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

In Boswell's column today there was a very scary/upseting line.

"Since Gibbs left after the '92 season, only five teams in the NFL have won fewer games than Washington."

Wow.

I mean, I knew it was bad but I guess I did not realize HOW bad.

I'm pretty much speechless.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00440.html

Since this came from the Washington Post it must be just negative media spin right?

Dangerfield wrote:Since this came from the Washington Post it must be just negative media spin right?

1) No one here has ever taken issue with the Post when it deals with facts, but thanks for playing
2) Another way of looking at that: since Gibbs left after the '92 season, only eight teams have won the Super Bowl

Dangerfield wrote:Since this came from the Washington Post it must be just negative media spin right?

Its pretty hard to "spin" numerical fact!

chaddukes wrote:

Dangerfield wrote:Since this came from the Washington Post it must be just negative media spin right?

Its pretty hard to "spin" numerical fact!

You're not a statisitican, are you?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chaddukes wrote:

Dangerfield wrote:Since this came from the Washington Post it must be just negative media spin right?

Its pretty hard to "spin" numerical fact!

You're not a statisitican, are you?

Probably not...

Yea man, statistics can be spun anyway you want them to.

I would like to see ALL other teams records over the past 15 years to see exactly how records compare.
However in this case it SEEMS like it would not take much spin to determine we have been a bad franchise for longer than I care to remember.

The only fact I care about is how this team is playing right now - I can analyze the past seasons in the off-season.

Even though we lost this game this team (players and coaches) are playing for their future and there were a lot of good things to take away from this game. I loved some of that line blocking.

Yes we have some concerns and we are a disapointment but looking back over the last 15 years is not going to indicate anything that we don't already surmise. This team has some very good things to build on for next year.


I wonder how many of those Saints fans sat around last year and said "you know we suck" - "we have always been terrible" - "no point in hoping for anything good to come out of this, it never does". "We are the worst team in the NFL".

We have Gibbs.

wormer wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

chaddukes wrote:

Dangerfield wrote:Since this came from the Washington Post it must be just negative media spin right?

Its pretty hard to "spin" numerical fact!

You're not a statisitican, are you?

Probably not...

Yea man, statistics can be spun anyway you want them to.

I would like to see ALL other teams records over the past 15 years to see exactly how records compare.
However in this case it SEEMS like it would not take much spin to determine we have been a bad franchise for longer than I care to remember.

Ask and you shall receive

Team Rank for Wins 1993-2005

1. Packers 131 wins 1-1 in Superbowl
2. tie Broncos 130 wins 2-0 in Superbowl
2. tie Steelers 130 wins 1-1 in Superbowl
4. tie Patriots 122 wins 3-1 in Superbowl
4. tie Chiefs 122 wins
6. tie Vikings 118 wins
6. tie Dolphins 118 wins
8. 49ers 116 wins 1-0 in Superbowl
9. Eagles 114 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
10. Colts 113 wins
11. tie Cowboys 110 wins 2-0 in Superbowl
11. tie Oilers/Titans 110 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
13. Giants 109 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
14. Bucs 107 wins 1-0 in Superbowl
15. Seahawks 106 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
16. Bills 105 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
17. tie Browns/Ravens 101 wins 1-0 in Superbowl
17. tie Rams 101 wins 1-1 in Superbowl
19. Raiders 100 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
20. tie Jets 95 wins
20. tie Falcons 95 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
22. Jags 94 wins
23. Chargers 92 wins 0-1 in Superbowl
24. Bears 91 wins
25. Redskins 90 wins
26. Lions 86 wins
27. Saints 85 wins
28. Panthers 82 wins 0-1 in Superbowl (started play in 1995)
29. Cardinals 75 wins
30. Bengals 74 wins
31. Browns 36 wins (started play in 1999)
32. Texans 18 wins (started play in 2002)

So the Skins only rank ahead of four teams who played the entire 13 years. Three teams below them did not start play until at least 1995 and one team, the Jags, started play in 1995 and still had more wins. Moreover, the Skins are the doormat of the NFC East. Every time except the Skins has at least 109 wins or more in that 13 year period. The Skins are averaging 6 wins a season compared to 8 for the Giants, 9 for the Eagles and Cowboys.

The Skins are one of only 6 teams to not have an 11 win season during that stretch and that includes the Texans and new Browns. The only teams to have fewer 10 win seasons than the Skins (2) would be the new Browns, Texans, Bengals, Saints, Cardinals, and Lions who tied with 2. And if you factor in the Saints and Bengals should probably reach 10 wins this year that limits the teams to the Browns, Texans, Cardinals, and Lions.

Excluding the new Browns and Texans, the Skins are one of only 12 teams who have not played in the Superbowl in the last 13 seasons.

What could be attributed to this mess? A revolving door in the head coach position, poor drafts, poor free agent acquisitions, and poor play from the (revolving) QB position. If you look at the top four teams on the list, what do they have in common? A HOF QB, a good, stable coaching staff, and good home grown talent for the most part.

Overall, the Skins rank as one of the worst franchises in the last decade and the fans have not woken up to that fact yet. We still believe that the Skins are one or two moves away from Superbowl glory but obviously they need more work than that. The Skins are the highest revenue producing team in the League but one of the worst on the field since 1992. If the fans stop supporting the team, maybe some things could change.

And to weigh in on the Portis trade idea, I think at this point if the team could get high picks for him and use them properly, which I doubt, then trading him would not be a bad idea. Betts is the real deal and while you need a solid backup, this team needs playmakers on defense. Sometimes you have to trade value to get value. Denver fleeced the Skins on that trade in my opinion. Our LB corp stinks, our pass rush is pathetic, and I could probably throw for 200 yards against our secondary. Bottom line, the Skins need to get rid of some of the pre-madonas (Lloyd in particular) on the OF and invest in some good, young defensive talent in the next off-season. Plus, they need a possession receiver like Art Monk, a guy with a big body who can get first downs. We don’t have anyone like that with the exception of maybe ey but he is shorter than you would like for a possession receiver.

I think it's important to bear in mind how many winnable games the Redskins managed to choke away during that stretch, take away an INT here and a blown coverage there and all of the sudden things are not as bleak, which is admittedly different from saying they are good, it's just not very instructive to become hyper-focused on this kind of stat. That being said, nicely done rbrhett, welcome tothe site!

rbrhett wrote:What could be attributed to this mess? A revolving door in the head coach position, poor drafts, poor free agent acquisitions, and poor play from the (revolving) QB position. If you look at the top four teams on the list, what do they have in common? A HOF QB, a good, stable coaching staff, and good home grown talent for the most part.

Overall, the Skins rank as one of the worst franchises in the last decade and the fans have not woken up to that fact yet. We still believe that the Skins are one or two moves away from Superbowl glory but obviously they need more work than that. The Skins are the highest revenue producing team in the League but one of the worst on the field since 1992. If the fans stop supporting the team, maybe some things could change.

And to weigh in on the Portis trade idea, I think at this point if the team could get high picks for him and use them properly, which I doubt, then trading him would not be a bad idea. Betts is the real deal and while you need a solid backup, this team needs playmakers on defense. Sometimes you have to trade value to get value. Denver fleeced the Skins on that trade in my opinion. Our LB corp stinks, our pass rush is pathetic, and I could probably throw for 200 yards against our secondary. Bottom line, the Skins need to get rid of some of the pre-madonas (Lloyd in particular) on the OF and invest in some good, young defensive talent in the next off-season. Plus, they need a possession receiver like Art Monk, a guy with a big body who can get first downs. We don’t have anyone like that with the exception of maybe ey but he is shorter than you would like for a possession receiver.

One legit addition is in the middle of that JKC died and the team was in limbo and couldn't make decisions. Then our new owner fnally fired Norv and we had to revamp the team. But it's ironic you (rightly) point to the coaching carousel and lack of consistency ... then want to dump CP and go to Betts based on Betts 3 games versus CP's 1,500 yard seasons. Isn't that the logic that you yourself advocated we need to get away from?

I'm glad we re-signed Betts, but to replace CP? I dont' think so. And we need some CONSISTENCY. Please, somebody stop this curning of coaches and key players!!!!

THANKS rbrhett!! Good work!

Guys, do you think the fans will get to a level of frustration where they petition at games to get rid of Snyder? I kinda think it won't, not that it should.

It definatly fells like only 90 wins in 14 years. 90-134 awful.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:One legit addition is in the middle of that JKC died and the team was in limbo and couldn't make decisions. Then our new owner fnally fired Norv and we had to revamp the team. But it's ironic you (rightly) point to the coaching carousel and lack of consistency ... then want to dump CP and go to Betts based on Betts 3 games versus CP's 1,500 yard seasons. Isn't that the logic that you yourself advocated we need to get away from?

I'm glad we re-signed Betts, but to replace CP? I dont' think so. And we need some CONSISTENCY. Please, somebody stop this curning of coaches and key players!!!!

I don't think my statement about Portis is inconsistent. I mentioned that if we could get some high picks for him and use them properly, which the current group has not done, then I think trading him would not be a bad move. Yes Portis is great, but I think Betts will be something special as well. The team has so many holes on defense that they might need to think outside the box. Look what SD has done by trading the first pick twice. Look what Denver has done with the backs they have had excluding Portis. Backs are easier to come by than playmakers on defense and great QBs. Now if the Skins could not get GREAT picks for Portis, then don't trade him and we can watch Betts and Portis rack up yards next season.

On the flip side, that is great, but just look at last week. Betts gains 170 yards and the Skins still lose. Two players are not going to take the Skins to the playoffs, and with the current defense the Skins would be lucky to win 8 games next season. Another year of mediocrity is in store for us unless the Skins can get younger and better on defense. Good defense, ball control, and a smart, mistake free quarterback who can stretch the field win games. Currently, the Skins have one of the three. Cambell will be good eventually, but he needs at least another year to get acclimated.

redskingush wrote:It definatly fells like only 90 wins in 14 years. 90-134 awful.

I actually think the Skins record is 90-132-2. Not much difference but we did tie twice!

rbrhett wrote:I don't think my statement about Portis is inconsistent. I mentioned that if we could get some high picks for him and use them properly, which the current group has not done, then I think trading him would not be a bad move. Yes Portis is great, but I think Betts will be something special as well. The team has so many holes on defense that they might need to think outside the box. Look what SD has done by trading the first pick twice. Look what Denver has done with the backs they have had excluding Portis. Backs are easier to come by than playmakers on defense and great QBs. Now if the Skins could not get GREAT picks for Portis, then don't trade him and we can watch Betts and Portis rack up yards next season.

"Inconsistent" is not a strong word. I didn't say contradictory or hypocritical. All I'm saying is we have to stop churning. Coaches AND the key players. We needed pass rush, stonger safety play and receivers besides Moss and ey. We got a mixed bag of results at best with AA being a total bust (as admitted by coaches by not playing him on D). Let's stop already and build with what we have. Taking a big cap hit to dump Portis is going to help? I just don't see it.

This whole discussion is theoretical anyway; no sane team official is going to give any pick of value for a running back coming off two surgeries in a season. I doubt we could even get a 2nd rounder for Portis, and he's worth much more than that.

I would like to see the attendance record and the team revenues for the same period. Is it just business for Snyder & Co., or they really want to win?

Hail,

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

rbrhett wrote:What could be attributed to this mess? A revolving door in the head coach position, poor drafts, poor free agent acquisitions, and poor play from the (revolving) QB position. If you look at the top four teams on the list, what do they have in common? A HOF QB, a good, stable coaching staff, and good home grown talent for the most part.

Overall, the Skins rank as one of the worst franchises in the last decade and the fans have not woken up to that fact yet. We still believe that the Skins are one or two moves away from Superbowl glory but obviously they need more work than that. The Skins are the highest revenue producing team in the League but one of the worst on the field since 1992. If the fans stop supporting the team, maybe some things could change.

And to weigh in on the Portis trade idea, I think at this point if the team could get high picks for him and use them properly, which I doubt, then trading him would not be a bad idea. Betts is the real deal and while you need a solid backup, this team needs playmakers on defense. Sometimes you have to trade value to get value. Denver fleeced the Skins on that trade in my opinion. Our LB corp stinks, our pass rush is pathetic, and I could probably throw for 200 yards against our secondary. Bottom line, the Skins need to get rid of some of the pre-madonas (Lloyd in particular) on the OF and invest in some good, young defensive talent in the next off-season. Plus, they need a possession receiver like Art Monk, a guy with a big body who can get first downs. We don’t have anyone like that with the exception of maybe ey but he is shorter than you would like for a possession receiver.

One legit addition is in the middle of that JKC died and the team was in limbo and couldn't make decisions. Then our new owner fnally fired Norv and we had to revamp the team. But it's ironic you (rightly) point to the coaching carousel and lack of consistency ... then want to dump CP and go to Betts based on Betts 3 games versus CP's 1,500 yard seasons. Isn't that the logic that you yourself advocated we need to get away from?

I'm glad we re-signed Betts, but to replace CP? I dont' think so. And we need some CONSISTENCY. Please, somebody stop this curning of coaches and key players!!!!

I think the point that he is trying to make is that we may not have needed portis as much as we thought we did. I am not saying that CP's 1500 yard seasons are something to laugh at but a back that can come in as a backup and get close to 1000 yards in a season without giving up champ isn't too bad a deal either. And when you consider the fact that Smoot wasn't a #1 corner the fact that Champ left exposed Smoot which caused him to leave for better or worse. I am not saying that I don't want Portis but hindsight is 20/20.