Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Now that Grimm is in, my questions is.....

OxonHillSkinsFan89

By OxonHillSkinsFan89
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

kappaluvacee

kappaluvacee

Posted
Posted
It is. Perhaps you mean "Why is the '91 team frequently left out of the discussion as one of the greatest teams of all time?". In which case my best guess is the fact that we didn't have a HOF QB.

I think the '91 team was hurt by a couple factors:

1. '83 SB team that got slaughtered by the Marcus Allen. That team was considered on of the most complete teams of all times, and highly favored against the Raiders. '87 was well balanced too, but the win in '87 really didn't erase the full negativity from '83. '91 was widely viewed as the solidification of the dynasty which some media outlets still don't honor!

2. Many people don't like the 'Skins and don't respect the dominance because they hated JKC/Gibbs/Bethard for their personnel practices which eventually led things like the Practice Squad and a tightening of IR rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
[[ghost]]

[[ghost]]

Posted
Posted
It is. Perhaps you mean "Why is the '91 team frequently left out of the discussion as one of the greatest teams of all time?". In which case my best guess is the fact that we didn't have a HOF QB.

And we didn't have a filthy star on our helmet.

It also didn't help that our Coach wasn't a proponent of crack heads on his squad. Imagine the kind of press we could have gotten if Monk had done moon walks after first downs and hit crack pipes after touchdowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fwo40

fwo40

Posted
Posted

I hate to say this, but it's probably true that at least part of the reason the Skins don't get brought up is b/c we beat a Lions team instead of a Cowboys team in the NFC title game.

Had we beat Dallas, to avenge that home loss that stopped our streak, then I think the team is looked at a little differently nationally.

It's not fair, but I def think destroying the Cowboys on a national stage like we did to the Lions would've left a longer impression on the NFL world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I think the Montana/Young 49ers got the hype and the love because they were considered the highlight team. Gibbs teams were always looked down upon because 2 of the three Superbowls came in strike years. I've always thought that made it harder, not easier because you had to keep the team together and perservere... especially in '87 (the scab year).

There really isn't any question though that the 'skins were at least co-owners of the '80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2cents

2cents

Posted
Posted

But we can't pick who we played. Basically I think it comes down to the fact that to all the media, we were "boring". But who cares, we know we were good, our stats line up with the better teams around, but I don't feel like I need the media to tell me that team was great. I've been watching football since 1970, and I know that team was awesome. That is all I need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

I don't think it's that we were boring. The 83 and 91 teams were certainly not and anyone who remembers Rypien, Schroeder, Williams going bombs away certainly would never confuse Gibbs for Schottenheimer.

I think what it was is lack to that STAR. You think 49ers and you see Montana or Rice. You see the Cowboys and you envision Stauback or Aikman. You envision the Packers and you think Farve... or maybe Lombardi.

The Redskins of the 80's never had that face that everyone could fall in love with and Madden could drool all over. He drooled a little bit on Clark for a while, but during that ten year stretch we didn't have a guy who represented us except the coach... who just was the opposite of a media guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Southtown

Southtown

Posted
Posted

2 random things that would of helped more people remember the 91 team. If Roger Ruzek misses that field goal, we go 15-1 and the '91 team is put in a very elite group. If Jeff Rutledge knew how to throw away a ball, The Hogs (sort of) set the NFL record for least amount of sacks given up in a season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
Just because you win a Superbowl, it doesnt mean your the best ever. To be honest, Im a little sick of the look back to the 80s-early 90s. It can only satisfy you for so long.

True.

But it's probably worse because you are 17 and never actually experienced it full throttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
celts32

celts32

Posted
Posted

When NFL Films was doing the Americas Game series and counting down the top Super bowl teams he said that he wanted to rank the 1991 skins much higher then they were on the list but at the end of the day he couldn't justify it because they had Mark Rypien at QB and all the other teams ranked higher had a HOFer at QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of

Ghost of

Posted
Posted
2 random things that would of helped more people remember the 91 team. If Roger Ruzek misses that field goal, we go 15-1 and the '91 team is put in a very elite group. If Jeff Rutledge knew how to throw away a ball, The Hogs (sort of) set the NFL record for least amount of sacks given up in a season.

Well, it would have been even better had Joe just played to win that last game and put us in that very elite group, rather than pulling starters, etc. Guaranteed we win in that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Going Commando

Going Commando

Posted
Posted
It is. Perhaps you mean "Why is the '91 team frequently left out of the discussion as one of the greatest teams of all time?". In which case my best guess is the fact that we didn't have a HOF QB.

Maybe it's because they just took care of business. As Charles Mann said, there were no superstars, just a super team. They dominated everyone and didn't cause any drama and off the field foolishness like the 85 bears, 90's Cowboys, or '94 49ers did. And Rypien was probably one of the least compelling star QBs of the time personality-wise. Maybe if he'd went ahead and set that touchdown record people would talk about the '91 team more but other than that there really isn't much to say about them except that they dominated everyone.

Now the '82, '83, and '87 teams were all extremely compelling. I think he 82 group was probably the most fascinating constellation of personalities we've ever had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Going Commando

Going Commando

Posted
Posted
I don't think it's that we were boring. The 83 and 91 teams were certainly not and anyone who remembers Rypien, Schroeder, Williams going bombs away certainly would never confuse Gibbs for Schottenheimer.

I think what it was is lack to that STAR. You think 49ers and you see Montana or Rice. You see the Cowboys and you envision Stauback or Aikman. You envision the Packers and you think Farve... or maybe Lombardi.

The Redskins of the 80's never had that face that everyone could fall in love with and Madden could drool all over. He drooled a little bit on Clark for a while, but during that ten year stretch we didn't have a guy who represented us except the coach... who just was the opposite of a media guy.

Our star was Joe Gibbs. But he's far too humble to have ever acknowledged that or played up his greatness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TD_washingtonredskins

TD_washingtonredskins

Posted
Posted

When people go about ranking "best of all-time" teams, I think they get bogged down in comparing teams to one another rather than to the landscape of the league they played in. Therefore, it's natural to look at tie-breakers such as star players, QBs, personality, etc.

It's only natural to look at the Redskins of 1991 and overlook how dominant they were both offensively and defensively. It's easy to forget that they were an incredible team that was less than a TD away from going undefeated.

People look at that team and (rightfully) say that Rypien was no Aikmen or Montana, Byner and Riggs were no Payton or Emmit, Monk and Clark were no Rice and Taylor, and Capitol Punishment/National Defense was no '85 Bears.

In the end, I'm perfectly happy knowing that, for a full NFL season, we were unquestionably the class of the league and went wire-to-wire with the bulls-eye on our backs. That team was both workmanlike/blue-collar and high-flying/exhilarating all in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enter Apotheosis

Enter Apotheosis

Posted
Posted
Just because you win a Superbowl, it doesnt mean your the best ever. To be honest, Im a little sick of the look back to the 80s-early 90s. It can only satisfy you for so long.

You're right about a Super Bowl win not necessarily meaning a lot in terms of where a team ranks in the annals of NFL history. However, if you think people are talking about the '91 team so highly just because they won the big game you need to bone up on your Redskins history.

Maybe it's because they just took care of business. As Charles Mann said, there were no superstars, just a super team. They dominated everyone and didn't cause any drama and off the field foolishness like the 85 bears, 90's Cowboys, or '94 49ers did. And Rypien was probably one of the least compelling star QBs of the time personality-wise. Maybe if he'd went ahead and set that touchdown record people would talk about the '91 team more but other than that there really isn't much to say about them except that they dominated everyone.

That encapsulates the way I view it pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
2cents

2cents

Posted
Posted

It's funny that people say the team wasn't great because Ryp wasn't a HOFer. Well let's see, I don't think McMahn from the Bears is going anytime soon, but because he was an @ss people think the team was one of the greatest. The logic of that escapes me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildbill1952

wildbill1952

Posted
Posted
I think the Montana/Young 49ers got the hype and the love because they were considered the highlight team. Gibbs teams were always looked down upon because 2 of the three Superbowls came in strike years. I've always thought that made it harder, not easier because you had to keep the team together and perservere... especially in '87 (the scab year).

There really isn't any question though that the 'skins were at least co-owners of the '80's.

True. And we didn't play teams like New Orleans, Atlanta and Los Angeles when they were sub .250 teams like some west coast teams that are considered the co-owners.

Another potential strike against the SKins, the majority of media coming out of New York, and I think there are a large number of gnat fans there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...