Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

RETURN OF HISTORICAL RANKINGS: Recap 77-42, new additions 11-41, AND Team #10


KDawg

Which option do you choose?  

83 members have voted

  1. 1. Which option do you choose?

    • Use the stall with no door and have spectators watching.
      63
    • Hover over the epically clogged toilet. At least you have privacy.
      20


Recommended Posts

Lost my papers for this so I had to recalculate. I left 77-42 the same. I took these teams out of my database and continued on with the rest of them to find numbers 1-42.

The process was simple... I took win % and differentials in points, yards, pass yards, pass td, int, rush yards, rush td and turnovers.

I ranked everyone from 1-42 (for this continued list) in each category and then added their score together. Whoever had the lowest score was ranked 1st all the way through 42nd.

So here's the recap of what we've already seen:

77. 1954 Washington Redskins (Joe Kuharich)

76. 1959 Washington Redskins (Mike Nixon)

75. 1994 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner)

74. 1963 Washington Redskins (Bill McPeak)

73. 1960 Washington Redskins (Mike Nixon)

72. 1961 Washington Redskins (Bill McPeak)

71. 1993 Washington Redskins (Richie Petitbone)

70. 1951 Washington Redskins (Ball/Todd)

69. 1949 Washington Redskins (Ball/Whelchel)

68. 1950 Washington Redskins (Herman Ball)

67. 2003 Washington Redskins (Steve Spurrier)

65. 2009 Washington Redskins (Jim Zorn)

65. 2007 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

63. 1968 Washington Redskins (Otto Graham)

63. 1962 Washington Redskins (Bill McPeak)

62. 1998 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner)

61. 1958 Washington Redskins (Joe Kuharich)

60. 1966 Washington Redskins (Otto Graham)

59. 1995 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner)

58. 1956 Washington Redskins (Joe Kuharich)

57. 1952 Washington Redskins (Curly Lambeau)

56. 1953 Washington Redskins (Curly Lambeau)

55. 1935 Boston Redskins (Eddie Casey)

54. 1941 Washington Redskins (Ray Flaherty)

52. 2002 Washington Redskins (Steve Spurrier)

52. 1988 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

51. 1978 Washington Redskins (Jack Pardee)

50. 1965 Washington Redskins (Bill McPeak)

49. 1967 Washington Redskins (Otto Graham)

48. 1934 Boston Redskins (Lone Star Dietz)

47. 1947 Washington Redskins (Turk Edwards)

46. 2001 Washington Redskins (Marty Schottenheimer)

45. 2004 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

44. 1969 Washington Redskins (Vince Lombardi)

43. 1957 Washington Redskins (Joe Kuharich)

42. 1970 Washington Redskins (Bill Austin)

And the new list 41-11!!

41. 2006 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

40. 1997 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner)

39. 1977 Washington Redskins (George Allen)

38. 1981 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

37. 1946 Washington Redskins (Turk Edwards)

36. 1975 Washington Redskins (George Allen)

35. 1933 Boston Redskins (Lone Star Dietz)

33. 2008 Washington Redskins (Jim Zorn)

33. 1980 Washington Redskins (Jack Pardee)

31. 1944 Washington Redskins (Dudley DeGroot)

31. 1987 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

30. 1948 Washington Redskins (Turk Edwards)

29. 1938 Washington Redskins (Ray Flaherty)

28. 1996 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner)

27. 1964 Washington Redskins (Bill McPeak)

26. 1955 Washington Redskins (Joe Kuharich)

24. 1979 Washington Redskins (Jack Pardee)

24. 1992 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

23. 1985 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

21. 1936 Boston Redskins (Ray Flaherty)

21. 1976 Washington Redskins (George Allen)

20. 2000 Washington Redskins (Turner/Robiskie)

19. 1986 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

18. 2005 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

17. 1982 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

16. 1984 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

15. 1999 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner)

14. 1971 Washington Redskins (George Allen)

13. 1943 Washington Redskins (Dutch Bergman)

11. 1990 Washington Redskins (Joe Gibbs)

11. 1940 Washington Redskins (Ray Flaherty)

Team #10:

1973 Washington Redskins

Coach: George Allen

Leading Passer: Billy Kilmer

Leading Rusher: Larry Brown

Leading Receiver: Charley Taylor

INT Leader: Ken Houston

No tackle/sack numbers in 1973.

Pro Bowlers:

Chris Hanburger

Herb Mul-Key

Ken Houston

Charley Taylor

All Pro:

Chris Hanburger

The team finished 10-4 and lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Minnesota Vikings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my, this is what I get for poking a bear with a stick :evilg:

Two of Gibbs Super Bowl-winning teams don't even crack the top 15, and are ranked below the 1999 team. Yikes......................

As for the '73 Skins, that is the first team that I remember being a fan of (was 6 years old at the time). I think I became a fan late in the season. My first memory was watching my mom and dad going crazy as Sonny led us from way back to beat the Giants in the early December game, and then watching helplessly the next week as the Cowboys spanked us. Vaguely remember that playoff loss to the Vikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my, this is what I get for poking a bear with a stick :evilg:

Two of Gibbs Super Bowl-winning teams don't even crack the top 15, and are ranked below the 1999 team. Yikes......................

Well, to be fair... The top ten are all extremely good teams. Some didn't do as well as they should have... But their differentials were pretty freakin' good. It's scary how good some of these teams were. Some in spite of their record.

The strike shortened seasons hurt those two teams, though, in my opinion.

But #1-5 are a large cut above everyone else.

The 1999 team didn't have a single stat in the negative differentials. Not a single one.

'82 had a -3 rush TD differential.

'87 had a -3 turnover differential.

As for the '73 Skins, that is the first team that I remember being a fan of (was 6 years old at the time). I think I became a fan late in the season. My first memory was watching my mom and dad going crazy as Sonny led us from way back to beat the Giants in the early December game, and then watching helplessly the next week as the Cowboys spanked us. Vaguely remember that playoff loss to the Vikes.

Wish I could get in a time machine and watch some of these teams :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KD, I love your work man.

But my iccle head hurts. I've never been able to understand these rankings, and I'ma feeling left out now damn it! *Stamps feet and kicks dirt around, TRPB ATN style.

Hail.

I looked at their offense and defensive stats in each of these categories: points, yards, pass yards, passing TD, INT, rush yards, rush TD, and turnovers.

I subracted the defensive number from the offensive number and came up with a total differential.

So, for instance. A team's offense scored 330 points. Their defense allowed 370 points.

They had a -40 differential as they allowed more point than they scored.

I did this for every Redskin team.

Then I put them in a spreadsheet and ranked them 1-78 for all of the Redskin teams. One being the best differential. 78 being the worst.

I then added up each ranking for that team and came up with a number.

So let's say the 2013 Redskins rankings are:

Points: 5

Yards: 12

Pass Yards: 45

Pass TD: 32

Rush Yards: 3

Rush TD: 5

TO: 7

I get 109.

Then I look at their win % and rank that too, and add that to 109.

So let's just use a insignificant number of 20.

129 is their total.

Any team that has a lower total ranks higher. Any team that has a higher total ranks lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this doesn't compare Redskins teams to each other directly, right? Rather it compares Redskins teams to each other as how they compare to other teams from that season.

It compares Redskin teams directly.

I took each of their stats and found their differential from their offense to their defense.

Then I ranked them 1-77 based on how they compare to other 'Skin teams.

Then I totaled them.

Lowest total = highest rank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, okay. I misread and thought that you were comparing their rankings against the other teams (Rushing: 3 = third in the league that year for rushing yards).

I still feel that it ranks them indirectly because, and I could be wrong on this, too, it doesn't weigh certain stats more than others. I'd take 5 touchdowns over 50 rushing yards, for example.

It's not a jab at you, as I don't like statisti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, okay. I misread and thought that you were comparing their rankings against the other teams (Rushing: 3 = third in the league that year for rushing yards).

I still feel that it ranks them indirectly because, and I could be wrong on this, too, it doesn't weigh certain stats more than others. I'd take 5 touchdowns over 50 rushing yards, for example.

It's not a jab at you, as I don't like statisti

No ranking will ever be accurate. But, I think the end result, from what I know of this team, is pretty close to what I would have predicted. With a few oddities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: My browser didn't show that post nine went through, so I posted this. Apologies for the double-post.

Ah, I see. I missed post five.

I still think that it ranks them with a different modality than I would use, but because they aren't weighted and don't take into account the strength of schedule or opponents' teams.

For instance, I would weigh five touchdowns infinitely more than five rushing yards.

Also, say the 2009 Redskins went 16-0 against the easiest schedule in NFL history. That's great and all, but not as impressive as a 14-2 against the toughest schedule.

My formula, however, would be way too complicated, and I understand that this is a rough estimation.

I also am not a fan of statistics in general because they don't take into account things like garbage time, taking your foot off of the gas (Gibbs called off the dogs in XXII, for instance, while Belichick did not in his 52-7 spanking in 2007), time of possession, etc. I mean, isn't Campbell statistically a better quarterback than McNabb? He also had more wins this year.

This distrust of statistics colors my view of your, and all other statistical, rankings. It is *NOT* an attack on you, as I'm one of your biggest fans. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: My browser didn't show that post nine went through, so I posted this. Apologies for the double-post.

Ah, I see. I missed post five.

I still think that it ranks them with a different modality than I would use, but because they aren't weighted and don't take into account the strength of schedule or opponents' teams.

For instance, I would weigh five touchdowns infinitely more than five rushing yards.

Also, say the 2009 Redskins went 16-0 against the easiest schedule in NFL history. That's great and all, but not as impressive as a 14-2 against the toughest schedule.

My formula, however, would be way too complicated, and I understand that this is a rough estimation.

I also am not a fan of statistics in general because they don't take into account things like garbage time, taking your foot off of the gas (Gibbs called off the dogs in XXII, for instance, while Belichick did not in his 52-7 spanking in 2007), time of possession, etc. I mean, isn't Campbell statistically a better quarterback than McNabb? He also had more wins this year.

This distrust of statistics colors my view of your, and all other statistical, rankings. It is *NOT* an attack on you, as I'm one of your biggest fans. :)

Understood.

But believe me. Garbage time wouldn't impact these too much. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ranking will ever be accurate. But, I think the end result, from what I know of this team, is pretty close to what I would have predicted. With a few oddities.

Maybe those oddities are what I'm seeing more because I don't know many of the teams prior to 1991 like you do.

For example, I could not put the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Redskins over the 2007 Redskins. I do think, however, that it shows some things that I agree with that aren't exactly popular, such as the 2005 Redskins. People tend to forget that the 2005 Redskins were a botched two-point conversion call from being the second seed that year. Without Thomas's leg breaking or Brunell's injury, a 30-something pick in 2006 is not unlikely.

---------- Post added May-27th-2011 at 01:53 PM ----------

Understood.

But believe me. Garbage time wouldn't impact these too much. :ols:

Hahaa, I'm not saying that it would by itself, just throwing something out there that's had an impact on at least individual stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at that, and wondering if I'm missing out on some secret KD fan-club.

Now I like the dude and all, but I'm signing up for NOTHING unless there's cookies. And good ones.

Hail.,

Cookies probably got lost in the mail because I wasn't sure which country you were in. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like these rankings. Very interesting.

Joe Gibbs name is popping up a lot as we get into the higher ranks. :D

Where is the 1991 team ranked?

Looks like the 89 team is in the top 9. Can't say that makes sense. But I do know statistically on paper that team looks better than it was for much of that season.

But overall, as always, your work is always appreciated KDawg.

Thanks.

Like with all things, using stats isn't always the best indicator, so this won't be 100% accurate.

s0c,

Keep watching :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cookies probably got lost in the mail because I wasn't sure which country you were in. :(

Currently, frustratingly, in the wrong one for my liking, but regardless, I missed cookies? Awwwwww man, that sucks.

You'd a better save me the signed pic of our erstwhile OP, or I'ma be real pissed. I shall now leave in a no cookie huff.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

signed autographs cost more. :ols:

Well that's just peachy.

After all the support I gave your threads, I get the lame ass excuse of you didn't know were I was for the cookie fest; now topped off b you wanting more bucks for the signed pic. Who the hell y'all think you are, Dan Snyder?

In the words of a funny lil' fat dude: Screw you guys, I'm going home!

Humph.

Hail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's just peachy.

After all the support I gave your threads, I get the lame ass excuse of you didn't know were I was for the cookie fest; now topped off b you wanting more bucks for the signed pic. Who the hell y'all think you are, Dan Snyder?

In the words of a funny lil' fat dude: Screw you guys, I'm going home!

Humph.

Hail.

You'd be shocked as to how little autographs can cost when unknown pictures of insobriety are discovered . . .

Anyway, yes, I'm very interested in the rest of the rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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