The 1991 Redskins were as good or better than the 1985 Bears (1 Viewer)

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

Yes, I'm a Redskins homer. Lets get that out of the way. With that said, I'm probably one of the more unbiased people you'll ever meet regarding my home teams, and I'm very willing to rip them or argue against them when I think they deserve it. Anyway, I started to hijack the 85 Bears/07 Pats thread with this, but I went back and deleted those posts and will argue for it here instead.

I don't know why the 91 Skins always seem to get left out of the "greatest teams of all time" debate. That coupled with the fact that the 85 Bears are considered by 90+% of people to be the greatest team of my liftetime(born in 1982) made me rank the Bears at #1 when I made a list a while ago. But no more! My honest belief is that the 91 Skins were better. Let me give you some reasons....

1. The Bears were thoroughly beaten by the Dolphins in the regular season. Miami led 31-10 at halftime and never led by less than 14 points in the second half. How on earth can the greatest team of all time lose 31-10 in a half? Its funny to watch people critisize the 07 Pats for simply playing close games when the 85 Bears were beaten soundly. Contrast that to the 91 Redskins- they lost by 3 points in a game in which their opponent both recovered an onside kick and caught a hail mary. Now I'm not making excuses for the loss. The Redskins could've and should've beaten their opponents by even more so that those "flukes" wouldn't have mattered. However, if we're honest with ourselves we'll admit that there is a tremendous amount of luck and variance in all sports, and a hail mary and an onside kick in the same game is clearly good fortune. The Redskins only other loss was in week 17 when they sat all their starters and still only lost by 2 points.

2. The Redskins outscored their opponents by more points than the Bears. Now this is very very close so I'm not saying that its decisive(sp?) either way- Washington outscored their opponents by 261 points while the Bears outscored their opponents by 258 points. However, it seems as if theres a bunch of people out there who generally accept the 85 Bears as the greatest team ever and I think that this shows that the Redskins at least deserve mention.

3. In 1985 the NFL was in a bit of a downswing imo. I understand that this is highly debatable, but I don't think there were any other great teams that year. The Bears played the Patriots in the Super Bowl that year. How many players can most people here name on that Patriots team? I'm not saying they were bad by any means, but the 85 Pats were not a great team at all. The 2nd best NFC team that year....meh, I guess you could say the L.A. Rams although the Redskins, 49ers, Cowboys, and Giants all have a claim to that as well. The Dolphins and Raiders were solid but its still kinda "meh" to me. Just doesn't seem like a great year of teams other than the Bears. As I said to begin this point, I realize that many won't agree, and I'll admit that I could be reaching here.

4. The Redskins played a much tougher regular season schedule. This is one area in which the Redskins really don't get enough credit. The Redskins opponents had a combined record of 127-113 not including their games against the Skins. Thats just under 53%. Of the 5 NFC teams that made the playoffs, the Redskins played all of them except the Saints(who lost in the first round anyway). They also played the 11-5 Oilers in the regular season, and then of course played the Bills in the Super Bowl. Contrast that to the 85 Bears whose opponents had a combined record of 120-120. This fact combined with the opinion stated in point #3 makes the Redskins overall stats and point differential even more important imo.

5. Again this is another really minor point, but it did influence this stats a bit so I'll point it out: The Redskins clearly rested their starters in week 17, losing to an Eagles team that they beat 23-0 earlier in the season. I'm not certain if the Bears did or not, but them winning the game 37-17 kinda implies they didn't(although I could be wrong). Anyway, this obviously influences the stats a bit. If the Redskins would've played their starters then their point differential and other stats may have been even better than it was.

I'm looking over all of the other stats now, and they're very very similar. The Skins were a bit better passing, the Bears were better rushing. The Skins had a slightly better pass defense(this may surprise some people), the Bears had a slightly better rush defense. People may be surprised to see how close the Skins D is to the Bears, but the Bears gave up 4618 yards while the Skins gave up 4638. I'm not going to bother going into full details regarding all the stats, but I'll include them here:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/chi1985.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was1991.htm

Its tough for me to truly argue for either team as better than the other because they were both so great. However, it upsets me that the Skins never seem to get any credit at all(thus this thread). Have at it.....

jbz · Dec 5, 2007

i will have to homerly agree. I hate Dallas for ruining what would have been surely a perfect season

montanagold · Dec 5, 2007

No... I don't think everyone thinks 85 bears are best of all time. Plenty of franchises would have beaten them. 90's Cowboys and 49ers for sure... probably the poor Bills who always get left out. Just some examples....

nibbomydaets · Dec 5, 2007

If the Cowboys didn't use every trick in the book along with a lot of luck, the Redskins would have EASILY gone undefeated the rest of the way. I think it took two hail mary's, a blocked punt, and goig for it on 4th down a few times to take that one.

The only failed logic I see in your suggestion is all the stats vs other teams such as how much you outscored your opponents, how much yardage the defense gave up and so fourth. I never understand why people even bring this stuff up.

Unless you are playing the exact same teams, and they game plan your team the exact way they game plan others, call the same exact offensive play, ect.... stats get thrown out the window. Just silly imho.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

montanagold said:
No... I don't think everyone thinks 85 bears are best of all time. Plenty of franchises would have beaten them. 90's Cowboys and 49ers for sure... probably the poor Bills who always get left out. Just some examples....

I actually think the 90s Cowboys are very overrated. They had great star power and were well liked, and any time you combine those two people are naturally going to overrate them. From the thread I did earlier, here was my comparison of the Redskins to what I felt was the best of those Cowboys teams(the 1992 squad):The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 points

The 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Now I do give major props to the Cowboys for sustaining that success for multiple years. However, in any one year they were really never that great. The stats clearly back me up on this.

nibbomydaets · Dec 5, 2007

You post that horrible example of stats every chance you get. BTW, WTF is Eddie Epstein????????????

Way to compare the Cowboys worst team of the dynasty to the Redskins best team ever. The 1002 team sucked compared to the 93-95 teams. As a Redskin fan (You Icy Pots), please don't make the decision on who our best team was. Not only that, you're comparing different years. Unless my cowboys were playing the exact same schedule how can that even be a remotely fair comparison?

Thirdly, those two teams were built completely differently.

The Redskins were a high powered passing attack and big strong defensive team. The Cowboys were a ball control run first team with a small but fast defense.

B- for effort though.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

nibbomydaets said:
You post that horrible example of stats every chance you get. BTW, WTF is Eddie Epstein????????????

A writer from ESPN who came up with a formula to rank teams.

nibbomydaets said:
Way to compare the Cowboys worst team of the dynasty to the Redskins best team ever. The 1002 team sucked compared to the 93-95 teams. As a Redskin fan (You Icy Pots), please don't make the decision on who our best team was.

The 1992 Cowboys team had the best record and best point differential of the 3 SB teams. I know you're saying that you hate stats, but since I was doing I statistical analysis I picked the "best statistical team of the Cowboys 90s title teams." Is that a better label for you than "best team"? Would you really have rather me picked a Cowboys team with worse statistics to make the comparison even more lopsided?

nibbomydaets said:
Not only that, you're comparing different years. Unless my cowboys were playing the exact same schedule how can that even be a remotely fair comparison?

So you can't compare any players or teams unless they played the exact same schedule? Doesn't that kinda leave us totally unable to ever compare any team/players that didn't play in the same year? I mean if I ask you who was better Randy Moss or Jerry Rice, would your response really be "I don't know. Unless they lined up with the same QB and against the same CB and against the same coverage scheme then we'll never know."Come on man....surely you can admit that we can use our reasoning ability and couple it with the stats at our disposal to make rankings and comparisons, no?

Now I will agree with you that statistics can sometimes be misleading. A perfect example of this would be the 72 Dolphins or the 99 Rams, both of whom played a ridiculously easy schedule and dominated as a result. And if you ever notice any errors in my statistical comparisons then please by all means point them out. I go way out of my way to post all the stats(or link to them) and not try to hide anything just to make my arguments look better. And most importantly, I look at a team's strength of schedule when posting these stats.

Even still, I fully agree with you that stats, even when looked into more deeply, can't tell us everything. I do think it is indeed possible that a better team could put up slightly worse stats than a worse team. However, these stats are not "slightly better." The stats are extremely clear on who the better team is here. I really can't see way to argue against such an overwhelming amount of evidence.

It sounds like you(and a few other Cowboys fans I've talked to about this) just want to rely upon our own personal recollections and views. This is such a flawed method on so many levels. Basically what'll happen is that the Cowboys fans will say "Emmitt/Irvin/Aikman, great o-line, we're the best!!!!!!!". I mean seriously, I'm all ears.....please tell me why you believe any one of those Cowboys teams was better than the 1991 Redskins. I'm fully willing to listen. But I don't think you really have an argument at all. The floor is yours man. I promise to fully listen and try to understand your side.

nibbomydaets said:
Thirdly, those two teams were built completely differently.

The 1992 Cowboys had 3 losses, one of which was a 31-7 loss to the Eagles. They also lost a home game to the 6-10 L.A. Rams. They didn't lose these games because they were "built differently" than the Redskins. They lost those games because they weren't as good as the Redskins. Oh but I know...different years, right? Clearly the Redskins didn't have to contend with those pesky 1992 Rams which is why they don't have such a bad loss on their schedule :rolleyes:

If you want to use any of the other Cowboys teams then fine....

The 1993 team lost 4 games including a 19 point loss to the 4-12 Redskins and a 13 point loss to the 6-10 Falcons.

The 1995 team lost 4 games including getting swept by the 6-10(4 win team otherwise) Washington Redskins.

I would be absolutely shocked if you had a valid response to this. No matter how much you try to hide behind the "different year" excuse, you're still faced with the facts that the Cowboys lost more games, lost games by wide margins, and lost games to bad teams. The goal of football is still to win, right?

nibbomydaets said:
The Redskins were a high powered passing attack and big strong defensive team. The Cowboys were a ball control run first team with a small but fast defense.

I agree. That doesn't mean that we can't compare them in any way. To begin with, the Cowboys allowed 19 more points than the Redskins and forced 13 less turnovers. Now you can shake it however you want, but the goal of a defense is to stop the other team from scoring and force turnovers. Despite the Redskins and Cowboys having different defensive philosophies, I think we can still look at these stats and determine that the Redskins defense was better because the defensive philosophies never call for a team to purposefully allow more points or force fewer turnovers. Furthermore, since you're arguing that the Cowboys had a ball control offense that gave their defense a lot of rest and didn't make them be on the field a lot while the Redskins were a quick strike offense, that makes these numbers even more convincing.

With regards to offense, I will agree with you that a great rushing team will usually score a bit less than a great passing team due to the fact that their drives will last longer and they'll therefore have fewer drives overall. And you're right thats exactly the case here with these two teams(Redskins have an advantage in yards per pass attempt of 8.44 to 7.33 while the Cowboys have an edge in yards per rush attempt of 4.24 to 3.79). Therefore, I do think its a fair point by you that the Redskins scoring many more points than the Cowboys doesn't necessarily mean that the Redskins offense was better.

However, the Cowboys threw 4 more interceptions and fumbled and lost the ball 3 more times. Theres no philosophical reason for that- the Redskins offense was simply better in this regard. And I want to especially highlight this stat because since you claim the Cowboys are a "ball control" team you'd think that this would be of top priority to them. And it would seem that the Redskins are better at what you say the Cowboys greatest strength was!

Also I posted several special teams stats and the Redskins were better there as well. Again, this isn't a case of one team simply having a different special teams game plan. You don't allow more yards on returns, make a worse % of FGs, etc. on purpose. Again, the Redskins were simply better here.

Ghost Rider · Dec 5, 2007

'98 Broncos > '91 Redskins

:shrug:

bicycle_seat_sniffer · Dec 5, 2007

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.

This alone should end any argument you have

Not to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

NatronIsMean · Dec 5, 2007

The 85 Bears ate pieces of isht like the 91 Redskins for breakfast. There I said it.

phthalatemagic · Dec 5, 2007

You could be right, but they could never play each other. If Wilbur Marshall 1985 touches Wilbur Marshall 1991 it would make the entire stadium explode

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

azgroover · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

i was at that lions/'boys game. i remember beurlein starting, but i seem to think aikman played also. i just remember barry running into a pile and tony casillas' head almost flying off as he swung it around to try and find barry after he had escaped on his way to a TD. still the best run i've ever seen.

bicycle_seat_sniffer · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

The Lions scored 38 points against the Cowboys in the playoffs. Dallas WITH AIKMAN never scored 38 points all season long. Therefore I think its very likely that the Lions would have won regardless of whether or not Aikman played.

dgreen · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Thats it, just the Bills. Usually a team will only play one or two "great" teams in the playoffs anyway. And I believe the 85 Bears played zero. Obviously "great" is a very subjective term though, and I won't argue this point too much if you disagree.

bicycle_seat_sniffer · Dec 5, 2007

dgreen said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper/Dickerson whom I think had a great season.

nflguru · Dec 5, 2007

This thread is preposterous..

bears 85 > all teams ever.. Even the miami undefeated team that is old and irritating..

bears lost to miami that day on fluke tip TD passes and turnovers.. They were coming back in the 2nd half and ran out of time (as most do when you lose). Is there another team so confident that it makes a superbowl shuffle video before they win?

Please stop this nonsense..

There Ditka said it..

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

Ghost Rider said:
'98 Broncos > '91 Redskins

1998 Broncos were a great team for sure. Its really hard to compare these great teams since you really have to nitpick to find faults. But if I had to list a few "nitpicky" reasons why the 98 Broncos weren't as good:-Their defense only ranked #8 in points scored and #12 in yards allowed. Thats very very "average" for a team when you're trying to compare them to some of the best teams of all time. Honestly this alone is the big fact that keeps them from the top tier for me.-They barely got by the Jets in the AFC title game. IIRC they were behind 10-0 in the second half of that game and were sparked by a "fluke" blocked punt to get them back into the game and eventually win it.-Many people will still say that the Vikings were the best team that year but just had bad variance in the NFC title game. Now just as I didn't penalize the Skins for Detroit beating Dallas above, I can't penalize Denver for Minnesota not making the Super Bowl. The only difference is that with Washington there was no doubt: We knew who the best team was in the regular season, we knew who the best team was in the playoffs, and we knew who the best team was after the playoffs. With the Broncos, it was most definitely up in the air.I really did like that team though...still shocked that they lost that game to the Giants.

dgreen · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Maybe you should have looked. :pickle:

They beat a pretty good Giants team in round one, then a not so impressive Rams team in the NFC Championship. And, of course, a not so good Patriots team in the SB.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

nflguru · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Click to expand...

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

Was NE not great that year and they took a beating?

Ghost Rider · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
1998 Broncos were a great team for sure. Its really hard to compare these great teams since you really have to nitpick to find faults. But if I had to list a few "nitpicky" reasons why the 98 Broncos weren't as good:-Their defense only ranked #8 in points scored and #12 in yards allowed. Thats very very "average" for a team when you're trying to compare them to some of the best teams of all time. Honestly this alone is the big fact that keeps them from the top tier for me.

Their defense gave up a lot of yards in garbage time of blowouts. Their overall numbers were definitely hurt by that.

Assani Fisher said:
-They barely got by the Jets in the AFC title game. IIRC they were behind 10-0 in the second half of that game and were sparked by a "fluke" blocked punt to get them back into the game and eventually win it.

Not true. The Jets blocking a punt is what enabled them to grab a 10-0 lead. And the Broncos ended up winning by 13, and the result was never in doubt for pretty much all of the 4th quarter, so I wouldn't call that barely getting by them. In those playoffs, the Broncos outscored their opponents by a combined score of 95-32. Even more impressively, the only touchdowns they allowed throughout the whole playoffs were a 1-yard drive by the Jets after the blocked punt, a kickoff return for a TD by Tim Dwight, and a TD pass by the Falcons in the last two minutes of the SB after the Broncos already had the game wrapped up.

Assani Fisher said:
-Many people will still say that the Vikings were the best team that year but just had bad variance in the NFC title game. Now just as I didn't penalize the Skins for Detroit beating Dallas above, I can't penalize Denver for Minnesota not making the Super Bowl. The only difference is that with Washington there was no doubt: We knew who the best team was in the regular season, we knew who the best team was in the playoffs, and we knew who the best team was after the playoffs. With the Broncos, it was most definitely up in the air.

And those many people are wrong. The only reason the Vikings had a better record than the Broncos in the regular season was because they had to keep playing through week 17, to hold off the Falcons for home field advantage. The Broncos had it wrapped up early in the AFC, so they rested players in weeks 16 and 17. I see what you mean, though, about it never being in doubt that Washington was the best team.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

I think you're fishing, but whatever......

nflguru said:
This thread is preposterous..

No its not. The stats are very very close.

nflguru said:
bears 85 > all teams ever.. Even the miami undefeated team that is old and irritating..

Nothing like giving your opinion with absolutely no facts or analysis to back it up.

nflguru said:
bears lost to miami that day on fluke tip TD passes and turnovers..

The Dolphins scored the first 5 times they had the ball in that game. Thats really a "fluke" to you?Also since when are turnovers "flukes"? Isn't protecting the ball a part of being a winning team?Regardless, thats the point- theres going to be some bad luck during any season. The great teams are so dominant that it takes bad luck just to make the games close. And sometimes those close games go their way(the 07 Pats so far) and sometimes they lose a heartbreaker(the 91 Skins against the Cowboys). What most of these great teams don't do is get blown out.I could continue to own you in this debate, but I'll let the quotes speak for themselves:"But the only thing that matters is the last game of the year." "They were a better team than us," said tackle Jimbo Covert. "Tonight. It ain't the end of the world. On this day in history, they were better. Five or six weeks down the road, we might be better than them.""They deserved to win and we didn't," said Ditka. "I hope they go as far as we're going to go and we play them again."

nflguru said:
They were coming back in the 2nd half and ran out of time (as most do when you lose).

They were down 31-10 at halftime. They never got within 14 points. You can't be serious.

nflguru said:
Is there another team so confident that it makes a superbowl shuffle video before they win?

Great point :goodposting:

nflguru said:
Please stop this nonsense..Ditka Bears...

Another great point.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

nflguru said:
Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Click to expand...

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

Click to expand...

Was NE not great that year and they took a beating?

I'm not understanding what you're saying. Yes the Bears dominated NE. No I do not think NE was by any means a great team, and I don't think there were any great(or even really really good) teams in the league that year except for the Bears.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

Ghost Rider, I definitely welcome the debate and it seems as if you're capable of arguing in a well thought out manner, but let me ask you: Are you really arguing this because you believe the 98 Broncos were better or are you just being a homer for the fun of it(answer truthfully please)?

Ghost Rider said:
Their defense gave up a lot of yards in garbage time of blowouts. Their overall numbers were definitely hurt by that.

You could say this about any great team. Unless you have some reason as to why it pertains to the 98 Broncos moreso than the other great teams I don't see how you can count it as relevant.

Ghost Rider said:
Not true. The Jets blocking a punt is what enabled them to grab a 10-0 lead. And the Broncos ended up winning by 13, and the result was never in doubt for pretty much all of the 4th quarter, so I wouldn't call that barely getting by them. In those playoffs, the Broncos outscored their opponents by a combined score of 95-32. Even more impressively, the only touchdowns they allowed throughout the whole playoffs were a 1-yard drive by the Jets after the blocked punt, a kickoff return for a TD by Tim Dwight, and a TD pass by the Falcons in the last two minutes of the SB after the Broncos already had the game wrapped up.

Ok, you're probably right. I'm probably mixing up my facts about the blocked punt there. Still though...they did trail 10-0 in the 2nd half, right? BTW, since we're on the topic of the 98 Jets, a really weird stat about them in the regular season....Record of teams the Jets beat that year(not counting games vs the Jets): 101-78Record of teams the Jets lost to that year(not counting games vs the Jets): 21-38Also 4 teams in the AFC East made the playoffs that year....pretty crazy(and the Jets went 6-0 against them in the regular season too!)

Ghost Rider said:
And those many people are wrong. The only reason the Vikings had a better record than the Broncos in the regular season was because they had to keep playing through week 17, to hold off the Falcons for home field advantage. The Broncos had it wrapped up early in the AFC, so they rested players in weeks 16 and 17. I see what you mean, though, about it never being in doubt that Washington was the best team.

Oh I agree about the record. The Broncos only really lost one game that year for sure. So did the Vikings. They were both very good teams, and I really really wish we got to see that Super Bowl.

nflguru · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
I think you're fishing, but whatever......

nflguru said:

This thread is preposterous..

Click to expand...

No its not. The stats are very very close.

nflguru said:

bears 85 > all teams ever.. Even the miami undefeated team that is old and irritating..

Click to expand...

Nothing like giving your opinion with absolutely no facts or analysis to back it up.

nflguru said:

bears lost to miami that day on fluke tip TD passes and turnovers..

Click to expand...

The Dolphins scored the first 5 times they had the ball in that game. Thats really a "fluke" to you?Also since when are turnovers "flukes"? Isn't protecting the ball a part of being a winning team?Regardless, thats the point- theres going to be some bad luck during any season. The great teams are so dominant that it takes bad luck just to make the games close. And sometimes those close games go their way(the 07 Pats so far) and sometimes they lose a heartbreaker(the 91 Skins against the Cowboys). What most of these great teams don't do is get blown out.I could continue to own you in this debate, but I'll let the quotes speak for themselves:"But the only thing that matters is the last game of the year." "They were a better team than us," said tackle Jimbo Covert. "Tonight. It ain't the end of the world. On this day in history, they were better. Five or six weeks down the road, we might be better than them.""They deserved to win and we didn't," said Ditka. "I hope they go as far as we're going to go and we play them again."

nflguru said:

They were coming back in the 2nd half and ran out of time (as most do when you lose).

Click to expand...

They were down 31-10 at halftime. They never got within 14 points. You can't be serious.

nflguru said:

Is there another team so confident that it makes a superbowl shuffle video before they win?

Click to expand...

Great point

nflguru said:

Please stop this nonsense..Ditka Bears...

Click to expand...

Another great point.

I'm just having fun with you guys here.. don't take yourself so serious just because the 91 Skins are not in "TALKS" when people discuss the best teams ever.. I honestly believe teams/players get better each year and would beat most of the teams from the past.. NE today would beat most if not all teams from the past..The skins today, well they cant beat anybody... Either can my bears (even when they are leading the giants in the 4th qrt by 2 scores)

bicycle_seat_sniffer · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Click to expand...

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

I wasnt aruging that they were great. :shrug:

avoiding injuries · Dec 5, 2007

As a Redskins fan, I think a case can be made that they had a better season. A better team, that's too difficult to say. The 9ers, Steelers and Patriots would have a case there too.

But what the heck, I'll agree that the 91 Skins were the best team to ever step onto an NFL football field.

Ghost Rider · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
Ghost Rider, I definitely welcome the debate and it seems as if you're capable of arguing in a well thought out manner, but let me ask you: Are you really arguing this because you believe the 98 Broncos were better or are you just being a homer for the fun of it(answer truthfully please)?

A little bit of both, honestly

, although I could see how admitting the second part would make someone figure out why I would think the first part. :shrug:

Assani Fisher said:
Ghost Rider said:

Their defense gave up a lot of yards in garbage time of blowouts. Their overall numbers were definitely hurt by that.

Click to expand...

You could say this about any great team. Unless you have some reason as to why it pertains to the 98 Broncos moreso than the other great teams I don't see how you can count it as relevant.

Fair point.

Assani Fisher said:
Ghost Rider said:

Not true. The Jets blocking a punt is what enabled them to grab a 10-0 lead. And the Broncos ended up winning by 13, and the result was never in doubt for pretty much all of the 4th quarter, so I wouldn't call that barely getting by them. In those playoffs, the Broncos outscored their opponents by a combined score of 95-32. Even more impressively, the only touchdowns they allowed throughout the whole playoffs were a 1-yard drive by the Jets after the blocked punt, a kickoff return for a TD by Tim Dwight, and a TD pass by the Falcons in the last two minutes of the SB after the Broncos already had the game wrapped up.

Click to expand...

Ok, you're probably right. I'm probably mixing up my facts about the blocked punt there. Still though...they did trail 10-0 in the 2nd half, right?

Yes, but very early in the 3rd quarter. Denver scored 20 points on their next four possessions right after the Jets had taken a 10-0 lead. And it is worth noting that the weather was pretty awful that day; very windy and cold.

Assani Fisher said:
Ghost Rider said:

And those many people are wrong. The only reason the Vikings had a better record than the Broncos in the regular season was because they had to keep playing through week 17, to hold off the Falcons for home field advantage. The Broncos had it wrapped up early in the AFC, so they rested players in weeks 16 and 17. I see what you mean, though, about it never being in doubt that Washington was the best team.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree about the record. The Broncos only really lost one game that year for sure. So did the Vikings. They were both very good teams, and I really really wish we got to see that Super Bowl.

With those offenses, Denver would have won like 52-38 or something like that. It would have been a more exciting game that seeing the Falcons get dominated, that's for sure.

Chase Stuart · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
-They barely got by the Jets in the AFC title game. IIRC they were behind 10-0 in the second half of that game and were sparked by a "fluke" blocked punt to get them back into the game and eventually win it.

The Jets are better than any opponent the '85 Bears or the '91 Redskins ever faced. That team was 12-1 with Testaverde, who threw 29 TD and 7 INT. They had Bill, Bill and Charlie on staff. Their one loss was to the Colts in Indy by a point, which included Marshall Faulk making a great play on 4th and 15 on the game winning drive. Then in the playoffs they beat a Jaguars team that would lose to only one opponent the next season.A 13-1 team with a star QB, star QB, terrific defense (2nd in points allowed by one point) is as worthy an opponent as you'll find.

avoiding injuries · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Click to expand...

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

Click to expand...

I wasnt aruging that they were great.

It seemed like you were since you mentioned them along with the Montana 49ers. I'm not saying you were one way or the other...

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

nflguru said:
Assani Fisher said:

I think you're fishing, but whatever......

nflguru said:

This thread is preposterous..

Click to expand...

No its not. The stats are very very close.

nflguru said:

bears 85 > all teams ever.. Even the miami undefeated team that is old and irritating..

Click to expand...

Nothing like giving your opinion with absolutely no facts or analysis to back it up.

nflguru said:

bears lost to miami that day on fluke tip TD passes and turnovers..

Click to expand...

The Dolphins scored the first 5 times they had the ball in that game. Thats really a "fluke" to you?Also since when are turnovers "flukes"? Isn't protecting the ball a part of being a winning team?Regardless, thats the point- theres going to be some bad luck during any season. The great teams are so dominant that it takes bad luck just to make the games close. And sometimes those close games go their way(the 07 Pats so far) and sometimes they lose a heartbreaker(the 91 Skins against the Cowboys). What most of these great teams don't do is get blown out.I could continue to own you in this debate, but I'll let the quotes speak for themselves:"But the only thing that matters is the last game of the year." "They were a better team than us," said tackle Jimbo Covert. "Tonight. It ain't the end of the world. On this day in history, they were better. Five or six weeks down the road, we might be better than them.""They deserved to win and we didn't," said Ditka. "I hope they go as far as we're going to go and we play them again."

nflguru said:

They were coming back in the 2nd half and ran out of time (as most do when you lose).

Click to expand...

They were down 31-10 at halftime. They never got within 14 points. You can't be serious.

nflguru said:

Is there another team so confident that it makes a superbowl shuffle video before they win?

Click to expand...

Great point

nflguru said:

Please stop this nonsense..Ditka Bears...

Click to expand...

Another great point.

Click to expand...

I'm just having fun with you guys here.. don't take yourself so serious just because the 91 Skins are not in "TALKS" when people discuss the best teams ever.. I honestly believe teams/players get better each year and would beat most of the teams from the past.. NE today would beat most if not all teams from the past..The skins today, well they cant beat anybody... Either can my bears (even when they are leading the giants in the 4th qrt by 2 scores)

Nah, I rarely take things seriously...just like to debate sometimes.

avoiding injuries · Dec 5, 2007

Chase Stuart said:
Assani Fisher said:

-They barely got by the Jets in the AFC title game. IIRC they were behind 10-0 in the second half of that game and were sparked by a "fluke" blocked punt to get them back into the game and eventually win it.

Click to expand...

The Jets are better than any opponent the '85 Bears or the '91 Redskins ever faced. That team was 12-1 with Testaverde, who threw 29 TD and 7 INT. They had Bill, Bill and Charlie on staff. Their one loss was to the Colts in Indy by a point, which included Marshall Faulk making a great play on 4th and 15 on the game winning drive. Then in the playoffs they beat a Jaguars team that would lose to only one opponent the next season.A 13-1 team with a star QB, star QB, terrific defense (2nd in points allowed by one point) is as worthy an opponent as you'll find.

So you're saying they were a bunch of no good cheaters.

Chase Stuart · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
BTW, since we're on the topic of the 98 Jets, a really weird stat about them in the regular season....Record of teams the Jets beat that year(not counting games vs the Jets): 101-78Record of teams the Jets lost to that year(not counting games vs the Jets): 21-38Also 4 teams in the AFC East made the playoffs that year....pretty crazy(and the Jets went 6-0 against them in the regular season too!)

It's really not that weird. Glenn Foles was the QB for three of the four losses, and zero of the twelve wins.

sho nuff · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
montanagold said:

No... I don't think everyone thinks 85 bears are best of all time. Plenty of franchises would have beaten them. 90's Cowboys and 49ers for sure... probably the poor Bills who always get left out. Just some examples....

Click to expand...

I actually think the 90s Cowboys are very overrated. They had great star power and were well liked, and any time you combine those two people are naturally going to overrate them. From the thread I did earlier, here was my comparison of the Redskins to what I felt was the best of those Cowboys teams(the 1992 squad):The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 points

The 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Now I do give major props to the Cowboys for sustaining that success for multiple years. However, in any one year they were really never that great. The stats clearly back me up on this.

You cannot simply compare the stats in that way.Because none of us have any clue what the 85 Bears could have done in 1991, nor what the 91 Redskins could have done in 85.

This comparison of FGs, punting yardage...blah blah blah...all against different competition is just ridiculous.

bicycle_seat_sniffer · Dec 5, 2007

avoiding injuries said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Click to expand...

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

Click to expand...

I wasnt aruging that they were great.

Click to expand...

It seemed like you were since you mentioned them along with the Montana 49ers. I'm not saying you were one way or the other...

I just looked, they won the division over the niners and were 11-5, pretty great season, not a great team. sorry for any confusion'

nibbomydaets · Dec 5, 2007

sho nuff said:
Assani Fisher said:

montanagold said:

No... I don't think everyone thinks 85 bears are best of all time. Plenty of franchises would have beaten them. 90's Cowboys and 49ers for sure... probably the poor Bills who always get left out. Just some examples....

Click to expand...

I actually think the 90s Cowboys are very overrated. They had great star power and were well liked, and any time you combine those two people are naturally going to overrate them. From the thread I did earlier, here was my comparison of the Redskins to what I felt was the best of those Cowboys teams(the 1992 squad):The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 points

The 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Now I do give major props to the Cowboys for sustaining that success for multiple years. However, in any one year they were really never that great. The stats clearly back me up on this.

Click to expand...

You cannot simply compare the stats in that way.Because none of us have any clue what the 85 Bears could have done in 1991, nor what the 91 Redskins could have done in 85.

This comparison of FGs, punting yardage...blah blah blah...all against different competition is just ridiculous.

for some reason he can't wrap his mind around that.

I am going to attempt to shoot down all those points when I find the time to painstakingly destroy Icy Pot's argument. FFor starters, he claimed the Cowboys 1992 team was statistically better then the others, and so far my early findings don't support that.

The 1995 team had more yards on offense then the 1991 redskins team.

The 1995 Cowboys gained 5942 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Cowboys

who cares that it was against completely different players, coaches, schemes, with no account on injuries. :lmao:

More to come in a neatly wrapped package.

redman · Dec 5, 2007

nibbomydaets said:
The Redskins were a high powered passing attack and big strong defensive team. The Cowboys were a ball control run first team with a small but fast defense.

You're dead wrong here. Yeah, they passed well, but they were definitely a run-first team that used play-action to pass, and Rypien was just on fire that year.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

Chase Stuart said:
Assani Fisher said:

-They barely got by the Jets in the AFC title game. IIRC they were behind 10-0 in the second half of that game and were sparked by a "fluke" blocked punt to get them back into the game and eventually win it.

Click to expand...

The Jets are better than any opponent the '85 Bears or the '91 Redskins ever faced. That team was 12-1 with Testaverde, who threw 29 TD and 7 INT. They had Bill, Bill and Charlie on staff. Their one loss was to the Colts in Indy by a point, which included Marshall Faulk making a great play on 4th and 15 on the game winning drive. Then in the playoffs they beat a Jaguars team that would lose to only one opponent the next season.A 13-1 team with a star QB, star QB, terrific defense (2nd in points allowed by one point) is as worthy an opponent as you'll find.

First off let me take this opportunity to note that you're referring to Vinny Testaverde as a "star QB." :lmao:

I'm only joking Chase, I realize that he was very very good that year. Secondly, you're going to have to explain to me the whole "only one loss with Vinny" thing. Pro football reference lists him as having played 15/16 games. And even if he was out in the first game- they lost 36-30! You can't really blame that loss on bad offense or bad QB play, can you?Thirdly, even if what you say is true they lost TWO games as they lost to the Broncos too(especially since you count the playoff win in your record)Fourth, say what you want about the Colts loss, but losing to a team that had 2 other wins all year is pretty damn bad.Saying that the 1998 Jets were better than the 1991 Bills is very questionable man. To be honest, I don't feel like doing a thorough breakdown though.Also Chase, I believe you're biased when you discuss the Jets. Its not that bad, and you're still very capable of putting for a solid argument, but you do certain things here and there that are clearly designed to point the stats towards your side of the argument instead of simply presenting the facts as they are and discovering the truth. For example when evaluating the Jaguars in the playoff you merely refer to them as a team that would lose to only one opponent next season(and that analysis even by itself shows your bias as it obviously would give certain people the impression that they only lost one game when really they lost 2 in the regular season to the same team!). Why not just evaluate Jacksonville for that season as they were fairly and unbiasedly? Thats my only issue with you Chase, and it frustrates me a bit because I think you're very capable of putting for solid arguments otherwise.And finally.....where did this come from? I never said anything bad about the Jets, did I? Do you not think the 1991 Skins were a better team than them?

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

dgreen said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

Click to expand...

Since he's comparing the 91 Skins to the 85 Bears, please do the same analysis for the Bears. TIA.

Click to expand...

without looking I bet they played either the Montana niners or the maybe that Rams team with Flipper whom I think had a great season.

Click to expand...

Flipper Anderson?? He joined the Rams in 1988, 3 years after this. The 1985 Rams offense was 15th in points scored and 27th in yardage. And yes they are the team that the Bears beat in the NFC Title game. If you want to argue that they're a great team then be my guest man. Go take a look at the actual standings and stats and please try to argue that any other team was 'great' that year.

Click to expand...

I wasnt aruging that they were great.

my fault....responding as quickly as I can here to a bunch of posts, just got confused.

redman · Dec 5, 2007

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
Assani Fisher said:

bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

The redskins had to beat the mighty Lions to go to the Superbowl that year.This alone should end any argument you haveNot to mention that the Lions beat that Cowboys team that gave the skins their only loss. But Aikman missed the playoffs. I think Steve Beurlien played

Click to expand...

The Skins played the Lions twice that year(once in the regular season and once in the playoffs). The Lions were 12-4 on the year. The Skins beat them 45-0 and 41-10 in their two meetings. So if you're saying that the Lions weren't a great team, then I'm not going to argue. But the Skins absolutely dominated them. Its not the Skins fault that the Lions happened to make the NFC Championship game, is it? And if they had just barely squeaked by them then I'd understand your point more, but thats not what happened.

Click to expand...

I was just saying besides the Bills, what great team did the Redskins play in the playoffs?

They had a first round bye before destroying the Falcons and the Lions. Their playoff run was exactly as it should have been - dominating. Then they went up 17-0 in the Super Bowl by halftime, and coasted to an easy victory in the 2nd half.

nibbomydaets · Dec 5, 2007

redman said:
nibbomydaets said:

The Redskins were a high powered passing attack and big strong defensive team. The Cowboys were a ball control run first team with a small but fast defense.

Click to expand...

You're dead wrong here. Yeah, they passed well, but they were definitely a run-first team that used play-action to pass, and Rypien was just on fire that year.

I wouldn't say I am dead wrong. Two thousand yard rec's and 30 passing TD's. They were very balanced, and scored on a lot of long bombs.

redman · Dec 5, 2007

nibbomydaets said:
redman said:

nibbomydaets said:

The Redskins were a high powered passing attack and big strong defensive team. The Cowboys were a ball control run first team with a small but fast defense.

Click to expand...

You're dead wrong here. Yeah, they passed well, but they were definitely a run-first team that used play-action to pass, and Rypien was just on fire that year.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say I am dead wrong. Two thousand yard rec's and 30 passing TD's. They were very balanced, and scored on a lot of long bombs.

You're trying to contrast them with the run-first Cowboys, right?

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

sho nuff said:
Assani Fisher said:

montanagold said:

No... I don't think everyone thinks 85 bears are best of all time. Plenty of franchises would have beaten them. 90's Cowboys and 49ers for sure... probably the poor Bills who always get left out. Just some examples....

Click to expand...

I actually think the 90s Cowboys are very overrated. They had great star power and were well liked, and any time you combine those two people are naturally going to overrate them. From the thread I did earlier, here was my comparison of the Redskins to what I felt was the best of those Cowboys teams(the 1992 squad):The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 points

The 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Now I do give major props to the Cowboys for sustaining that success for multiple years. However, in any one year they were really never that great. The stats clearly back me up on this.

Click to expand...

You cannot simply compare the stats in that way.Because none of us have any clue what the 85 Bears could have done in 1991, nor what the 91 Redskins could have done in 85.

This comparison of FGs, punting yardage...blah blah blah...all against different competition is just ridiculous.

I already responded to this critique above. And trust me, I don't automatically resort to this sort of statistical comparison whenever evaluating two teams. I was merely pointing out that the 91 Skins and 92 Cowboys really aren't even close to equals. These stats show them. Yes stats don't tell the entire story. However when they're this lopsided, it becomes obvious. As you can tell by my OP, I did not resort to this sort of analysis when comparing two very evenly matched teams(nor have I done so when comparing the 91 Skins and 98 Broncos).

redman · Dec 5, 2007

sho nuff said:
You cannot simply compare the stats in that way.Because none of us have any clue what the 85 Bears could have done in 1991, nor what the 91 Redskins could have done in 85.This comparison of FGs, punting yardage...blah blah blah...all against different competition is just ridiculous.

Why not? I don't see a valid reason as to why they can't be compared among the teams being discussed. The teams all played within a decade of each other (with the '91 'Skins in the middle, I might add) and there were no significant rules changes or innovations in the game that greatly affected on-field performance or play. What's the problem here?

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

nibbomydaets said:
sho nuff said:

Assani Fisher said:

montanagold said:

No... I don't think everyone thinks 85 bears are best of all time. Plenty of franchises would have beaten them. 90's Cowboys and 49ers for sure... probably the poor Bills who always get left out. Just some examples....

Click to expand...

I actually think the 90s Cowboys are very overrated. They had great star power and were well liked, and any time you combine those two people are naturally going to overrate them. From the thread I did earlier, here was my comparison of the Redskins to what I felt was the best of those Cowboys teams(the 1992 squad):The 1992 Cowboys scored 409 points

The 1991 Redskins scored 485 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys let up 243 points

The 1991 Redskins let up 224 points

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys were 13-3 with all 3 losses coming in games they fully tried to win

The 1991 Redskins were 14-2 including a meaningless week 17 loss

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys worst game was a 31-7 loss in which they were thoroughly dominated

The 1991 Redskins biggest loss was a 3pt loss in which their opponent caught a hail mary and recovered an onside kick

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gained 5718 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 4278 total yards on defense

The 1991 Redskins allowed 4638 total yards on defense

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys intercepted 17 passes

The 1991 Redskins intercepted 27 passes

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys threw 15 interceptions

The 1991 Redskins threw 11 interceptions

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys forced and recovered 21 fumbles

The 1991 Redskins forced and recovered 24 fumbles

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys fumbled and lost the ball 19 times

The 1991 Redskins fumbled and lost the ball 16 times

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 6 pro bowlers

The 1991 Redskins had 7 pro bowlers

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys had 44 sacks

The 1991 Redskins had 50 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys gave up 23 sacks

The 1991 Redskins gave up 9 sacks

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 18.891 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 18.897 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 20.3 yards per kickoff return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 17.5 yards per kickoff return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 12.5 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins averaged 13.3 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys allowed 11.7 yards per punt return

The 1991 Redskins allowed 6.1 yards per punt return

Advantage: Redskins

The 1992 Cowboys averaged 43.0 yards per punt

The 1991 Redskins averaged 39.8 yards per punt

Advantage: Cowboys

The 1992 Cowboys made 24/35 field goals(68%)

The 1991 Redskins made 31/43 field goals(72%)

Advantage: Redskins

ESPN.com writer, Eddie Epstein came up with a forumla called "adjusted power index" which basically ranks all teams taking all factors into consideration. He explains his formula here.

The 1992 Cowboys did not make the list of top 10 all time

The 1991 Redskins had the 5th highest ranking of all time

Advantage: Redskins

Now I do give major props to the Cowboys for sustaining that success for multiple years. However, in any one year they were really never that great. The stats clearly back me up on this.

Click to expand...

You cannot simply compare the stats in that way.Because none of us have any clue what the 85 Bears could have done in 1991, nor what the 91 Redskins could have done in 85.

This comparison of FGs, punting yardage...blah blah blah...all against different competition is just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

for some reason he can't wrap his mind around that.

I am going to attempt to shoot down all those points when I find the time to painstakingly destroy Icy Pot's argument. FFor starters, he claimed the Cowboys 1992 team was statistically better then the others, and so far my early findings don't support that.

The 1995 team had more yards on offense then the 1991 redskins team.

The 1995 Cowboys gained 5942 total yards on offense

The 1991 Redskins gained 5820 total yards on offense

Advantage: Cowboys

who cares that it was against completely different players, coaches, schemes, with no account on injuries. :X

More to come in a neatly wrapped package.

Come on man....I put forth a well thought out response to your post and clearly addressed your critques of my methods....and all you can do is put good posting next to someone who agrees with you and say that I "can't wrap my mind around that"???? Dude, thats insulting to my intelligence and to the time and effort I put into giving you a solid and well thought out response. Also I was very clear that I want you to put forth your best argument and I'm willing to listen and give it a chance...how does that mean I "can't wrap my mind around that"? If you want to debate, I'm all for it. But look at what I wrote to you and respond intelligently. Don't turn this into a petty cat fight. I would rather you look at the entire post, but if you can't then please just focus on this part:

The 1992 Cowboys had 3 losses, one of which was a 31-7 loss to the Eagles. They also lost a home game to the 6-10 L.A. Rams. They didn't lose these games because they were "built differently" than the Redskins. They lost those games because they weren't as good as the Redskins. Oh but I know...different years, right? Clearly the Redskins didn't have to contend with those pesky 1992 Rams which is why they don't have such a bad loss on their schedule

If you want to use any of the other Cowboys teams then fine....

The 1993 team lost 4 games including a 19 point loss to the 4-12 Redskins and a 13 point loss to the 6-10 Falcons.

The 1995 team lost 4 games including getting swept by the 6-10(4 win team otherwise) Washington Redskins.

I would be absolutely shocked if you had a valid response to this. No matter how much you try to hide behind the "different year" excuse, you're still faced with the facts that the Cowboys lost more games, lost games by wide margins, and lost games to bad teams. The goal of football is still to win, right?

Chase Stuart · Dec 5, 2007

Assani Fisher said:
Chase Stuart said:

Assani Fisher said:

-They barely got by the Jets in the AFC title game. IIRC they were behind 10-0 in the second half of that game and were sparked by a "fluke" blocked punt to get them back into the game and eventually win it.

Click to expand...

The Jets are better than any opponent the '85 Bears or the '91 Redskins ever faced. That team was 12-1 with Testaverde, who threw 29 TD and 7 INT. They had Bill, Bill and Charlie on staff. Their one loss was to the Colts in Indy by a point, which included Marshall Faulk making a great play on 4th and 15 on the game winning drive. Then in the playoffs they beat a Jaguars team that would lose to only one opponent the next season.A 13-1 team with a star QB, star QB, terrific defense (2nd in points allowed by one point) is as worthy an opponent as you'll find.

Click to expand...

First off let me take this opportunity to note that you're referring to Vinny Testaverde as a "star QB." I'm only joking Chase, I realize that he was very very good that year. Secondly, you're going to have to explain to me the whole "only one loss with Vinny" thing. Pro football reference lists him as having played 15/16 games. And even if he was out in the first game- they lost 36-30! You can't really blame that loss on bad offense or bad QB play, can you?Thirdly, even if what you say is true they lost TWO games as they lost to the Broncos too(especially since you count the playoff win in your record)Fourth, say what you want about the Colts loss, but losing to a team that had 2 other wins all year is pretty damn bad.Saying that the 1998 Jets were better than the 1991 Bills is very questionable man. To be honest, I don't feel like doing a thorough breakdown though.Also Chase, I believe you're biased when you discuss the Jets. Its not that bad, and you're still very capable of putting for a solid argument, but you do certain things here and there that are clearly designed to point the stats towards your side of the argument instead of simply presenting the facts as they are and discovering the truth. For example when evaluating the Jaguars in the playoff you merely refer to them as a team that would lose to only one opponent next season(and that analysis even by itself shows your bias as it obviously would give certain people the impression that they only lost one game when really they lost 2 in the regular season to the same team!). Why not just evaluate Jacksonville for that season as they were fairly and unbiasedly? Thats my only issue with you Chase, and it frustrates me a bit because I think you're very capable of putting for solid arguments otherwise.And finally.....where did this come from? I never said anything bad about the Jets, did I? Do you not think the 1991 Skins were a better team than them?

It was part shtick, part fact.Foley was the QB for games 1 and 2 of the season, before getting injured. The first game was an OT loss to the 49ers, the Garrison Hearst game. Testaverde started until Foley was healthy, in week 6, for the Rams game. Foley was terrible in the game (which coincidentally coincided with a big Yankees-Indians ALCS game, and is one of the few Jets games I barely remember), and was benched for the remainder of the season.The 1998 Colts obviously weren't good, but they had Manning and Faulk. By the end of the year, they were pretty good, and obviously Manning and Faulk are capable of their great days.Finally, I wrote 13-1 instead of 13-2, because it doesn't make sense to penalize the Broncos for beating the Jets when discussing how good the Broncos are. The Jets were 13-1 that season before the AFCCG, and were prohibitive favorites to win the SB the next season once Elway retired. It was an excellent team with Testaverde playing incredible football, Curtis Martin, Keyshawn/Chrebet, and a great defense. The coaching staff is one of the best of all time, regardless of Weis' terrible performance at Notre Dame this year. Just a great team, and the Broncos definitely deserve credit for winning that game, even if the Jets kept fumbling it away.

Assani Fisher · Dec 5, 2007

Overall I agree with you Chase that the Jets were a solid team. I didn't ever mean to imply otherwise, although I do think they were the 3rd best team that year. Really really sucks that they all had such injury issues the next year.

The 1991 Redskins were as good or better than the 1985 Bears (1 Viewer)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Smells like chicken

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Smells like chicken

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Smells like chicken

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Smells like chicken

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Smells like chicken

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread