Records over the past 13 seasons:
Eagles 108-100
Cowboys 101-107
Giants 95-113
Skins 85-123
Supplement to Boswell article in today's Post
-
elchalje
- piggie
- Posts: 127
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:20 am
- Location: MARYLAND
-
1niksder
- **********
- Posts: 16741
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
- Contact:
Re: Supplement to Boswell article in today's Post
elchalje wrote:Records over the past 13 seasons:
Eagles 108-100
Cowboys 101-107
Giants 95-113
Skins 85-123
Supplement to elchalje's post in today's thread.
elchalje was a Giant troll yesterday....
elchalje is a Giant troll today...
elchalje will always be a troll even after he gets off the Giant's BW
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
It is curious that Boswell used records from the 1993 season thru present (a 12 year period). Normally, folks talk interms of rolling ten year periods. These #'s are very skewed by the fact that the Skins were 3-13 in '93 and 4-12 in '94. Those were the first two post-Gibbs years when the cupboard was just about bare.
I did some research over lunch and here is what I found: If you focus on the last 10 seasons, the Skins have 73 wins, which equates to a 7 win season on average. For comparison sake, in the NFC East the Giants have 75 wins during that period and the Cowboys have 77.
The Rams have 86. So, even though they have been to numerous post-seasons, the Rams have averaged less than two more wins/season than the Skins for the last decade (and to think that the Skins have never lost in St. Louis).
Because of the parity in the NFL, most teams are bunched between 75 and 85 wins during that period. Teams with fewer wins than the Skins are Arizona (55), Cin (57), Det (62), SD (64), Chi (64) , N.O. (67) and Carolina (71). Also, the Brown and Texans are in that group. I got sick of doing this so I may have missed a team or two.
So why is it that Boswell hammered the Skins badly? They are clearly on the right path. He chose a very convenient time period to make his argument. I can't figure his motivation.
Like the majority of NFL fans, I root for a consistently mediocre team, not a consistently horrible one. After all, only 17 NFL teams have ever won the Super Bowl. At least we have three of them.
I did some research over lunch and here is what I found: If you focus on the last 10 seasons, the Skins have 73 wins, which equates to a 7 win season on average. For comparison sake, in the NFC East the Giants have 75 wins during that period and the Cowboys have 77.
The Rams have 86. So, even though they have been to numerous post-seasons, the Rams have averaged less than two more wins/season than the Skins for the last decade (and to think that the Skins have never lost in St. Louis).
Because of the parity in the NFL, most teams are bunched between 75 and 85 wins during that period. Teams with fewer wins than the Skins are Arizona (55), Cin (57), Det (62), SD (64), Chi (64) , N.O. (67) and Carolina (71). Also, the Brown and Texans are in that group. I got sick of doing this so I may have missed a team or two.
So why is it that Boswell hammered the Skins badly? They are clearly on the right path. He chose a very convenient time period to make his argument. I can't figure his motivation.
Like the majority of NFL fans, I root for a consistently mediocre team, not a consistently horrible one. After all, only 17 NFL teams have ever won the Super Bowl. At least we have three of them.
"Okay guys, this is for $25,000 and a big @#!!% ring."
Joe Theismann, in the huddle before the first play of Super Bowl XVII
Joe Theismann, in the huddle before the first play of Super Bowl XVII