SkinsGuy Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 hour ago, hail2skins said: Sheehan reiterated how drama free the Gibbs 1 teams and how it was just about winning and dominating. HUH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 1 hour ago, hail2skins said: Kevin conceded they did have colorful characters like Riggins and Manley, but he was saying comparatively speaking to what we've had in the past 20 years. He thought the Skins during that time were arguably one of the top 5 model franchises in pro sports. He may have just chosen the wrong word. Because of those colorful characters, we had plenty of drama. We had players get in trouble for drugs, players who showed up teammates on the sidelines, players who apparently played games drunk and/or hung over, and players who got into verbal sparring matches with opposing coaches. That's not even mentioning how unstable our QB situation often was (Gibbs had a knack for generating QB controversies). The team was plenty dramatic. But, the team was NOT dysfunctional. It was run like a model organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkB452 Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Playboy had picked the 1991 Skins to win it all in the NFL preview issue. I bought a copy of that issue a few years ago MOSTLY for that article. I also read somewhere that Gibbs was ticked that JKC had told him that Gibbs had screwed up the team and he needed to get players like Dallas had. Every week during the 1991 season, Gibbs took particular delight in crediting the players with the success the team was having and tweaking JKC at the same time. I think I read this in the Revised Edition of the Book 4th and 1: https://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Revised-Gibbs-Jenkins-Paperback/dp/B011MFWQK8/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1485549352&sr=8-9&keywords=joe+gibbs+book+4th+and+1 DVD set of all 3 SB wins is here. I watched the 2nd quarter last night. The original broadcast was recorded to tape and then to DVD. Even my wife noticed that the quality of the picture was not the same as what we get nowadays. https://www.amazon.com/NFL-Washington-Redskins-Greatest-Games/dp/B001BSBC0W/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1485549792&sr=1-2&keywords=redskins+dvd Kornheiser's Bandwagon Columns: I thought he was crazy, that was until the win at NY....after that I was on the Bandwagon and recruiting coworkers to join. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/redskins/history/timeline/wagon/wagnfrnt.htm Awesome hand drawn pics of the bandwagon throughout the 1991 season at this link: These would appear as little drawings next to the bandwagon column. I would copy them at 140% multiple times and hand them out at work. From week 8 to the SB, I kept adding them to my door. http://richardspooralmanac.blogspot.com/search/label/Washington Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 Make no mistake, the Redskins were one of the teams expected to contend in 1991. As was pointed out, they pretty quickly re-tooled after their 1987 Super Bowl season. They had one bad year (7-9) before improving to 10-6 in back-to-back years. They won a playoff game in 1990 and were considered to be back and established again with a veteran team ready to contend. It's not like they only got attention from Playboy and the local reporters. Dr. Z or Peter King (can't remember which one) picked them to either win the Super Bowl or lose to Buffalo (how on the money was that choice?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 An interesting question in relation to the period regarding expectations would be, even after falling to 9-7 in 1992 and Gibbs retiring the following March, did anyone see the Skins completely falling off the cliff to 4-12 in 1993? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, hail2skins said: An interesting question in relation to the period regarding expectations would be, even after falling to 9-7 in 1992 and Gibbs retiring the following March, did anyone see the Skins completely falling off the cliff to 4-12 in 1993? I didn't. I think I understood that our current crop of players weren't going to last forever. But we just had always been one of the HAVES in the NFL during my lifetime, so I just assumed we would replace them the way we had done twice before (in the mid-1980s and the late-1980s). In hindsight, I should have seen more signs that it was coming (salary cap, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 52 minutes ago, hail2skins said: An interesting question in relation to the period regarding expectations would be, even after falling to 9-7 in 1992 and Gibbs retiring the following March, did anyone see the Skins completely falling off the cliff to 4-12 in 1993? With hindsight, yes but at the time I was confused that we fell that hard and so long. I remember how bad I thought that the period of 1977 to 1981 was. Just 2 WINNING seasons and even a losing season. God, was that a nightmare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 It was weird for me, living in S.E. Texas, on a damn sandbar, but it seemed that if it was the Redskins, especially in the mid-late 80's/early 90's, it was an off year as far as the media was concerned. Yea, we had respect, but the media would be all over the 9ers and Giants groin, but when the Redskins, especially in 91, were dominating and winning week after week, there wasn't as much hoopla about it. that was fine, because I had my Redskins bumper sticker on my truck, and wore any Redskins stuff whenever possible. I still have a Team NFL magazine from summer of 92, with Gibbs pic and a caption ' On Top of His Game', framed and hanging on my wall. Filled with color pictures of Redskins in action, and even has a set of trading cards [ still attached ] inside. When we beat the Giants in New York, it was a tough game, and at the time it was the test, and I'm sure that game gave them the fuel needed to carry on through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 On 1/27/2017 at 6:51 PM, skins island connection said: It was weird for me, living in S.E. Texas, on a damn sandbar, but it seemed that if it was the Redskins, especially in the mid-late 80's/early 90's, it was an off year as far as the media was concerned. Yea, we had respect, but the media would be all over the 9ers and Giants groin, but when the Redskins, especially in 91, were dominating and winning week after week, there wasn't as much hoopla about it. that was fine, because I had my Redskins bumper sticker on my truck, and wore any Redskins stuff whenever possible. I still have a Team NFL magazine from summer of 92, with Gibbs pic and a caption ' On Top of His Game', framed and hanging on my wall. Filled with color pictures of Redskins in action, and even has a set of trading cards [ still attached ] inside. When we beat the Giants in New York, it was a tough game, and at the time it was the test, and I'm sure that game gave them the fuel needed to carry on through. I think this is very true. Im the last to buy into media conspiracy theories but the fact is for as dominant as the Team was during that stretch they were almost invisible in the national press And i think it was simply because they never had any marquee players, at any position. No Jerry Rice or Barry Sanders or Joe Montana, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas. Just mostly Bs and Bplus players (though they had them at every single position) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 1 hour ago, zoony said: I think this is very true. Im the last to buy into media conspiracy theories but the fact is for as dominant as the Team was during that stretch they were almost invisible in the national press And i think it was simply because they never had any marquee players, at any position. No Jerry Rice or Barry Sanders or Joe Montana, Lawrence Taylor or Derrick Thomas. Just mostly Bs and Bplus players (though they had them at every single position) Agreed. We were a tough team to sell compared to some of the others. Hell, the AFC west was probably more star packed than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said: Agreed. We were a tough team to sell compared to some of the others. Hell, the AFC west was probably more star packed than us. Eight Pro Bowlers on that team. And the entire offensive line could've gone as alternates, and would've outperformed the starters. But it's true, none of them were big names with the casual fan. Art Monk hated to give interviews. And who cares about o-linemen? Mark Shlereth used to pee his pants on the field, how could CBS Sports be sure he wouldn't do it during an interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Acre Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 Best coaching staff EVER. Dreams up interceptions on the freaking bus. Even Wilbur Marshall bought in. Total team. Crushed (minus garbage points) the second best team loaded with HOF-worthy players on both sides. Rypien could pass for 6,000 yards in today's NFL. He dropped bombs in so tight it was like performing brain surgery. 9 sacks allowed. Depth everywhere. Hail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePackisback Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 As much as I hate to say it the 1998 Minnesota Vikings were one of the best teams I seen other then the 91 Redskins in my lifetime too. That team was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Just now, ThePackisback said: As much as I hate to say it the 1998 Minnesota Vikings were one of the best teams I seen other then the 91 Redskins in my lifetime too. That team was awesome. One thing they noted was that it was the best team to win the Super Bowl. I think the 2007 Pats would've been at the top of the list if it were just the best teams period. Except we all know the 1983 Redskins would've blown them all away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePackisback Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 How good was the 1991 defense for Washington? How good was the offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 @ThePackisback DVOA ranking for 1991 defense was #3 for defenses from 1991 through 2011. DVOA for 1991 offense was #1 for offenses over the same period. Read http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2012/1991-dvoa-ratings-and-commentary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePackisback Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 What does Total DVOA mean for those stats and defense DVOA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goskins10 Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, ThePackisback said: What does Total DVOA mean for those stats and defense DVOA? It is a Football Outsiders metric. Below is the definition. Here is link to the site: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ DVOA (Defense-adjusted Value Over Average) calculates a team's success based on the down-and-distance of each play during the season, then calculates how much more or less successful each team is compared to the league average. According to Football Outsiders, DVOA "breaks down every single play of the NFL season to see how much success offensive players achieved in each specific situation compared to the league average in that situation, adjusted for the strength of the opponent. ... Football has one objective -- to get to the end zone -- and two ways to achieve that, by gaining yards and getting first downs. These two goals need to be balanced to determine a player's value or a team's performance."[3] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePackisback Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Its a hard thing to understand but that makes sense. Thanks GoSkins10. Your defense was ranked 3 in 1991 and offense ranked first. That right there is easily a super bowl winner. The 1996 Packers were very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, ThePackisback said: Its a hard thing to understand but that makes sense. Thanks GoSkins10. Your defense was ranked 3 in 1991 and offense ranked first. That right there is easily a super bowl winner. The 1996 Packers were very similar. In terms of pts scored/allowed, 91 Skins were 1st in pts scored and 2nd in points allowed. We were 4th in yards gained and 3rd in yards allowed. 1996 Packers were first in both points scored and allowed, and fifth in yards gained and first in yards allowed. Interestingly, the 2010 Chargers were second in points scored, 10th in points allowed......but first in both yards gained and yards allowed. That team went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. Not coincidentally, it was coached by Norv Turner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePackisback Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 That 1996 team was awesome but not as good as the 91 Skins. I remember we really started out hot that year and cruised to a 8-1 record. Then we hit a 2 game losing streak in Arrowhead to KC and Texas stadium against Dallas. Then we never lost another game that season after that Monday nighter against the Cowboys. I remember Dallas ran up the score and Reggie White went ballistic on the sidelines. It feels sweet to knock the Cowboys out of the playoffs twice in the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlesnake88 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 2013 Seahawks, 1998 broncos, 1991 Skins, 2002 Buccaneers, 1999 Rams. These were the best teams I saw win a superbowl. The 2013 Seahawks may come off as a reach, but what they did to the greatest offense of all time cannot be understated. They ****ing kicked Denver's ass. The 98 Broncos were stacked on both sides, well coached and had a fiery old QB who desperately wanted a ring, the team they beat in the superbowl was pretty good too ;). 1991 Skins, badass on both sides of the ball. Extremely well coached team of professionals who executed week in and out. Could have legitimately went undefeated. Down season in the NFL and lack of consistent superstar talent is only cons I can think of. 2002 Bucs. Best defense of all time in my opinion. They could beat any given team on any given sunday of any given era with that defense. Offense had enough juice to finally push them over with Brad Johnson at the helm. 1999 Rams. The offense got rolling and never slowed down. They were a recipe for points and yards. stud Offensive talent on every level. Kurt Warner because of his delayed career and stretch of injuries and spotty play for a couple seasons; will go down as one of the most underated qbs ever to play in my opinion. Holt, Bruce, Proehl. Of course London Fletcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 6 hours ago, Rattlesnake88 said: The 2013 Seahawks may come off as a reach, but what they did to the greatest offense of all time cannot be understated. They ****ing kicked Denver's ass. A lot of us try to block Super Bowl 18 out of our heads, but I wonder if others on here watched Seattle's demolition of Denver and weren't reminded of what the Raiders did to us in early 1984. Another tough thing in comparing teams from the pre-salary cap era to today is that a lot of the Super Bowls in that era were blowouts, thus giving those winning teams more ammo in terms of validating their greatness. The SBs in the salary cap era (at least the ones since the late 90s) have been fairly close for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Those Oilers and Bills teams of the 80's/90's were insanely stacked teams and it's a crime they never won one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 19 hours ago, hail2skins said: In terms of pts scored/allowed, 91 Skins were 1st in pts scored and 2nd in points allowed. We were 4th in yards gained and 3rd in yards allowed. 1996 Packers were first in both points scored and allowed, and fifth in yards gained and first in yards allowed. Interestingly, the 2010 Chargers were second in points scored, 10th in points allowed......but first in both yards gained and yards allowed. That team went 9-7 and missed the playoffs. Not coincidentally, it was coached by Norv Turner! Norv: Getting Less Out of More Since 1994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.