I'm just curious, have the '91 Redskins ever been mentioned as one of the great teams

[CM916]

No, for various reasons:

1. They were the Redskins.

2. They pulled the starters and lost the final game by one point.

3. Mark Rypien's hair cut.

4. Lack of primadonna star players.

Feel free to add to the list.

[kleese]

DC--

Strength of schedule is based on teams THAT year. What I am saying is that the only reason the Lions went 12-4 in 1991 was because it was a down year.

[jimking]

Gibbs believes the 83 team was his best. However, I will stick with 91 becasue the only reason we lost in week 17 to Philly was that we did not play our starters at the Vet. The team should have been 15-1. Also they didn't go out and get hammered until 4 AM in Minny the way they did in Tampa in January of 1984. 1991 won, the 1983 team choked in a drunken stupor. 1991 by far.

That is true. I remember people making comments back then that the players got drunk the night before. I really didn't believe it until just a couple of weeks ago when Riggo said on his radio show "yes, we got hammered!"

[LeesburgSkinFan]

DC--

Strength of schedule is based on teams THAT year. What I am saying is that the only reason the Lions went 12-4 in 1991 was because it was a down year.

Fluke season for the Lions as I recall. They rallied together and went on quite a run following Mike Utley's spinal injury.

[BigMike619]

No, for various reasons:

1. They were the Redskins.

2. They pulled the starters and lost the final game by one point.

3. Mark Rypien's hair cut.

4. Lack of primadonna star players.

Feel free to add to the list.

Please feel free to add something worthy to this conversation next time.

Haircuts and primadonna players? Really?

:doh:

[BigMike619]

DC--

Strength of schedule is based on teams THAT year. What I am saying is that the only reason the Lions went 12-4 in 1991 was because it was a down year.

What Im saying is, if EVERYONE is having a down year, doesnt that just even it all out? If every team is sucking just as bad as the rest then there is no advantage for any other team.

[DCMONEY]

DC--

Strength of schedule is based on teams THAT year. What I am saying is that the only reason the Lions went 12-4 in 1991 was because it was a down year.

A down year for who? What are you talking about? The Skins faced a good amount of teams that were up. I'm not getting you.

[DCMONEY]

Fluke season for the Lions as I recall. They rallied together and went on quite a run following Mike Utley's spinal injury.

Man the Lions were good that year. Fluke or not they made it to the NFC Championship game with a 12-4 record. They were good that season period.

[NoCalMike]

The 1991 Redskins team was a great example of how an already title-contender becomes even better when players that are older and smarter and understand the game of football better. A lot of players on the 1991 squad were coming to the end of a great career, with a franchise that had just spent the 80's as contenders almost every year. 1991 was basically the icing on the cake and proof that a players age doesn't necessarily matter.

[DCMONEY]

The 1991 Redskins team was a great example of how an already title-contender becomes even better when players that are older and smarter and understand the game of football better. A lot of players on the 1991 squad were coming to the end of a great career, with a franchise that had just spent the 80's as contenders almost every year. 1991 was basically the icing on the cake and proof that a players age doesn't necessarily matter.

That 91 team kicked butt period.

[DixieFlatline]

That 91 team kicked butt period.

The 91 team could do no wrong. I was in college at the time and the Skins games were always on. Those that weren't fans in my fraternity house got so tired of watching them because they rolled through everyone. I knew people that hated the Skins just being flabbergasted about how good we were.

And ESPN can't rank us above 10 because Rypien wasn't a HOFer? Well, shouldn't that rank you at the top if you DON'T have a HOF QB? Seems like it might be easier otherwise.

[SkinsFTW]

And ESPN can't rank us above 10 because Rypien wasn't a HOFer? Well, shouldn't that rank you at the top if you DON'T have a HOF QB? Seems like it might be easier otherwise.

Espn is just stupid. While ranking all time teams they factor in that our QB wasn't very good in most of his other seasons.

Fact is, the 1991 Redskins had an over .500 strength of schedule and lost 2 games they didn't need to win and had the #1 offense and #2 defense in the league.

In the ESPN article they ranked the 1989 49ers #1 alltime, they also went 14-2 except they play in the weak NFC West, only had a .450 strength of schedule and had the #1 offense and #3 defense.

The difference between these teams is the Redskins scored over 3 points more a game and gave up 2 fewer points a game. The fact that the Redskins let up on the Bills, and the 49ers ran the score up in the SB against the Broncos seems to be ESPN's deciding factor, even though every stat other than this points to the 1991 Redskins being the better team. 9 Sacks given up all year and we had 50, etc.

They even ranked the 1992 Cowboys higher when there was nothing extraordinary about what they did, other than the final score in the SB. ESPN is just dumb.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=super/rankings/1-20

The ranking should now be

2007 Pats (if they win)

1991 Redskins

1985 Bears

1984 49ers

1996 Packers

[Mark The Homer]

By the way, they just showed the "Greatest Superbowl plays" on the nfl network and they put the Riggo run at #6.

[tim5129]

no not really and i think the major part of that is they fact that they lost to 2 bad teams that year. we should have gone undefeated!

[SkinsFTW]

no not really and i think the major part of that is they fact that they lost to 2 bad teams that year. we should have gone undefeated!

No, actually the Redskins losses were against good teams, but the Redskins had already clinched it. And you know Gibbs isn't one to run up scores when he can rest players he needs later.

The 1991 Redskins started off 11-0 and spanked a lot of good teams. Maybe Gibbs tendency to take it easy is the reason the 1991 Redskins aren't ranked as the best ever, even though the stats say that they are.

[HailGreen28]

Two thing hurt the 1991 team in terms of ranking:

1. It's hard to separate "teams" from "dynasties." The 49ers, Packers, Steelers, and Cowboys teams are all more memorable to people because they did it for so long. Most of those teams kind of melt together in the minds of people. The 1991 Redskins were awesome, but that was a singular team.

2. NFL was weak in 1991. Just a fact. The Giants were way down that year, the Bears of the 80's had finally faded, the Cowboys weren't quite ready yet, and most notably, the 49ers missed the playoffs for only time in what was like a 17 year span. This was also the season for SF where both Montana AND Young were out. The Bills were solid of course in the AFC, but that was about it.

The Redskins trampled through the league that year unchallenged. It's not their fault, but the teams we beat in 1991 weren't very good or memorable. Look at all the teams that played in the NFC Title game from the early 80's to the mid 90's.... the 1991 Lions don't really fit

If you are talking about "greatness" being defined by how badly a team dominated that particular season, then the 1991 Redskins need to be near the very top. Very, very easy season. If you are talking about what great team would beat what other great team-- then there's more debate.

One of the reasons the 49ers and Cowpukes were down is that other teams stepped up. Every year someone does.

It's like when your team is about to face a top ranked opponent in the next round of playoffs, and that team gets upset beforehand. Sure, you're not playing that top ranked opponent next round, but you're playing THE TEAM THAT BEAT THAT TOP RANKED TEAM INSTEAD. Likewise sure the '91 Skins didn't play the 49ers and Cowpukes in the playoffs, the Skins played the teams THAT BEAT the 9ers and pukes that year.

Using the same illogic, all the Cowpuke teams of the 90's were all BUMS because only the Bills stepped up to the plate then.