The Redskins of the 1980's: Dynasty?

I hate Jack Squirek.

I hate Jack Squirek.

Thiesman threw it right to him! The secondary gangbanged the receivers!

Not to split hairs but the Redskins win over the Bills and the season that led to it was in the 90s, wasn't it?

Skins won 2 in the 80's one in the 90's, San Fran won 4 in the 80's one in the 90's.

Not to split hairs but the Redskins win over the Bills and the season that led to it was in the 90s, wasn't it?

I'm talking about the Joe Gibbs era though. Ten years separating the 'skins first Super Bowl win and their last Super Bowl win. Yes, technically two different decades. But, the question then would become, is a dynasty also defined by the coaching staff, and or players on the team, or simply by the decade time line?

I'm talking about the Joe Gibbs era though. Ten years separating the 'skins first Super Bowl win and their last Super Bowl win. Yes, technically two different decades. But, the question then would become, is a dynasty also defined by the coaching staff, and or players on the team, or simply by the decade time line?

Well then we're talking about different things. I assumed, based on your thread title, we were talking about the 1980s. And usually these things are discussed in terms of decades, aren't they?

Well then we're talking about different things. I assumed, based on your thread title, we were talking about the 1980s. And usually these things are discussed in terms of decades, aren't they?

Possibly I should have said Gibbs I era if my personal opinion is that it depends upon the coaching regime. But I did state 1980's in the title, so I'm sure most would quickly say, that's easy, of course not.

But, continuing on the route of splitting hairs (lol, get the aspirin out) I'm assuming most just rate a team a dynasty by the number of championships they win in a given decade. OK, easy enough and certainly makes a lot of sense. And I'm assuming, again, the team that won the most championships in a given decade is a dynasty. OK, again I could go with that.

But, I'm also assuming if one team, say the Green Bay Packers, wins the most Super Bowls in a given decade, but it's only two Super Bowls. The rest of the decade sees a different SB winner each season. The Green Bay Packers would still equal a dynasty, correct?

But, I'm also assuming if one team, say the Green Bay Packers, wins the most Super Bowls in a given decade, but it's only two Super Bowls. The rest of the decade sees a different SB winner each season. The Green Bay Packers would still equal a dynasty, correct?

.....no

By the way, I agree that it's a media bias bullshit.

That's it. Media bias of the skins is nothing new and actually begain in the 1960's. They even teach that to young reporters in school so to keep the bias going. I heard one chapter in their class book is nothing but the history of Redskin Bias.

From 1981 to 1992, the Redskins were a constant winning team with multiple winning seasons, playoff appearances, NFC championship appearances winning 4 of them, 4 Super Bowl appearances winning 3 of them. Joe Gibbs record was an astonishing 16-4 in the playoffs in that span. The Redskins hosted the NFC Championship game 3 times, winning all three. The one NFC Championship game the Redskins lost was away against the Giants.

This is how I've always viewed the strike seasons of 1982 and 1987. Any of the 27 teams in the NFL those seasons could have contended in the playoffs and could have been good enough to reach the Super Bowl, but why didn't they? They didn't because the Redskins were simply better than any team those seasons. The fact that the Redskins won the Super Bowl in 1982 and 1987 during strike years really isn't saying much. It speaks loudly against the other teams who could have contended for a championship those years, but didn't.