bulldog Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The 2005 Redskins are a much better all-around football team than the 1999 squad was. The 1999 team finished #2 in offensive yardage but was #29 on defense. That fact is obscured by the fact the team faced two offensively challenged teams in the postseason in Detroit and Tampa. The other factor to look at is the state of the NFC East and the relative strength of schedule. In 1999 the Eagles were awful. The Giants were below .500 and the only other team in the division near the Redskins were the 8-8 Cowboys. This year the East produced 3 teams with winning records and the Eagles although 6-10 were a tough out for the Redskins and Giants to end up the season. Strength of schedule? The Redskins in 2005 faced a top 3 schedule. Other than the Raiders game, the only losses were to teams that finished over .500. Of the seeded playoff teams the Redskins played the Broncos (#2 in AFC), Seattle (#1 in NFC), Chicago (#2 in NFC), Bucs and of course the division games against NY. The 1999 team didn't face that kind of opposition. Neither the Rams nor the Titans were on the schedule. The Redskins lost 2 games to the 8-8 Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The 2005 Redskins are a much better all-around football team than the 1999 squad was. The 1999 team finished #2 in offensive yardage but was #29 on defense. That fact is obscured by the fact the team faced two offensively challenged teams in the postseason in Detroit and Tampa. The other factor to look at is the state of the NFC East and the relative strength of schedule. In 1999 the Eagles were awful. The Giants were below .500 and the only other team in the division near the Redskins were the 8-8 Cowboys. This year the East produced 3 teams with winning records and the Eagles although 6-10 were a tough out for the Redskins and Giants to end up the season. Strength of schedule? The Redskins in 2005 faced a top 3 schedule. Other than the Raiders game, the only losses were to teams that finished over .500. Of the seeded playoff teams the Redskins played the Broncos (#2 in AFC), Seattle (#1 in NFC), Chicago (#2 in NFC), Bucs and of course the division games against NY. The 1999 team didn't face that kind of opposition. Neither the Rams nor the Titans were on the schedule. The Redskins lost 2 games to the 8-8 Cowboys. Looking at the stats the defense wasn't great but when they had to perform they did. I would still give the edge to the 1999 team, they destroyed the lions at home and were so balanced on offense. We should have won against tampa but due to a bad snap we never would have known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The fact that we're so battle tested against tough opponents, including in some of the toughest road venues, makes me more optimistic than I would have thought possible as the #6 playoff seed. We're also helped by the fact that our conference is relatively weak, and there's not a single division champion in the NFC whose homefield terrifies me (the toughest in that regard is the Giants). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drex Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I can condense this post to simply one sentence that provides why there is no comparision between the two teams: Unlike the 1999 squad, this team is coached by Joe Gibbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
50GutCheck Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 You are correct Bulldog, there is no comparison with the '99 squad. In '99 we had Norv, that should be all we need to say on the topic of comparison...or lack thereof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 oh god, I forgot about the Norv thing :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I apoligize We still have to win in Tampa to be better though, and I think we will get to the NFC Title game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 The fact that we're so battle tested against tough opponents, including in some of the toughest road venues, makes me more optimistic than I would have thought possible as the #6 playoff seed. We're also helped by the fact that our conference is relatively weak, and there's not a single division champion in the NFC whose homefield terrifies me (the toughest in that regard is the Giants). I disagree, I feel the Seahawks homefield is much more daunting than the Giants because it gets very loud in Seattle. Especially since the Giants have more injuies at this point than the Seahawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 Looking at the stats the defense wasn't great but when they had to perform they did. I would still give the edge to the 1999 team, they destroyed the lions at home and were so balanced on offense. We should have won against tampa but due to a bad snap we never would have known. In my opinion this team is better They should have easily won that tampa game but didnt in 99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misery Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I agree this team is way better than in 99. I think we will have a great game in Tampa and should get the W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 again, the Redskins faced a very weak Lions team in round 1 in 1999, a team lead by Gus Frerotte that had backed into the playoffs at 9-7. that isn't the case this time around. we are on the road against a team that went 11-5 on the season and has a proven head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasRedskinFan Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 How far did we go in the playoffs in '99? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I disagree, I feel the Seahawks homefield is much more daunting than the Giants because it gets very loud in Seattle. Especially since the Giants have more injuies at this point than the Seahawks. I'd love for Moss to torch Will Allen or Deloach again and for Portis to bust through their super-depleted LB corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 This team is much better, agreed. There are no 1999 Rams to look forward to either even though I believe that Gibbs could get it done against such a team. I'd guess that the toughest game will come at Chicago if we can make it to the NFCCG and they are the opponent. If not then the Giants in the same game would be just as tough but I dont expect them to make it since the Bears are tough to beat at home and they have Eli at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.