Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I got bored so I listed every team that has won a division title since we last did in '99. Miami '00 Tennessee '00, 02 Oakland '00, 01, 02 Giants '00, '05 Minnesota '00 New Orleans '00, '06 New England '01, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07 Pittsburgh '01, '02, '04, '07 Philadelphia '01, '02, '03, '04, '06 Chicago '01, '05, '06 St. Louis '01, '03 Jets '02 Green Bay '02, '03, '04, '07 Tampa Bay '02, '05, '06, '07 San Francisco '02 Baltimore '03, '06 Indianapolis '03, '04, '05, '06, '07 Kansas City '03 Carolina '03 San Diego '04, '06, '07 Atlanta '04 Seattle '04 Cincinatti '05 Denver '05 Chicago '05, '06 Seattle '05, '06, '07 Dallas '07 Teams with no titles: Buffalo Cleveland Jacksonville Houston Washington Detroit Arizona Arizona should be coming off the list this year. That will leave 6 teams that are oh-for-the-century. Keep in mind that the league went to 4 Divisions in '02. Don't you want your $25 Division Title t-shirt which will be perfect for those two days a week you do 25 minutes on the treadmill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 When you put it like that, this just blows! We may have to wait awhile still though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Many of those teams have also been in divisions that are terrible (see Seattle and NE for example). The NFC East hasn't had 3 terrible teams in a LONG time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST is my boy Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Wow.....that blows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice_of_Reason Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Suck. Blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Man - even, (gulp) Cincinnati has won a division title... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Its hard to remember the last time I watched a season where the skins would just play good dominant football.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Many of those teams have also been in divisions that are terrible (see Seattle and NE for example). The NFC East hasn't had 3 terrible teams in a LONG time. I don't know. Philly won the division by default a lot of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muslechic47 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Many of those teams have also been in divisions that are terrible (see Seattle and NE for example). The NFC East hasn't had 3 terrible teams in a LONG time. True, but we are the only team in our division that hasn't won one since '99, so what does that say about the Skins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Did the Giants win the NFC East in 2007? On the other hand, didn't the Eagles win the NFC East from 2001-2005? Winning the division is not as important as it has been in the past because homefield has been less and less a factor in winning games in the postseason. The Redskins organization made major mistakes in evaluating coaches and personnel from 2000 to 2004 and the ramifications of a lot of those decisions has kept the team from becoming a true contender. Nowhere is the current situation more ironic than at quarterback. Between 2004-2006 the Redskins had a top defense but had a quarterback that couldn't push the ball downfield to make the big plays that were there. Now in 2008 we have a quarterback to push the ball down the field, but he is young and inexperienced and that once solid veteran line is now aging and battered and has given up 32 sacks in 12 games. The most important thing for Cerrato and Zorn to take away from 2008 whether the team finishes 8-8 or 10-6 is that a LOT more work is necessary in building up deficient areas of this team. And that means making some tough decisions. Tough in that they might require releasing name players whose cap hits will be large but who are no longer contributing at former levels and need to be replaced by younger, hungrier ball players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I got bored so I listed every team that has won a division title since we last did in '99.Miami '00 Tennessee '00' date=' 02 Oakland '00, 01, 02 Giants '00, '05 Minnesota '00 New Orleans '00, '06 New England '01, '03, '04, '05, '06, '07 Pittsburgh '01, '02, '04, '07 Philadelphia '01, '02, '03, '04, '06 Chicago '01, '05, '06 St. Louis '01, '03 Jets '02 Green Bay '02, '03, '04, '07 Tampa Bay '02, '05, '06, '07 San Francisco '02 Baltimore '03, '06 Indianapolis '03, '04, '05, '06, '07 Kansas City '03 Carolina '03 San Diego '04, '06, '07 Atlanta '04 Seattle '04 Cincinatti '05 Denver '05 Chicago '05, '06 Seattle '05, '06, '07 Dallas '07 Teams with no titles: Buffalo Cleveland Jacksonville Houston Washington Detroit Arizona Arizona should be coming off the list this year. That will leave 6 teams that are oh-for-the-century. Keep in mind that the league went to 4 Divisions in '02. Don't you want your $25 Division Title t-shirt which will be perfect for those two days a week you do 25 minutes on the treadmill?[/quote'] Pretty much encapsulates the Snyder era. Down hill most all the way since we never built on almost sneaking into the NFC title game back in '99. Sad, sad read in the cold light of day. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 LKB, who is an inspirational speaker/writer in his spare time, .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Did the Giants win the NFC East in 2007? Cowboys did. They were 13-3 On the other hand, didn't the Eagles win the NFC East from 2001-2005? Giants in '05. Winning the division is not as important as it has been in the past because homefield has been less and less a factor in winning games in the postseason. Winning the division is less important now in terms of winning the Super Bowl. Wild card teams have won 3 Super Bowls this century. Giants in '07. Steelers in '05. Baltimore in '00. However, because there are only 2 Wild Card teams now as opposed to three, winning the division is the easiest path to the playoffs. In 1997, you had to battle 12 teams for 3 spots. In 2007, you have to battle 12 teams for 2 spots. So, you have a 1 in 4 shot of winning your division but a 1 in 6 shot of grabbing a wild card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santana_4_prez Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Wow, that is depressing...someone needs to email that list to Snyder...it really puts things in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 LKB, who is an inspirational speaker/writer in his spare time, .... I am a hit at junior high commencement ceremonies with my patented speech "Fully one fourth of you will destroy your lives forever in the next 3 years." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Edds Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Did the Giants win the NFC East in 2007?On the other hand, didn't the Eagles win the NFC East from 2001-2005? Winning the division is not as important as it has been in the past because homefield has been less and less a factor in winning games in the postseason. The Redskins organization made major mistakes in evaluating coaches and personnel from 2000 to 2004 and the ramifications of a lot of those decisions has kept the team from becoming a true contender. Nowhere is the current situation more ironic than at quarterback. Between 2004-2006 the Redskins had a top defense but had a quarterback that couldn't push the ball downfield to make the big plays that were there. Now in 2008 we have a quarterback to push the ball down the field, but he is young and inexperienced and that once solid veteran line is now aging and battered and has given up 32 sacks in 12 games. The most important thing for Cerrato and Zorn to take away from 2008 whether the team finishes 8-8 or 10-6 is that a LOT more work is necessary in building up deficient areas of this team. And that means making some tough decisions. Tough in that they might require releasing name players whose cap hits will be large but who are no longer contributing at former levels and need to be replaced by younger, hungrier ball players. totally agree with this post. Sadly, it will likely take another year or two before we even being to see some consistant play. I really hope that at least few of the the guys that were brought in as FA's from the Gibbs 2.0 era will be around to see some success. Mainly Portis and Tana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Did the Giants win the NFC East in 2007?On the other hand, didn't the Eagles win the NFC East from 2001-2005? Winning the division is not as important as it has been in the past because homefield has been less and less a factor in winning games in the postseason. The Redskins organization made major mistakes in evaluating coaches and personnel from 2000 to 2004 and the ramifications of a lot of those decisions has kept the team from becoming a true contender. Nowhere is the current situation more ironic than at quarterback. Between 2004-2006 the Redskins had a top defense but had a quarterback that couldn't push the ball downfield to make the big plays that were there. Now in 2008 we have a quarterback to push the ball down the field, but he is young and inexperienced and that once solid veteran line is now aging and battered and has given up 32 sacks in 12 games. The most important thing for Cerrato and Zorn to take away from 2008 whether the team finishes 8-8 or 10-6 is that a LOT more work is necessary in building up deficient areas of this team. And that means making some tough decisions. Tough in that they might require releasing name players whose cap hits will be large but who are no longer contributing at former levels and need to be replaced by younger, hungrier ball players. And winning the Wildcard has done wonders for the Skins.... one defensive win in Tampa and two losses to superior Seattle teams. If you are ok with a weak ***** wildcard team - have at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 And that means making some tough decisions. Tough in that they might require releasing name players whose cap hits will be large but who are no longer contributing at former levels and need to be replaced by younger, hungrier ball players. What players do you have in mind? I'm guessing Shawn Springs, Marcus Washington, Jon Jansen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kleese Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I'm not defending this by any means, but IMO, it can be a bit misleading....I think the 2005 was MUCH better than our division-winning 1999 team and I think the 2007 may have been better than the 1999 team as well. 1999 was a rare year when the East was awful...the Redskins didn't beat a team with a winning record all season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan1523 Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Its hard to remember the last time I watched a season where the skins would just play good dominant football.. I've never seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Wow that is depressing...if you all will excuse me I now feel like making some toast while sitting in a nice warm bath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 I'm not defending this by any means, but IMO, it can be a bit misleading....I think the 2005 was MUCH better than our division-winning 1999 team and I think the 2007 may have been better than the 1999 team as well. 1999 was a rare year when the East was awful...the Redskins didn't beat a team with a winning record all season. That's an interesting point. I think overall offensively the 1999 team was better (just slightly though). Brad Johnson threw for over 4000 yards that year and Stephen Davis rushed for over 1400. The 2005 team though was leaps and bounds better on defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Winning the division is great and all but for me....Im more worried about just getting into the playoffs PERIOD. Thats the 2nd season and thats what matters. U think Pitt in '05 or the Giants last year give two terds about being Wildcards? They made the playoffs...thats the bottom line. Once your in anything can happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted December 3, 2008 Author Share Posted December 3, 2008 Winning the division is great and all but for me....Im more worried about just getting into the playoffs PERIOD. Thats the 2nd season and thats what matters. U think Pitt in '05 or the Giants last year give two terds about being Wildcards? They made the playoffs...thats the bottom line. Once your in anything can happen. Agreed. But as I pointed out, you have a 1 in 4 shot of winning the division but a 1 in 6 shot of winning the wildcard. In the modern NFL, it is far easier to win a division title than to get a WC spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Winning the division is less important now in terms of winning the Super Bowl. Wild card teams have won 3 Super Bowls this century. Giants in '07. Steelers in '05. Baltimore in '00.However' date=' because there are only 2 Wild Card teams now as opposed to three, winning the division is the easiest path to the playoffs. In 1997, you had to battle 12 teams for 3 spots. In 2007, you have to battle 12 teams for 2 spots. So, you have a 1 in 4 shot of winning your division but a 1 in 6 shot of grabbing a wild card.[/quote'] I'd argue the contrary that winning the division is ALL important when it comes to the post season and winning the big game. The play goes' up yet another level when it comes to January, and winning on the road is the hardest thing to do in the play offs. (Seattle anyone?). That's what we've craved more than any other since that Detroit game back in '99, a HOME play off game. Since 1970, when the wildcard concept was introduced, only NINE teams in those 38 years have reached the Super Bowl via a wildcard slot. And of those 9, only 5 have actually won the big game. Pretty much speaks for it's self. The sooner the Redskins step up and make it easier on ourselves by winning the East and maybe's guaranteeing home field right through the post season, the sooner our chances of getting back to the show increase markedly. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.