7-9

13. Kansas City 6-10

Slot the Redskins at #9 on that list, and it doesn't look pretty.

But it gets worse. Dallas has the #23 toughest schedule this year. Look at some other teams the Redskins will be facing in a wildcard race: Packers (#28), Bears (#25), Vikings (#13), Eagles (#11). In other words, five of our key possible rivals for a wildcard birth have an easier schedule.

Even worse: our schedule is harder than it looks. Two teams had freakishly low 2001 records and will certainly bounce back big in 2002. I'm referring to the Colts (6-10 last year, thanks to bad defense; now they have defense-minded Dungy as HC); and the Titans (7-9, but still with their Super Bowl cornerstones intact). Playing twice against Dallas (5-11) lowers our opponent winning percentage significantly, but that's seriously misleading, given the nine losses in a row to Dallas. Finally, the one team that should be a gimme, the expansion Houston Texans, is not on our schedule until week 16. That's plenty of time for the Texans to discover how to win -- their season could look like ours last year.

We can correct some of these distortions by re-assigning records to the Titans, Colts and Cowboys. I think the Colts and Titans both look like 11-5 teams, and Dallas plays us like an 11-5 team. Their combined actual record last year was 23-41 (counting Dallas twice); but their adjusted record would be 44-20. Merging these figures into our strength of schedule ranking makes our opponent record 147-93 (.613) instead of 126-114 (.525), raising our schedule strength to become far and away the hardest schedule in the league.

Skeptics will quibble about the values I've assigned the Titans, Colts and Cowboys. OK, have it your way. If I assign each of them only 8-8 records (remember in the Cowboys case, it's an assessment of how well they play us), our opponent record becomes 135-105 (.563). Guess what? That's STILL by far the hardest schedule in the league.

Last year, only three teams had schedules as tough as a (.563) winning percentage. They were Detroit (.582), Carolina (.574), and Indianapolis (.563). These were their finishing records:

Detroit: 2-14

Carolina: 1-15

Indianapolis: 6-10

I maintain our schedule is in fact closer to (.613) than (.563). But even if it's as "weak" as (.563), that puts us in the league of those three teams, and you know how they finished.

I'm not suggesting we will finish like those teams. But I *am* suggesting that last year's 8-8 record was inflated by a weak (#23) schedule, and that we will be making a major improvement just to equal the same 8-8 record.

Last year, only one team with an schedule tougher than (.512) finished with a record better than 7-9. That team was Tampa Bay, finishing 9-7 with Tony Dungy being fired.

Unless Spurrier, Lewis and the players cook up some kind of amazing team overnight, we will be perceived as a "struggling" team, with lots of second-guessing by the media. But if we miss the playoffs, the likely culprit will simply be the schedule.

That was the point of this whole thread, recalling the 7-9 1988 team and its horrifically difficult schedule. At least then we had the security of a stable franchise and Joe Gibbs as coach. This time, if we pull a 7-9 record, the media will have a field day second-guessing Dan Snyder, Steve Spurrier and our players.

[OrangeSkin]

1. Detroit 2-14 - They're in a rebuilding phase

2. Carolina 1-15 - They sucked anyway, didn't matter if they had the first or the last schedule.

3. Indianapolis 6-10 - Edgerrin James went down and the totally underachieved.

4. Tampa Bay 9-7 - They had their usual performance, taking the backdoor into the playoffs. Doesn't matter what their sos is, they do the same every year.

5. Atlanta 7-9 - Did anybody expect them to do anything?

6. Buffalo 3-13 - Rebuilding

7. Cincinnati 6-10 - The're the Bengals. 'Nuff said.

8. Cleveland 7-9 - They're a young team, they actually overacheived last year.

9. Jacksonville 6-10 - Rebuilding.

10. Minnesota 5-11 - After Korey Stringer's death they were never the same.

11. NY Giants 7-9 - ??

12. Tennessee 7-9 - Eddie George didn't perform well, were more talented than most of their opponents.

13. Kansas City 6-10 - Rebuilding.

The only team I'd give you on that list that lost a lot of their games due to schedule was possibly the Giants. Other than that, there were numerous factors besides strength of schedule involved with all the other teams listed. Strength of schedule was somewhere near the bottom of the list.

[rtandler]

Very good analysis, ASF, but you're discounting a few factors when you're looking at all of those factors:

--You say that Tennessee and Indy will not be as bad as they were last year, so you inflate their win total to calculate probable schedule strength. But the fact is that, even if those teams do improve, other teams will decline. IMO it's quite possible that the Rams, 49ers, and Seahawks will not be as good as they were last year. Add the Giants to that list, come to think of it.

--The problem that I have with putting strength of schedule under a microscope is the fact that bad teams have "tough" schedules because they lost to the teams that they played. The Panthers, for example, contibuted an aggregate .9375 to their opponents' winning percentage.

--The "mushy middle" of the NFL is huge. There is a small handful of excellent teams, a small handul of horrid teams, and everyone else is a few injuries or a few bounces from 6-10 or 10-6.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OrangeSkin

1. Detroit 2-14 - They're in a rebuilding phase

2. Carolina 1-15 - They sucked anyway, didn't matter if they had the first or the last schedule.

3. Indianapolis 6-10 - Edgerrin James went down and the totally underachieved.

4. Tampa Bay 9-7 - They had their usual performance, taking the backdoor into the playoffs. Doesn't matter what their sos is, they do the same every year.

5. Atlanta 7-9 - Did anybody expect them to do anything?

6. Buffalo 3-13 - Rebuilding

7. Cincinnati 6-10 - The're the Bengals. 'Nuff said.

8. Cleveland 7-9 - They're a young team, they actually overacheived last year.

9. Jacksonville 6-10 - Rebuilding.

10. Minnesota 5-11 - After Korey Stringer's death they were never the same.

11. NY Giants 7-9 - ??

12. Tennessee 7-9 - Eddie George didn't perform well, were more talented than most of their opponents.

13. Kansas City 6-10 - Rebuilding.

The only team I'd give you on that list that lost a lot of their games due to schedule was possibly the Giants. Other than that, there were numerous factors besides strength of schedule involved with all the other teams listed. Strength of schedule was somewhere near the bottom of the list.

Come on, OrangeSkin. Give me a break.

Do have any idea how powerful this evidence is? That out of the the 13 toughest schedules, only one team pulled off a record better than 7-9, and that team (Tampa Bay, 9-7), had its coach fired? That the two teams with the toughest schedules finished worst in the league (Detroit, 2-14, and Carolina, 1-15)?

Your explanation is hilarious. It's a great example of how people rationalize reality -- X team has a bad record "because something's wrong with them". Even the team starts to believe this after a while, so they play even worse. When the evidence indicates that strength of schedule is an overwhelming factor.

Let's turn the problem around. What 2001 teams do people recall as being "happy surprises"? Gee, maybe Super Bowl winner New England? (#28 schedule). Writers were falling all over themselves writing about how brilliantly they were coached, and how great Tom Brady was. I'm not saying that they were badly coached or that Brady isn't good -- it's just that the "explanation" isn't the whole story.

Let's keep this up. How about that great Chicago Bears story? Oh wait. They had the #25 schedule. So much for brilliant coaching.

How about Oakland and that genius John Gruden? Oh wait, they had the #24 schedule.

Now hold on, you're saying. Those were the freak surprises. Everyone knows that there were other good teams -- strength of schedule doesn't matter for them, right? Hmmm.... How about Pittsburgh (#31)? How about Green Bay (#30)? How about San Francisco (#26)? How about St. Louis (#22)? How about Philadelphia (#20)?

That list of current NFL stalwart teams would normally include the Titans, Jaguars and Colts. But they "stumbled" last year. All sorts of rationalizations and explanations were offered. But the obvious explanation was missed. The Titans had the #12 schedule and finished 7-9; the Jaguars had the #9 schedule and finished 6-10; and the Colts had the #3 schedule and finished 6-10.

It's almost statistically impossible for all these facts to be present and not to conclude that strength of schedule is an *overwhelming* factor in the success of teams today. Maybe that was less true in the past, before the salary cap, when teams of enduring dominance could be created. But even then, with the 1988 Redskins, we see what happens when a team of talent meets an impossibly tough schedule.

It's tragic how unrecognized these schedule factors are. Teams get praised more than they should, and blamed more than they should.

If the Redskins finish 9-7 this year, it will be a major achievement, but be perceived as a major disappointment. An 8-8 record should be respectable, but will be viewed as a disaster. A 10-6 record should be cause for coach of the year, but will be yawned away.

[OrangeSkin]

I can see why when looking back at the season, you can see how sos affected records. But looking at the 2002 season, there is no way to predict how the teams we're playing this year will perform. I guess you can pull out your numbers and statsheets and through a series of mathematical formulas see exactly what their records will be? I guess you can predict the stock market too.

I'm sure the Patriots victories over the Raiders, Steelers, and Rams in the playoffs was due to the fact that all 3 of those teams had easy schedules and they weren't prepared for the Patriots.

And I also assume that the Rams victories over the Packers and Eagles were just coincidence as well?

You can point to all the stats you want, but the reason teams falter lies internally, not externally.

The NFL is a league of partiy. It's not MLB, where the same teams dominate year in and year out. Anybody can beat anybody on any given day. The Titans were serious contendors preaseason, but you're telling me that because they had a semi-tough schedule they weren't as good as advertised?

I'm sure anybody within the Titans organization would beg to differ that it was Eddie George's chronic toe problem and the lack of help from the wideout position.

I don't see where you get off saying my rationalizations are ridiculous. I'd venture to say that all of them are true. Can you deny that?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OrangeSkin

I don't see where you get off saying my rationalizations are ridiculous. I'd venture to say that all of them are true. Can you deny that?

All right, I probably overstated that. Here's a better way of stating my point:

It's the rare team that doesn't suffer some kind of mishap, or carry some kind of weakness. The mishap could be an injury or two, or surprisingly poor performance by a player or two, or a lack of quality players at certain positions.

When a team wins a lot of games, NO ONE REMEMBERS THE PROBLEMS. As the cliche says, winning cures everything.

When a team loses a lot of games, fans and the media notice the problems and decide the team has lost all the games because of the problems.

It's not that the problems aren't relevant -- they may make the difference of a win or two, typically. Maybe three games in extreme cases. But when teams suddenly win big or lose big, or struggle when they were thought to be good, the likely culprit is the effect of an extreme schedule distortion -- an extremely difficult or easy schedule.

No one writes about that. It sounds whiny to talk about it when a team does poorly. And it sounds churlish to talk about it when a feel-good team like New England or Chicago suddenly hits it big.

But if you want to understand why teams go through these roller-coaster swings, you should study the strength of schedule. You might even make more money at the betting table.

[OrangeSkin]

Look at it this way:

Say the Eagles have the toughest schedule in the league (supposedly, this is preseason remember). Donovan McNabb gets hurt and they go 6-10.

Are you going to blame their poor record on the sos or on McNabb's injury?

Basing preseason predictions on preseason sos is pure speculation at best.

And you still didn't touch on how the Patriots somehow managed to get by the Raiders, Steelers, and Rams if they were so weak.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by OrangeSkin

Look at it this way:

Say the Eagles have the toughest schedule in the league (supposedly, this is preseason remember). Donovan McNabb gets hurt and they go 6-10.

Are you going to blame their poor record on the sos or on McNabb's injury?

... And you still didn't touch on how the Patriots somehow managed to get by the Raiders, Steelers, and Rams if they were so weak.

McNabb is probably more critical to the success of his team than any other player in the league. So an injury to McNabb will carry exaggerated impact. But the #1 schedule would also have a major impact. I figure losing McNabb in the preseason takes the Eagles from 11-5 to 8-8 or 7-9. But having the #1 schedule is *also* worth a swing of at least three games, taking them down to 5-11 or worse in your scenario.

As for the Patriots (#28) beating the Raiders (#24), Steelers (#31) and Rams (#22), it's a case of four teams all with inflated records facing each other. The Patriots barely squeaked by the Raiders and Rams, and beat a Steelers team fielding the worst QB in the playoffs. I'm really not awed by the Patriot achievement at all.

I do think the Patriots are well coached, and I like Tom Brady. But this is a team that got its confidence in the regular season by rolling through one of the easiest schedules in the league. Teams start to believe their PR, whether the PR is good or bad. That kind of confidence can become an edge when it comes to the playoffs.

If the Patriots had had one of the top 5 schedules last year, we wouldn't even be discussing them now. They would have been home for Christmas warming their feet in front of the fire.