Best Redskins team ever: 1991?!?!? (merged)

[JohnnyUtah]

I have another question for those people that remember the game more distinctly than I do (I was born in 83, so this game is my first memory of professional football).

Was Mark Schlereth that dominant of a player? I'm not trying to be funny here; I really don't know. All I know about him is from his commentary on the station. I obviously know about the bigger names, but I know nothing of Schlereth's actual football legacy.

[Hitman21ST]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=325712

Good eyes Utah, but I beat you to it .

[Hitman21ST]

I have another question for those people that remember the game more distinctly than I do (I was born in 83, so this game is my first memory of professional football).

Was Mark Schlereth that dominant of a player? I'm not trying to be funny here; I really don't know. All I know about him is from his commentary on the station. I obviously know about the bigger names, but I know nothing of Schlereth's actual football legacy.

He's been on the starting line for three rings, so he's definitely no scrub...

[Hitman21ST]

But All-Time, how can you not say the 91' team. They broke records in the regular season. The twp games that they lost were late in the season and by a total of 5 points. And in the playoffs, they outscored their opponents by 20ppg and forced 14 turnovers.

You could say most of those things for the '83 team. They had a +43 turnover differential, which is unheard of these days. Riggins set a then-NFL record 24 rushing TDs. They just dropped the ball in the Super Bowl.

Mods, any way we could merge with JohnnyUtah's thread and keep the poll question?

[sjinhan]

I have another question for those people that remember the game more distinctly than I do (I was born in 83, so this game is my first memory of professional football).

Was Mark Schlereth that dominant of a player? I'm not trying to be funny here; I really don't know. All I know about him is from his commentary on the station. I obviously know about the bigger names, but I know nothing of Schlereth's actual football legacy.

he was good but definltey not dominate... I would have included Lb Wilber Marshall as a notable player over Schlereth.

[Old Bay]

Super Bowl wins for individuals can be spotty and I don't think it gives a good picture of how well an individual may or may not have been. But, considering this is a team examination, I think it's fair to use the Super Bowl as a tie breaker.

The 83 team would've made a stronger case for themselves with a win over the Raiders. As much as I'd like to say that they were, the wasted potential cannot overcome what the 91 team actually did achieve and in just as equally a dominant way.

[Rocky21]

he was good but definltey not dominate... I would have included Lb Wilber Marshall as a notable player over Schlereth.

Wilbur Marshall. Good call. Other notable players from that team missing are Art Monk, Andre Collins, Brad Edwards, Monte Coleman, etc.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I've never understood why that '91 team didn't have more carryover. It was a pretty good team in '90. Absolutely dominant in '91. And mediocre in '92.

It and the '85 Bears are on the list of "Why didn't you guys win a bunch of Super Bowls?"

[JohnnyUtah]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=325712

Good eyes Utah, but I beat you to it .

Shoot! I didn't see that (and I searched, I swear!).

Mods, please merge.

Sorry about that.

[NoVaSkins21]

No question that '91 team was a scoring machine. Hopefully, we'll be able to say that about a Shanahan coached team.

[CrypticVillain]

You could say most of those things for the '83 team. They had a +43 turnover differential, which is unheard of these days. Riggins set a then-NFL record 24 rushing TDs. They just dropped the ball in the Super Bowl.

The 83 team would've made a stronger case for themselves with a win over the Raiders. As much as I'd like to say that they were, the wasted potential cannot overcome what the 91 team actually did achieve and in just as equally a dominant way.

Had the 83 team not laid an egg, it can be a real debate. But I cannot say that a team who didn't win the Super Bowl is better than a team that did.

If the question was which team performed the best in the Super Bowl, 87' wins hands down. 42-10 :thud:

[PeterMP]

It didn't have much carry over because of circumstances. This was the one year where the key core of the players were all healthy and ready to go.

Rypien was hurt much of 1990, played well in 1991, holds out and misses a bunch of training camp, is hurt, but plays and plays poorly in 1992, by 1993 Gibbs is gone and Rypien has a serious injury to his knee.

Green and Lachey also had hold outs.

And there where other key injuries in 1992. Green, Jacoby, and Bostic missed huge chunks of time in 1992.

1991 was a perfect meeting of the old guys being able to do it one more time at a high level (Jacoby and Bostic and even Mann (he had 11.5 sacks in 1991, in 1992 he has 4.5 in 1995 he's out of the league)) and younger guys being integrated into the system.

[bulldog]

Schlereth was a #10 pick out of Idaho. He was a solid starter here but was not in any measure the 'star' performer on the line.

The star performer at that time was Jim Lachey, the left tackle that just swallowed up defenders vs. The run and pass.

Schlereth won ONE ring her and two with Shanahan in Denver.

After Gibbs departure Schlereth was released prematurely by Norv's staff and went on to greater success with the Broncos as noted.

The 1991 Redskins that won the Super Bowl in Minneapolis was the crowning achievement of the core of players that had been performers for Gibbs during the decade of the 1980's.

Adding in vets like Lachey and Marshall the Redskins the 1991 team duplicated the run of the 14-2 team in 1983 but finished it off by winning the Big Game.

By 1992 and 1993 those Redskins from earlier SB wins started to age - some retired, some got hurt. Others like Schlereth, Clark and McKenzie were let go by Casserly in moves that were mistakes.

But in hindsight the 1991 team was not built for future but rather CURRENT success.

A championship in a season not marred by a work stoppage or lockout.

16 games of leading the race from start to finish.

[scruffylookin]

Check my post before yours...

If you look at the numbers, the only claim the 1983 team can make is scoring 4 more points per game and winning one additional regular season blowout. The 1991 team gave up 7 fewer points per game and blew out both their playoff opponents (not even including the Super Bowl).

I think you can call it a draw going into the Super Bowl and we all know who gets the edge once you get there.

You make strong points.

But there are twos things that I draw on besides the numbers.

One, the players and coach who were on both teams always point to the 83 team as being the best team they've played/coached on.

Two, I have all the games from 1983 and 1991 so I have watched both teams play within the last year.

I always had the impression that the 83 team was better but that could always be explained away that I was 13 and impressionable. But having gone back and actually looked at the games, the 83 team was just a better football team.

Their offense was much better than the 91 team's offense. The passing game was better and the running game was better. The 91 team did provide superior pass protection but the 83 team was superior at running so it's a wash there.

I'll agree that the 91 defense was better but the 83 team was very good too. It's pass defense ranking is a little misleading because the 83 Skins jumped on teams early and forced them to throw alot. This also led to alot of scores that appeared closer than they should have.

at Giants (Skins up 33-3 before two cosmetic scores late)

at Rams (Skins up 42-6 before two cosmetic scores late)

v. Falcons (Skins up 37-7 before two cosmetic scores late)

I guess in the end it's just a matter of opinion.

I feel that the 83 team was the best team I've seen and the review of the games from both seasons confirms that opinion for me.

However if you were to say which is the better season? Then I certainly would agree that the 91 season was the better season since they did actually finish the job and win the Super Bowl.

I don't consider winning the Super Bowl as a determiner as to who was the better team. Circumstances in a season can effect those things. Case in point 1987. I think that the 86 Skins were a far far better team than the 87 team. It's really not even up for debate for me. But the 86 team had a juggernaut in the Giants to deal with and the 87 team coasted in a weak division and had the luxury of the top two teams (record wise) upset in the playoffs.

The 91 team was able to finish the job and the 83 team didn't so that makes the 91 season a better and more successful season. That does not make the 91 team better than the 83 team in my opinion but I respect your opinion and I do think you do make a strong case for your point of view.

[pjfootballer]

I've never understood why that '91 team didn't have more carryover. It was a pretty good team in '90. Absolutely dominant in '91. And mediocre in '92.

It and the '85 Bears are on the list of "Why didn't you guys win a bunch of Super Bowls?"

91 team was the last hurrah of Gibbs and alot of veterans.

The NFC was tough. The Bears had to get past Washington, SF and NY Giants most of the time. Walter Payton retired soon after. He was the heart of the Bears offense. Also, Buddy Ryan, the architect of their defense went to Philly. No one could fill Ryan's shoes and run that defense the right way.

[pjfootballer]

I have another question for those people that remember the game more distinctly than I do (I was born in 83, so this game is my first memory of professional football).

Was Mark Schlereth that dominant of a player? I'm not trying to be funny here; I really don't know. All I know about him is from his commentary on the station. I obviously know about the bigger names, but I know nothing of Schlereth's actual football legacy.

Schlereth was solid, but he wasn't the best we had. Lachey was the best, McKenzie was coming into his own and we had Jacoby at RT.

[Diesel Hog]

1991. Just an utterly dominant team that could have easily gone 16-0 (didn't they sit the starters for the final reg. season game?).

Not only that, but weren't they the #1 offence (God, that seems so foreign to think about...the Skins with a dominating O), and #2 D? That right there makes them not only the best Skins team, but one of the best ever NFL teams.

[bulldog]

The 1983 team had a flaw that was exposed in the second half of the 49ers game and the Super Bowl, namely a porous pass defense. The 1991 team did not have a glaring weakness like that and in my mind for that reason were a better team.

Yes, the 1983 team won 14 games but in contests against Green Bay (48 points allowed) and others the secondary showed it was not up to par.

[thebluefood]

Didn't the Redskins secondary earn a nickname for their poor play?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Didn't the Redskins secondary earn a nickname for their poor play?

Pearl Harbor Crew!

Scruffy, I admire your loyalty to the 1983 team, but I'm sure I could dig up a couple examples of the 1991 team giving up late scores to make some of their games look more competitive (I might actually check later).

As someone else mentioned, the 1983 had a flaw which was exposed late in the playoffs. They ended the year being outscored 59-12 in the last 6 quarters they played. The 1991 team had no flaws. They had the best offense, a top-5 defense, and a fantastic special teams (coverage, returns, and FGs).

The bottom line is, by some key measurable metrics, the 1991 team was better. What is a better barometer than point differential? Doesn't that tell us that, on average, they beat their opponents more handily than the 1983 team?

Lastly, I understand that Gibbs and Grimm have mentioned that was their best team...but that doesn't necessarily make it correct. Gibbs could easily be saying that to soften the blow for the players of that team since they don't have a Lombardi to fall back on. Both men might be biased more toward the offense and not really remembering the troubled defense (since they didn't coach/play on that side of the ball).

Anyway, I respect your opinion, but completely disagree. I'm not really sure anything you've presented could change my mind, but I'm open to keep reading!

Edit: I looked it up and saw that there was only 1-2 cases where the 1991 team was scored on late to make margins of victory look more respectable. However, the team would have been 15-1 if key players weren't benched in the second half of the season finale in Philly. A 19-7 lead became a 24-22 loss. Additionally, the Super Bowl was almost as big a blowout as XXII at 37-10 before the Bills scored a couple garbage TDs.

The only legitimate loss of the entire year came at the hands of Dallas thanks to onside kicks, Hail Marys, and other trick plays. Granted, the Cowboys won fair and square, but I have no doubt that the Skins would have finished with just that one loss had they needed their 16th game.

[MrJL]

Schlereth was solid, but he wasn't the best we had. Lachey was the best, McKenzie was coming into his own and we had Jacoby at RT.

Although we wanted him at LG. Going into that year we started with Lachey, Jacoby, Bostic, Schlereth and Simmons, then Simmons went down in week 2.

[hail2skins]

The only legitimate loss of the entire year came at the hands of Dallas thanks to onside kicks, Hail Marys, and other trick plays. Granted, the Cowboys won fair and square, but I have no doubt that the Skins would have finished with just that one loss had they needed their 16th game.

One of the other things about the 1983 team and the pass defense......didn't we lost two key secondary members before the season, Jeris White and Tony Peters, to holdouts and drug suspensions? If we don't lose those two, perhaps we're stronger in those games against Dallas and Green Bay, and we go 16-0. Although what happened in Tampa against the Raiders was just bizarre, and reminded me a lot of the 16-0 Pats being flat against the Giants a few years ago.

I would side with the 1991 team as well but that team also benefitted in ways from the other NFC rivals being in transition or having some misfortune. Parcells retired from the Giants following the 1990 season and while Hostetler had been steady in leading NY to the championship, I still question Ray Handley's decision to go with Jeff over Phil Simms. Philly also had a new coach (thanks to our role in getting fat Buddy fired.....Body Bag this!) but lost Randall Cunningham to injury early in the season and still managed to go 10-6 (one of those wins, of course, was against the Skins in the meaningless finale). I also recall the 49ers had some injury issues with Montana as well and didn't make it in. So the teams we had to play to get to the SB were Atlanta and Detroit. Detroit the week before of course smashed the Cowboys, but I think people were looking in both excitement and possible tension to a potential Skins-Boys NFCCG, especially given how the two meetings during the regular season had played out.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

hail2skins,

Those are good points and you have a very accurate memory of the 1991 season. We didn't face the traditional powerhouses (NY, Chicago, SF) in the post-season. We did, however, have to beat a bunch of good teams along the way. We beat the best teams that season had to offer (dominating both of our playoff opponents in both the regular season and post-season). The Falcons and Lions were good enough to beat everyone else that year...so I'm not sure they were any softer or weaker than LA in 1983 (I'll grant you that SF in the Championship Game was the best of the 4 NFC playoff opponents from those 2 years).

I'm not sure who we lost from our defensive backfield prior to 1983...but our team is our team.

[Wyndorf25]

That 1991 team had it all...

-an O-line that could pass-block and open gaping holes for the RBs with the best of them

-a punishing run game with three RBs that complimented each others running style perfectly

-a QB that was on FIRE all season with the deep pass

-a group of WRs that each forced opponents to decide who to take away while allowing the others to do their damage

-a defense that could rush the passer, tackle in the open field and defend the pass.

Oh yeah, and a pretty damn good head coach and staff leading the charge. That Redskin team should be considered one of the top 5 TEAMs in NFL history, let alone Redskins history IMO.

[bulldog]

Yep, Jeris White never returned to the Redskins after Washington failed to meet his contract demands in 1983. He simply walked away from the NFL and became the CEO of his own set of businesses that he had run in the offseason.

Joe Lavender retired after the Super Bowl win in 1982 and another veteran was lost.

Then in training camp, Tony Peters was arrested for intent to DISTRIBUTE cocaine and was suspended for the entire 1983 season.

When he returned to the Redskins in 1984 he was no longer anywhere near the pro bowl defender he had been in the past. At 32 he was done.

Beathard did his best to find a trade at the last minute and dealt a pick to the Steelers for Anthony Washington, himself a former #2 pick, who never lived up to expectations in Washington, just as he failed to do in Pittsburgh.