The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I finally got around to leaving a comment to Dr. Z at SI. Hopefully he will respond to it, or at least consider it. I suspect most of you would agree with me or at least find this interesting...

Not a question, just a comment.

I'd like to add my names to the list of others who feel you, as well as Peter King, consistently short-change the teams (and players such as Art Monk) from the first reign of Joe Gibbs. Absolutely they were a dynasty - no less than any of the other teams you mentioned. You failed to mention their loss in the 83 Superbowl - This is only fair to mention because you offered Miami's Superbowl loss in your other argument. Consider their divisional competition - In the early 80's they had to overcome and establish themselves versus some great Cowboys teams. Starting somewhere around the middle 80's they had to contend with a series of great Giants teams and shortly thereafter a series of great Eagles teams. Consider that after Joe Gibb's first year (a span of 10 seasons) these Redskins teams had only one losing season, barely, at 7-9. Compare this to the record of the vaunted 49ers of the same duration and you'll find that the 49ers averaged less than half a victory more during this span. What great teams within their division did the 49ers have to overcome? NONE. Perhaps the Jim Everett led Rams were their greatest competition, and that's really pitiful if you really stop to think about it. The Rams, Saints and Falcons - Cupcakes. The Cardinals were NFC East's only cupcake team. So what you had then is the 49ers, about on average, playing a total of four cupcake games more per year than the Redskins for a total of 40 for the ten years in question. If these 49er teams had instead played 40 games spread amongst these these Cowboys, Giants and Eagles do you think they would have won over 33 of them and would thereby still had a better overall record than the Reskins? I don't. In fact if you break down all of the matchups between these three teams and the 49ers during this span you'll find that the 49ers maintained a winning percentage of 65%. This proportion times 40 lends an exact total of 26 games - 19 less than what it would then have had to win to equate to the Redskin's record during this span or about one less victory per season. My argument is thus - During this ten year span in question, the Redskins were actually (however marginally) a BETTER team than the 49ers. This might help explain why we Redskin fans may become so frustrated whenever we read articles such as ones that leave these Redskin teams from among the list of NFL dynasties. They were better and they deserve better.

Hey ATV I agree with you. I have always thought that the 49's had the easiest road to the playoffs back in the 80's. The division they played in was the worst in the NFL. It's not hard to get to the playoffs when every other team in your division sucks. These teams had a hard time just breaking 500 most seasons and never were competetive. The modern day team that reminds me of them the most. The Eagles. Overrated because until now they have been playing in a weak division. Now that Joe is back that will surely change.

LAfan wrote:Hey ATV I agree with you. I have always thought that the 49's had the easiest road to the playoffs back in the 80's. The division they played in was the worst in the NFL. It's not hard to get to the playoffs when every other team in your division sucks. These teams had a hard time just breaking 500 most seasons and never were competetive. The modern day team that reminds me of them the most. The Eagles. Overrated because until now they have been playing in a weak division. Now that Joe is back that will surely change.

i agree with you guys mostly... but the fact is the 49ers won when they got to the playoffs... and they won their superbowls... i am not trying to argue for the 49ers... but don't discount the fact that they were closers... they beat who was put in front of them... there is some merit in that too....

Definetly got to tip your hat to the 49er's even though I grew up hating Joe Montana and Steve Young. I have to say that they were a really good team. But they didn't have to play in the tough NFC East. The NFC East was by far the toughest division in the 80's. In 1989 for an example, we had 10 wins that season and finished THIRD in the division. Coach Gibbs got one of the best winning records in one of the toughest divisions. If thats not a dynasty then I don't know what is.

Chicos, I'm not saying that the 49ers weren't a great team. But, in fact they did lose their share of playoff games: During this ten year span they lost to the Redskins in the Championship game in the 83 playoffs, the Giants in the 85 playoffs, the Giants in the 86 playoffs, the Vikings in the 87 playoffs (who the Redskins defeated the next game to goto the Superbowl), and the Giants in the 2000 Championship game.

They made the playoffs nearly every year but they had more than their share of losses (five) - Four to NFC East teams in fact!

Also, LAFan - I agree. We have to admit that the Eagles simply haven't had much competition the past several years. The Redskins and the other NFC East teams have largely been below average. Good Point.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... nally+made

Thanks, ATV. It's nice to finally have some backup.

chicosbailbond wrote:

LAfan wrote:Hey ATV I agree with you. I have always thought that the 49's had the easiest road to the playoffs back in the 80's. The division they played in was the worst in the NFL. It's not hard to get to the playoffs when every other team in your division sucks. These teams had a hard time just breaking 500 most seasons and never were competetive. The modern day team that reminds me of them the most. The Eagles. Overrated because until now they have been playing in a weak division. Now that Joe is back that will surely change.

i agree with you guys mostly... but the fact is the 49ers won when they got to the playoffs... and they won their superbowls... i am not trying to argue for the 49ers... but don't discount the fact that they were closers... they beat who was put in front of them... there is some merit in that too....

That is very true chico, but you must also realize that a huge part of this game is confidence. The 49ers had lots and lots of confidence built up by the time they got to the playoffs from playing these low budget teams. I don't discount what the 49ers did, but the Skins were every bit the dynasty that the 49ers were. We had 4 superbowls in 10 years just like the 49ers did, but we lost one. Yet we were never mentioned as a dynasty and that always irked me...

LAfan wrote:Hey ATV I agree with you. I have always thought that the 49's had the easiest road to the playoffs back in the 80's. The division they played in was the worst in the NFL. It's not hard to get to the playoffs when every other team in your division sucks. These teams had a hard time just breaking 500 most seasons and never were competetive. The modern day team that reminds me of them the most. The Eagles. Overrated because until now they have been playing in a weak division. Now that Joe is back that will surely change.

The Eagles do have a good team, but I agree, a lot of their success has been made from being in the worst division in football. The Seahawks division is taking that title over now though The Eagles really need to win this year in my estimation though, cause the Skins are rising.

ATV wrote:I finally got around to leaving a comment to Dr. Z at SI.

Good job! Keep on doing it.

The fact that some of us feel that he is nothing but a worthless piece of ...

... one of the most biased writers (the other one is Peter King), should not deter you from calling his number.

I would REALLY like to cross paths with him in NY one of these days. I REALLY would.