Atlanta Skins Fan Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Steve Spurrier is about to set a modern-day Redskin record: the coach leading the Redskins to the fewest games with more than 27 points scored in any two-year period. If the Redskins fail to score 28 points in either of their final two games, the record will be his. What does that mean? Every Redskin coach since 1959-60 has led the Redskins to more than 27 points more times than Spurrier has, over a two-year period. Spurrier's team has scored more than 27 points only three times in two years: twice in 2002 (31, 31) and once this year (33). All this from what the media called the biggest offensive genius in football at any level. :doh: Well, Mr. Spurrier: allow me to introduce the real Washington Redskins. The ones who set our proud tradition in motion. The ones who put us here, even now -- because we remember. More than 27 points scored in a game 1961: 28, 34 1962: 35, 34 1963: 37, 28 1964: 35, 30, 28, 36 1965: 31, 34, 35 1966: 33, 33, 30, 72, 34, 28 1967: 30, 38, 28, 31, 37, 35 1968: 38 1969: 33, 28, 28, 34 1970: 33, 31, 33, 28 1971: 30, 38 1972: 33, 35 1973: 38, 28, 31, 33, 38 1974: 28, 42 1975: 41, 49, 30, 31, 30 1976: 31, 30, 37 1977: (zero) 1978: 35, 28, 38 1979: 30, 34, 38, 34 1980: 40, 31 1981: 30, 42, 33, 30, 38, 30 1982 (strike): 37, 28 1983: 30, 37, 38, 47, 38, 45, 33, 42, 28, 37, 31, 31 1984: 31, 30, 35, 34, 28, 41, 31, 30, 29 1985: 44, 30 1986: 41, 30, 28, 44, 41, 30 1987 (strike): 34, 28, 38, 34 1988: 30, 35, 33 1989: 37, 30, 32, 38, 29, 31, 29 1990: 31, 38, 41, 31, 42, 28, 29 1991: 45, 33, 34, 42, 56, 41, 34 1992: 34, 41, 28 1993: 38, 31, 30, 30 1994: 38, 41, 29 1995: 31, 34, 36, 35 1996: 31, 31, 31, 31, 34, 37 1997: 31, 30, 38, 35 1998: 28, 42, 29, 28 1999: 35, 50, 38, 48, 28, 28 2000: 35, 33 2001: 35, 40 Steve Spurrier: 2002: 31, 31 2003: 33 Here's the crying shame: Spurrier has probably been paid more in two years than all Redskins coaches in history put together. Nice investment, Mr. Snyder. And speaking of you, Mr. Snyder: notice a trend since you began exerting control in your first offseason, after the 1999 season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 And speaking of you, Mr. Snyder: notice a trend since you began exerting control in your first offseason, after the 1999 season? Thank you for pointing that out ASF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yeah, like Snyder didn't exert a high level of control over the organization from the very first moment he gained ownership of it. Go and ask Charley Casserly about that one, why don't you? I dare you. :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Actually he began exerting control before the 99 season That's when we brought in Marco Coleman, Larry Centers, Andy Heck, Irving Fryar, and Keith Sims Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Yes, but how many of those coaches were left-handed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Yes, but how many of those coaches were left-handed? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 ASF, the last time I remember you rattling off so many stats, it was about trying to prove how Hasselbeck was our real QB of the future... :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Left handed?? You need to have manual dexterity especially when out at sea and one hand is tired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 27 points??? Why not 25? or 30?? ASF, you love to work those number to your advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 yea 27 is a strange number. also 1977 had zero 27 or more point games. i would like to believe that 20pts should be enough to beat most teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins26 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Our QB's over that time period, Danny W. Shane Mathews Tim Hasselbeck and Patrick Ramsey, who is still young and inexperienced. In order for Spurriers system to work the QB must be talented and know the system well. Ramsey is talented, but is still learning the system and getting comfortable with it. So I think we may need to back off Spurrier just a little bit. Be a little patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Skins Fan Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by ThatGuy 27 points??? Why not 25? or 30?? 27 points is a very common game score. I chose more than 27 points to isolate exceptionally good offensive performance. I could have chosen 30 with similar results. The point is pretty simple and dramatic when compared to the last 40 years of Redskin football: the Redskins under Spurrier simply aren't scoring a lot of points in almost any of the games they've played. Norv Turner easily outclassed Spurrier in that area, and Gibbs easily outclassed Turner. What I find interesting about this historical view is that it gets around problems that can drag down the "average points scored in a year" -- such as Ramsey's injury that will probably deflate the 2003 average. What this particular stat shows is how many games did the Redskins score on all cylinders -- how often did the coaching and the system really work? There are clear patterns here. For example, take the extreme example of Gibbs: in SEVEN different years, his teams scored more than 27 points SIX TIMES IN A SEASON. Norv Turner is another interesting example. Despite his overall failing record with the Redskins, it's clear from this statistical view that Norv's system COULD work and often did with great success. In five straight seasons, his teams scored 27 points at least four times. By contrast, Spurrier has achieved this bar of success only three times in two years. That's pretty overwhelming evidence that Spurrier's system/coaching almost never has worked in the NFL with any notable success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Spurrier's system is pretty pitiful. Bu still better than that god-awful Martyball that I was forced to endure during the 2001 season. Winning wasn't even fun under Marty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 If ASF ever learns to properly implement the scientific method, God help us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchogs Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Originally posted by Henry If ASF ever learns to properly implement the scientific method, God help us all. it's: "make a hypothesis and then do research to fit your hypothesis, thereby proving it correct" right? no matter what number you put to it or how you come to your conclusion, the fact does remain that spurrier is not getting the job done. on that, i think we can all agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Are you serious? I know you didn't just write Norv's offense was often worked and was a great success?? I know I didn't see that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexRS Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 Here's the crying shame: Spurrier has probably been paid more in two years than all Redskins coaches in history put together. He probably has. Ya know, a million bucks nowadays just aint what it used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptown Skins Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 In comparison of "second seasons"......... In the second year under Gibbs, the team scored more than 27 TWICE and that was a strike-shortened season. However in the second year under Spurrier, the team only eclipsed 27 ONCE. And we shouldn't have any reason to believe they'll do it in the last two games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljer Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I don't care if we score 2 friggin points......W's are all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan 1991: 45, 33, 34, 42, 56, 41, 34 DAMN!!! That team was the ****!!!! Best ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xanathos19 Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 The one time we scored 27 this year was against the best defense in the NFL!!! THE DAMN FALCONS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yank Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Final scores don't tell the story of the point you are trying to make. Defense and special teams points count the same as offense. Any idea how many scores our defense has this year? One - the 2 point safety by Armstead. The ST? One - the KR TD by Morton. Take a random year 1995. The ST had a safety in one game, and a TD in another (in a game we scored 34 total). The D had a one TD game (dGreen Int TD in a game we scored 36) and a 2 TD game (we scored a total of 34 that game) This year has to be the leanest year for D and ST scores in many years. It aint always the O that scores the points. In this year's case, however, it just about always is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newera Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 All you all getting on ASF about about his Hasselbeck endorsement last week need to chill. If I'm not mistaken the vaunted Michael Vick had a quarterback rating of 19 against Indy last Sunday. Does that mean Vick sucks. No. Would you take Vick. Yes. Was Hasselbeck useless last Sunday? Yes. That still does not take away what he accomplished in the games prior. Hasselbeck is probably a back up? I rate him about even now. In each game he took five steps foward. Sunday he took fifteen steps back. He's even. I do think he will struggle against the Eagles. Wew! They are straight disruptive. Keep busting out those stats ASF. You do do your research. NewEra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted December 17, 2003 Share Posted December 17, 2003 Newera, we were getting on ASF about his endorsement because it was based on three games' worth of data. Now, that the data after four games is not so favorable, we should wait and see? Well, wait and see is pretty much what the rest of us have been saying this whole time. I'm glad we now all agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.