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

[nibbomydaets]

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.

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.

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?

I am sorry I responded that way, I was not trying to insult your intelligence. I was only implying that you have to consider other factors. Injuries, player movement, and coaching changes.I will respond, but I will have to wait till I have the time needed to put forth a counter to your well thought out argument.

I will however not be using the worst of the 3 championship teams. IMHO the 1992 team was nowhere near as good as the other two. In fact, I think the best team was the 1994 team that got robbed by the 49ers.

You do seem to put a lot of credence on how many losses the players had.

I have always given you a lot of flak over the years, but I am only busting your balls most of the time. I think you make one hell of an argument, but I will respond when I get the time.

 

[nibbomydaets]

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?

Right, how different can teams be from one year to the next? Compared to last year, let's look at this years Chargers, oof. Ok no, this years Saints, oof. OK, seriously, let's look at the difference between last years Packers team and this years Packers team....wait a minute.....Things change DRASTICALLY from year to year.

 

[plymkr]

You were 9 yrs old in 1991. Things always seem better when you were younger.

There is a reason they are not usually in the conversation of the greatest teams. They were solid, not great. Mark Rypien...please.

The Bears weren't the greatest of all time either.

Who is? I don't know. I would have to go with the 1972 dolphins. Or a Steeler team in the 70's.

Point: Definitely not the Redskins. Let it go.

 

[Ghost Rider]

There is a reason they are not usually in the conversation of the greatest teams.

Actually, they often are.

They were solid, not great.

Incorrect.

Mark Rypien...please.

Yeah, because a guy who throws 28 TDs and only 11 INTs is just terrible, isn't he?

 

[redman]

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?

Right, how different can teams be from one year to the next? Compared to last year, let's look at this years Chargers, oof. Ok no, this years Saints, oof. OK, seriously, let's look at the difference between last years Packers team and this years Packers team....wait a minute.....Things change DRASTICALLY from year to year.

If every year is so different with little to do with prior years, then the whole "Cowboys were a dynasty" argument seems pretty specious now, doesn't it?

 

[redman]

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.

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?

bump

 

[Statcruncher]

My honest belief is that the 91 Skins were better.

I'll bet you still hear hoofbeats on the roof in December and wait for a glimpse of the bunny in April. NTTAWWT.:Bearshomer:

 

[daveandken]

If every year is so different with little to do with prior years, then the whole "Cowboys were a dynasty" argument seems pretty specious now, doesn't it?

If the Cowboys weren't a dynasty, then what team has been?And the difference between years is what makes dynasties great. Its very hard to win several championships in a short period of time since they dynamics of the team and the league change so much. Kudos to the Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, and Patriots for overcoming that.

 

[Assani Fisher]

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.

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.

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?

I am sorry I responded that way, I was not trying to insult your intelligence. I was only implying that you have to consider other factors. Injuries, player movement, and coaching changes.I will respond, but I will have to wait till I have the time needed to put forth a counter to your well thought out argument.

I will however not be using the worst of the 3 championship teams. IMHO the 1992 team was nowhere near as good as the other two. In fact, I think the best team was the 1994 team that got robbed by the 49ers.

You do seem to put a lot of credence on how many losses the players had.

I have always given you a lot of flak over the years, but I am only busting your balls most of the time. I think you make one hell of an argument, but I will respond when I get the time.

 

[nibbomydaets]

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.

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?

bump

Im sure you're going to type something about the cowboys passing attack. I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but if you are trying to convince anybody that the Cowboys weren't built around Emmitt Smith then you may as well stop now.

 

[nibbomydaets]

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?

Right, how different can teams be from one year to the next? Compared to last year, let's look at this years Chargers, oof. Ok no, this years Saints, oof. OK, seriously, let's look at the difference between last years Packers team and this years Packers team....wait a minute.....Things change DRASTICALLY from year to year.

If every year is so different with little to do with prior years, then the whole "Cowboys were a dynasty" argument seems pretty specious now, doesn't it?

Not at all. They were dominate, even though they and the teams around them changed. So you disagree with my example of the Chargers, Saints, and Packers?

 

[redman]

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.

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?

bump

Im sure you're going to type something about the cowboys passing attack. I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but if you are trying to convince anybody that the Cowboys weren't built around Emmitt Smith then you may as well stop now.

Not where I'm going with this.The 1991 Redskins were 26th in pass attempts and 1st in rushing attempts. They passed only 45% of the time. They were very much of a run-to-set-up-pass team.

|---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----|  TOTAL 			  CMP  ATT   YD	YPA   TD INT  ATT   YD	YPA  TD	 YD   			  261  447  3771   8.44  30  11  540  2049  3.79  21   5820NFL rank --->  20   26	5	  1	3   3	1	7	18	1	  4

The fact that they made big plays in the passing game (8.44 ypa) doesn't change that, though it is an interesting contrast with the Cowboys' more modest abilities . . . a sign of an inferior team, no?

 

[redman]

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?

Right, how different can teams be from one year to the next? Compared to last year, let's look at this years Chargers, oof. Ok no, this years Saints, oof. OK, seriously, let's look at the difference between last years Packers team and this years Packers team....wait a minute.....

Things change DRASTICALLY from year to year.

If every year is so different with little to do with prior years, then the whole "Cowboys were a dynasty" argument seems pretty specious now, doesn't it?

Not at all. They were dominate, even though they and the teams around them changed.

So you disagree with my example of the Chargers, Saints, and Packers?

My point is that you want to have it both ways.When discussing the 1990's Cowboys, you want to claim that there was a common enough thread running through their successes that we can deem them related to each other such that they can be labeled a "dynasty".

When discussing comparisons to other teams, though, you want to say that the league changes so much that you can't compare different years.

I happen to agree that the 1990's Cowboys were a dynasty, but that's for the same reason that I believe you can discuss and compare teams from other years.

 

[Assani Fisher]

You were 9 yrs old in 1991. Things always seem better when you were younger.

This is most definitely not the case here. If anything I'm relying too much on stats and not enough on my personal observations.

There is a reason they are not usually in the conversation of the greatest teams.

By people that know football, they usually are. For some reason the casual fan doesn't include them though.

They were solid, not great.

They outscored their opponents by 261 points and were far and away the best team in the league. They put up stats that rival any team in the history of the NFL. Seriously, you're embarassing yourself here.

Mark Rypien...please.

Jim McMahon was a great player? Thats one position out of 22. Even still take a look at Rypien's stats that year:249/421(59.1%), 3564 yards, 28 TDs(plus one rushing), 11 INTs, 97.93 QB ratingThats pretty damn good.

The Bears weren't the greatest of all time either.

I just love this "write my opinion but provide absolutely no reasoning whatsoever" method that you use here. Seriously what is even the point of it? Honestly. Do you really think I'm simply going to read your opinion and change my mind? Its just a waste of both of our time.

Who is? I don't know. I would have to go with the 1972 dolphins.

I didn't see them, but based upon everything I've heard and read they wouldn't be in my top 5.

Or a Steeler team in the 70's.

Perhaps.

Point: Definitely not the Redskins. Let it go.

Put forth an actual argument please.

 

[sho nuff]

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?

Because what does punting average mean if its not in a situational comparison.Same with FGs. Were they all the same length...same win...same blocking units...and so on.Its a dumb comparison to claim one is better based on totally different competition and circumstances using those stats.I ask again...did both teams play the exact same competition in the exact same conditions? No...so using FG stats and punting stats and claiming some advantage is just stupid.And the later whine in this thread about insulting someone's intelligence? Please...this comparison insults all of our intelligence. Its ridiculous.

 

[nibbomydaets]

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.

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?

bump

Im sure you're going to type something about the cowboys passing attack. I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but if you are trying to convince anybody that the Cowboys weren't built around Emmitt Smith then you may as well stop now.

Not where I'm going with this.The 1991 Redskins were 26th in pass attempts and 1st in rushing attempts. They passed only 45% of the time. They were very much of a run-to-set-up-pass team.

|---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 261 447 3771 8.44 30 11 540 2049 3.79 21 5820NFL rank ---> 20 26 5 1 3 3 1 7 18 1 4The fact that they made big plays in the passing game (8.44 ypa) doesn't change that, though it is an interesting contrast with the Cowboys' more modest abilities . . . a sign of an inferior team, no?

I think VERY highly of the 91 redskins team. Top 5 IMHO. I also don't think very highly of the 1992 Cowboys team compared to the others that followed.

 

[AB in DC]

You were 9 yrs old in 1991. Things always seem better when you were younger.There is a reason they are not usually in the conversation of the greatest teams. They were solid, not great. Mark Rypien...please.The Bears weren't the greatest of all time either.

And yet the Bears are "in the conversation". Jim McMahon...please.

 

[redman]

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.

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?

bump

Im sure you're going to type something about the cowboys passing attack. I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but if you are trying to convince anybody that the Cowboys weren't built around Emmitt Smith then you may as well stop now.

Not where I'm going with this.The 1991 Redskins were 26th in pass attempts and 1st in rushing attempts. They passed only 45% of the time. They were very much of a run-to-set-up-pass team.

|---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 261 447 3771 8.44 30 11 540 2049 3.79 21 5820NFL rank ---> 20 26 5 1 3 3 1 7 18 1 4The fact that they made big plays in the passing game (8.44 ypa) doesn't change that, though it is an interesting contrast with the Cowboys' more modest abilities . . . a sign of an inferior team, no?

I think VERY highly of the 91 redskins team. Top 5 IMHO. I also don't think very highly of the 1992 Cowboys team compared to the others that followed.

I wasn't restricting my comments to the 1992 Cowboys.

 

[nibbomydaets]

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.

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?

bump

Im sure you're going to type something about the cowboys passing attack. I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but if you are trying to convince anybody that the Cowboys weren't built around Emmitt Smith then you may as well stop now.

Not where I'm going with this.The 1991 Redskins were 26th in pass attempts and 1st in rushing attempts. They passed only 45% of the time. They were very much of a run-to-set-up-pass team.

|---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 261 447 3771 8.44 30 11 540 2049 3.79 21 5820NFL rank ---> 20 26 5 1 3 3 1 7 18 1 4The fact that they made big plays in the passing game (8.44 ypa) doesn't change that, though it is an interesting contrast with the Cowboys' more modest abilities . . . a sign of an inferior team, no?

I think VERY highly of the 91 redskins team. Top 5 IMHO. I also don't think very highly of the 1992 Cowboys team compared to the others that followed.

I wasn't restricting my comments to the 1992 Cowboys.

Fair enough. Two different team entirely IMHO. The Cowboys would line up, say they were going to run Emmitt at you and dare you to stop them. They were smash mouth and not predicated on putting up huge offensive numbers. Everything went right for the Skins that year. I don't think if they replayed that season 10 times they would reproduce what they did that year.

If the argument is going to be this silly then I will say that the 1991 Dallas team that was just starting to develop into the dynasty, and had most of it's core, beat the best Skins team they ever had. Is that really fair? No.

 

[Assani Fisher]

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?

Because what does punting average mean if its not in a situational comparison.Same with FGs. Were they all the same length...same win...same blocking units...and so on.Its a dumb comparison to claim one is better based on totally different competition and circumstances using those stats.I ask again...did both teams play the exact same competition in the exact same conditions? No...so using FG stats and punting stats and claiming some advantage is just stupid.And the later whine in this thread about insulting someone's intelligence? Please...this comparison insults all of our intelligence. Its ridiculous.

Did you ignore my reply to you?Yes you're right that one or two statistics doesn't mean a lot. However when the stats are so ridiculously one sided, they mean something. Moreover wins and losses is clearly the most important "stat."

 

[nibbomydaets]

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?

Because what does punting average mean if its not in a situational comparison.Same with FGs. Were they all the same length...same win...same blocking units...and so on.Its a dumb comparison to claim one is better based on totally different competition and circumstances using those stats.I ask again...did both teams play the exact same competition in the exact same conditions? No...so using FG stats and punting stats and claiming some advantage is just stupid.And the later whine in this thread about insulting someone's intelligence? Please...this comparison insults all of our intelligence. Its ridiculous.

Did you ignore my reply to you?Yes you're right that one or two statistics doesn't mean a lot. However when the stats are so ridiculously one sided, they mean something. Moreover wins and losses is clearly the most important "stat."

So in your opinion, the 72 Dolphins are the best team ever?

 

[dgreen]

Everything went right for the Skins that year.

What do you mean?

 

[redman]

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.

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?

bump

Im sure you're going to type something about the cowboys passing attack. I haven't looked at the statistics yet, but if you are trying to convince anybody that the Cowboys weren't built around Emmitt Smith then you may as well stop now.

Not where I'm going with this.The 1991 Redskins were 26th in pass attempts and 1st in rushing attempts. They passed only 45% of the time. They were very much of a run-to-set-up-pass team.

|---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD 261 447 3771 8.44 30 11 540 2049 3.79 21 5820NFL rank ---> 20 26 5 1 3 3 1 7 18 1 4The fact that they made big plays in the passing game (8.44 ypa) doesn't change that, though it is an interesting contrast with the Cowboys' more modest abilities . . . a sign of an inferior team, no?

I think VERY highly of the 91 redskins team. Top 5 IMHO. I also don't think very highly of the 1992 Cowboys team compared to the others that followed.

I wasn't restricting my comments to the 1992 Cowboys.

Fair enough. Two different team entirely IMHO. The Cowboys would line up, say they were going to run Emmitt at you and dare you to stop them. They were smash mouth and not predicated on putting up huge offensive numbers. Everything went right for the Skins that year. I don't think if they replayed that season 10 times they would reproduce what they did that year.

If the argument is going to be this silly then I will say that the 1991 Dallas team that was just starting to develop into the dynasty, and had most of it's core, beat the best Skins team they ever had. Is that really fair? No.

I disagree. I do think it's correct to say that 1991 was a culmination of a decade of great football for that o-line, which declined rapidly after that year, and of 3-5 years of rebuilding at the offensive skill positions and on defense. Everything did come together, but not in the sense that they were lucky. They would have repeated that performance if we can hypothetically redo 1991, but there was no way that you can say that about 1990 or 1992. They weren't a dynasty; the Cowboys were.

 

[pats3in4]

Assani, I agree.

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

http://www.whatifsports.com/locker/

site allows u to pick any team from history and sim then against another.

 

[montanagold]

1st game.... 92 Cowboys at 91 Redskins... no inclimate weather. Cowboys win 28 - 16.

 

[montanagold]

2nd game... Cowboys win 42-28.... hmmmmmm...

 

[montanagold]

Now.. in your defense, they just beat the Bears simmed 3 out of 3 times.. ( of course I did give the Reds homefield advantage again ).

*EDIT TO ADD* Whoops my bad, I accidentally simmed them against 95 bears!!! lol

 

[dornado]

I'm sorry... but if the '91 Redskins played the '85 Bears, Mark Rypien would spend a Sunday afternoon on his back... and that makes it hard to win.

As for criticizing who the Bears had to play in the the playoffs... They beat the Giants and Rams by a combined score of 45-0. The Bears had no control over who lined up against them... but they SHUT THEM BOTH OUT. And everyone remembers the 46-10 superbowl win.

Also, I'd say going to San Fransisco and beating the Joe Montana 49ers, holding them to their lowest point total of the season counts for something.

We can talk stats all we want... but line 'em up and play them and I say the '85 Bears send the '91 Redskins reeling. Just like they did to the '85 Redskins. (45-10)

You win by running the ball and playing defense. I'll take Walter Payton and the '85 Bears D, thank you.

 

[anguskahn]

Heres an easy answer why the Redskins get left off of teh greatest team ever list...

Mark Rypien. If the most important positon on the team is fille dby Mark Rypien then you cant possibly be in the conversation of greatest team ever. yes he was good that year, but theres a big difference between good and great. Now Im not a huge McMahon fan, but at least he was handing off to the greatest RB of all time rather than a mediocre RB that average 3.8ypc.

 

[dgreen]

I'm sorry... but if the '91 Redskins played the '85 Bears, Mark Rypien would spend a Sunday afternoon on his back... and that makes it hard to win.

The '91 Redskins were sacked 9 times on the season and I believe 3 of those came in the last game when they rested their starters in the 2nd half.

 

[redman]

I'm sorry... but if the '91 Redskins played the '85 Bears, Mark Rypien would spend a Sunday afternoon on his back... and that makes it hard to win.

The '91 Redskins were sacked 9 times on the season and I believe 3 of those came in the last game when they rested their starters in the 2nd half.

Jim Lachey also owned Richard Dent every time they played. And by owned I don't just mean didn't-get-a-sack, I mean no-statline-owned.

 

[dgreen]

Heres an easy answer why the Redskins get left off of teh greatest team ever list...Mark Rypien. If the most important positon on the team is fille dby Mark Rypien then you cant possibly be in the conversation of greatest team ever. yes he was good that year, but theres a big difference between good and great. Now Im not a huge McMahon fan, but at least he was handing off to the greatest RB of all time rather than a mediocre RB that average 3.8ypc.

This is the problem with most people's analysis of the 1991 Redskins. They focus on who was on the team rather than how they actually performed.

 

[redman]

Heres an easy answer why the Redskins get left off of teh greatest team ever list...Mark Rypien. If the most important positon on the team is fille dby Mark Rypien then you cant possibly be in the conversation of greatest team ever. yes he was good that year, but theres a big difference between good and great. Now Im not a huge McMahon fan, but at least he was handing off to the greatest RB of all time rather than a mediocre RB that average 3.8ypc.

This is the problem with most people's analysis of the 1991 Redskins. They focus on who was on the team rather than how they actually performed.

That plus the fact that Gibbs demonstrated during his first tenure that their success was not predicated on having a great QB. Rypien's season in 1991 (which is really what we're talking about here) was great by any standard though.

 

[dgreen]

I'm sorry... but if the '91 Redskins played the '85 Bears, Mark Rypien would spend a Sunday afternoon on his back... and that makes it hard to win.

The '91 Redskins were sacked 9 times on the season and I believe 3 of those came in the last game when they rested their starters in the 2nd half.

Jim Lachey also owned Richard Dent every time they played. And by owned I don't just mean didn't-get-a-sack, I mean no-statline-owned.

Also, they faced the Eagles twice that year (one being that last game where they gave up 3 sacks) who had a great pass rush led by Reggie White.

 

[Keys Myaths]

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..

This post is the reason I don't come around here anymore.Sad.

 

[dornado]

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..

This post is the reason I don't come around here anymore.Sad.

And yet clearly you still do come around here.Sad.

 

[Sabertooth]

1996 Packers were better than either team.

 

[Keys Myaths]

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..

This post is the reason I don't come around here anymore.Sad.

And yet clearly you still do come around here.Sad.

I came to post an article I saw.I saw Assani's name, and know that my gb jwvdcw always posts good info. So, I stopped to read.So, hope that clarifies things for you. If not, good luck to you, and I hope you win your 20 team dynasty league.

 

[dornado]

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..

This post is the reason I don't come around here anymore.Sad.

And yet clearly you still do come around here.Sad.

I came to post an article I saw.I saw Assani's name, and know that my gb jwvdcw always posts good info. So, I stopped to read.So, hope that clarifies things for you. If not, good luck to you, and I hope you win your 20 team dynasty league.

Um, it was a joke. (someone says they're never someplace... yet they have to be there to post, har har)And as per the rest, I have no idea what you're talking about.Good luck to you too.

 

[Tanner9919]

Rypien's Redskins were as good as any team to ever win a SB..they were and still are, HIGHLY underrated.

this coming from a Giants fan. that team was AWESOME!

 

[Statcruncher]

In 1985 Chicago beat Washington 45 - 10.

In 1991 Washington beat Chicago 20 - 7.

The Bears lead the overall total 52 - 30 so they are clearly superior using this all encompassing factual metric of measuring a team's greatness. Vegas would set the line as the Skins being a 22 point underdog.

 

[dgreen]

In 1985 Chicago beat Washington 45 - 10.In 1991 Washington beat Chicago 20 - 7.The Bears lead the overall total 52 - 30 so they are clearly superior using this all encompassing factual metric of measuring a team's greatness. Vegas would set the line as the Skins being a 22 point underdog.

Don't forget in 1940 the Bears beat the Redskins in the championship 70-0.

 

[nflguru]

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..

This post is the reason I don't come around here anymore.Sad.

And yet clearly you still do come around here.Sad.

I came to post an article I saw.I saw Assani's name, and know that my gb jwvdcw always posts good info. So, I stopped to read.So, hope that clarifies things for you. If not, good luck to you, and I hope you win your 20 team dynasty league.

Um, it was a joke. (someone says they're never someplace... yet they have to be there to post, har har)And as per the rest, I have no idea what you're talking about.Good luck to you too.

Please.. I was just kidding with him - per the SNL Ditka skits (and posted it as a response right after).. Lighten up

 

[Statcruncher]

In 1985 Chicago beat Washington 45 - 10.In 1991 Washington beat Chicago 20 - 7.The Bears lead the overall total 52 - 30 so they are clearly superior using this all encompassing factual metric of measuring a team's greatness. Vegas would set the line as the Skins being a 22 point underdog.

Don't forget in 1940 the Bears beat the Redskins in the championship 70-0.

I forgot about that one, thanks. That makes the Skins a 92 point underdog in a rematch. Wow, the Bears are even better than I remember and Washington is pretty over-rated.

 

[redman]

Some more fun 1991 Redskins facts:

They won their first three home games by a combined 102-0; after four home games they'd outscored their opponents 144-17.

They're one of only two NFL championship teams to play 11 games against teams with 10+ wins: Dallas and Philly (each twice); Atlanta (twice, including playoffs); Detroit (twice, including playoffs); Houston; Chicago and Buffalo (in the Super Bowl).

Their average margin of victory of 17 points (including playoffs, in which their average increased) is second only to the 1985 Bears.

 

[Assani Fisher]

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?

Because what does punting average mean if its not in a situational comparison.Same with FGs. Were they all the same length...same win...same blocking units...and so on.Its a dumb comparison to claim one is better based on totally different competition and circumstances using those stats.I ask again...did both teams play the exact same competition in the exact same conditions? No...so using FG stats and punting stats and claiming some advantage is just stupid.And the later whine in this thread about insulting someone's intelligence? Please...this comparison insults all of our intelligence. Its ridiculous.

Did you ignore my reply to you?Yes you're right that one or two statistics doesn't mean a lot. However when the stats are so ridiculously one sided, they mean something. Moreover wins and losses is clearly the most important "stat."

So in your opinion, the 72 Dolphins are the best team ever?

No, as I said earlier not eve top 5.Just because I said wins/losses is the most important stat doesn't mean that I think it makes up more than 50% of the equation so that doesn't mean that wins/losses alone can tell us the entire story.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Assani, I agree.

Very interesting write-up here:

When people talk about the 1985 Bears, everyone talks about their defense for good reason. They had an awesome front 7 and two great run-supporting and blitzing safeties. They would shut down running games and blitz the bejeesus out of QBs. A big part of their game was intimidation. Offenses fell apart when facing the Bears, often defeated mentally before the opening kickoff. So to beat this Bears team, you had to have a QB that wouldn't wilt under the heat. I think each of these teams had such QBs, at least for the years in question (e.g. Mark Rypien in 1991 was solid, the rest of his career notwithstanding). The next thing you needed were top-notch skill players that would force the Bears out of their 46 defense. This meant going with 3-wideouts (something not seen much in 1985, BTW - and also what Miami did in beating them as the Bears LBs couldn't cover Miami's extra wideouts). Mike Ditka himself said on a pregame show either last week or the week before that the 2007 Pats would have forced the Bears out of their 46 with their spread formations. I'm sure these other teams would have as well. Going with these three wideouts and forcing the Bears out of their 46 would have exposed the position I had yet to mention on that D...their very average cornerbacks. Tom Brady would beg the 1985 Bears to blitz all day if it meant Randy Moss is seeing single coverage by Mike Richardson. As would Montana with 1989 Jerry Rice (remember in 1985, Rice was a rookie with very questionable hands) or Aikman with Michael Irvin. These teams also had the offensive creativity and precise execution to keep that Bears blitz off balance with screens, especially to WRs. I think these teams would have forced the Bears to back off with the heat and play a more conventional D (as they were more than capable of as they proved under Vince Tobin in 1986 and actually were statistically better than the 1985 D). If teams these teams were successful in keeping the 46 blitz at bay as I expect, they would have also exposed another flaw in that D...the safeties' pass coverage skills. Duerson and Fencik couldn't stay with any of the TEs on these squads, let alone the 3rd WR and likely would have just had to play deep.

Let me ask you since you seem to have some good insight: Do you think the Dolphins of that year actually did match up well against the Bears and would've stood a solid shot at beating them in the SB had they got there?

 

[Assani Fisher]

I'm sorry... but if the '91 Redskins played the '85 Bears, Mark Rypien would spend a Sunday afternoon on his back... and that makes it hard to win.

From your very first sentence it shows that you don't really know what you're talking about. The Redskins only gave up 9 sacks all year, which I believe was some sort of record(maybe not "NFL but maybe "NFC" or something like that). Theres a lot of things you can critisize about Mark Rypien, and to pick this one shows just a complete lack of knowledge imo.If you're going to say this about the Redskins, then you'd have to say it about any team that played the 85 Bears as the Skins were EXCELLENT at pass protection this year.

As for criticizing who the Bears had to play in the the playoffs... They beat the Giants and Rams by a combined score of 45-0. The Bears had no control over who lined up against them... but they SHUT THEM BOTH OUT. And everyone remembers the 46-10 superbowl win.

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying the Bears don't deserve full credit for winning the SB. I'm not saying that its their "fault" that there was a lack of other great teams that year. What I am saying is this:-There was a lack of other great teams that year

-Even taking that out of consideration, the Bears only played a .500 schedule

-None of this was the Bears fault. But when you consider it, you'd expect the Bears to dominate even more because of it. Therefore when you then consider that the Skins had a better point differential while playing a harder schedule and against more great teams it makes it even more impressive.

You can't control who is on the schedule, but you can control how dominate you are.

Also, I'd say going to San Fransisco and beating the Joe Montana 49ers, holding them to their lowest point total of the season counts for something.

That was a solid win for sure. But that 49ers team was not a great team at all that year. They were 10-6. If you want to argue that they were great THAT YEAR then be my guest.

We can talk stats all we want... but line 'em up and play them and I say the '85 Bears send the '91 Redskins reeling.

Ah yes, this is what it ultimately boils down to....Assani: The Redskins had more impressive stats than the 85 Bears/91 Cowboys/insert team here

Silly Cold Stove: Different Years man! None of that matters!

Assani: So are you saying that we can never compare two teams from different years using stats?

Silly Cold Stove: Yup! They play a different level of opponents so its just not fair.

Assani: Interesting that you brought that up because actually the Skins played a much tougher schedule than any of these teams too!

Silly Cold Stove: Nope...differnet years, different years, different years!!!!!!

Assani: I don't understand why we can't carefully look at both the stats, the opponents, the quality of play that year, and come to a conclusion

Silly Cold Stove: different years man!!!

Assani: Ummmm ok, so who do you think was better then?

Silly Cold Stove: The 85 Bears/92 Cowboys/insert team here!!!

Assani: Why do you feel this way?

Silly Cold Stove: Just because.

I'll put forth the same request to you as I did earlier regarding the Cowboys: Give me a solid argument for why you feel the 85 Bears were better. But "line em up and they'd have them reeling" or "OMG they'd sack Rypien so many times it'd be ridiculous" are not even close to solid well thought out arguments. Go look at the stats, familiarize yourself with both team's strengths and weaknesses, and try to put forth a solid argument.

Just like they did to the '85 Redskins. (45-10)

This makes you look so foolish. Seriously, what on earth does this have to do with anything other than you wanting to take a silly jab at Skins fans? It just makes you look like a homer. The 1991 Skins went into Chicago and beat the Bears 20-7....does that do absolutely anything at all to change your opinion? Of course not. So why would you expect this to do anything to change mine?

You win by running the ball and playing defense.

LOL...so you cherry pick the two strengths of the 85 Bears and say thats how you win? Is there no other way to win? So the Redskins didn't win by going deep often in 1991? The Pats aren't winning by passing a ton in 07? The 49ers West Coast offense didn't win with the short passing game?I don't even know how to respond to this "point" of yours because its so silly.

I'll take Walter Payton and the '85 Bears D, thank you.

Yes, I understand that. Unfortunately you've provided no real arguments other than stating your opinion, telling me that you win by doing what the Bears did best, and telling me that they'd sack Rypien a lot. Weak man, very very weak.And I notice that every pro-Bears post has ignored the loss to Miami(or tried to write it off as a fluke which is just as silly). I'm putting this in bold because I would like a response. The Bears were thoroughly beaten in that game. The 91 Skins or 07 Pats when they had bad games would still play close games that could go either way. Why were the Bears unable to do that?

 

[Assani Fisher]

Heres an easy answer why the Redskins get left off of teh greatest team ever list...Mark Rypien. If the most important positon on the team is fille dby Mark Rypien then you cant possibly be in the conversation of greatest team ever. yes he was good that year, but theres a big difference between good and great. Now Im not a huge McMahon fan, but at least he was handing off to the greatest RB of all time rather than a mediocre RB that average 3.8ypc.

Wait....it sounds as if you change your stance mid-post here. At first you say "You have to have a better QB to be considered greatest of all time and the Skins had Rypien." Then you realize that the 85 Bears had McMahon and that you're going to sound hypocritical so you say "but he had a great RB so thats ok"?Couldn't I say the same thing about Rypien regarding his great o-line? Here, I'll reword your post:

Heres an easy answer why the Bears get left off of teh greatest team ever list...Jim McMahon. If the most important positon on the team is fille dby Jim McMahon then you cant possibly be in the conversation of greatest team ever. yes he was good that year, but theres a big difference between good and great. Now Im not a huge Rypien fan, but at least he was playing behind one of the best pass blocking o-lines of all time.

It really really sounds like you're reaching here. If you want to say that a team needs great QB play to be a great team, then thats fine- I can accept that. But then don't go back on your words and try to add in "oh but if a team has a great RB then they're ok too." Come on man....RB, while glorified by us FF dorks, is not that important of a position overall. I'd much rather have a stud LT or CB than a stud RB on my team. Anyway, lets compare Rypien and McMahon in their SB winning years:YardsRypien: 3564McMahon: 2392Completion %Rypien: 59.1McMahon: 56.9TDsRypien: 28McMahon: 15INTsRypien: 11McMahon: 11Yards per attemptRypien: 8.5McMahon: 7.6QB rating:Rypien: 97.93McMahon: 82.65

yes he was good that year, but theres a big difference between good and great.

I've tried to google for it to no avail. Can anyone tell me at the time where did Rypiens 97.93 QB rating rank among the all time list? anguskahn, I think that if you answer this question you may change your views that Rypien was merely "good" that year. Rypien, while very average for the rest of his career, was phenomenal that year. The only QB with more passing TDs was Jim Kelly. The only QBS with more passing yards were Moon, Marino, and Kelly. The only QB with a higher adjusted yards per pass was Steve Young. I don't believe anyone had more pass attempts per INT that year.Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Dan Marino, Steve Young.....those are the guys whose Rypien's stats resemble that year. You still sure that he was "good but not great" that year?