The Redskins of the 1980's: Dynasty?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

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.

[REDSKINS4ever]

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

It speaks loudly against the other teams who could have contended for a championship those years, but didn't.

I would disagree with you here,from what I remember the rest of the NFL and the NFLPA were'nt very happy with the Skins management at the time.There was an understanding among the owners of how the replacement players were going to be pick and the Skins management went in a different direction.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

New England lost to the Giants, yet N.E. is still considered a dynasty.

That is one year... they are a dynasty because they have been superbowl contenders every year, won 3 of 4, and have basically been a 11 to 12 win team every single year for about 10 years.

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I would disagree with you here,from what I remember the rest of the NFL and the NFLPA were'nt very happy with the Skins management at the time.There was an understanding among the owners of how the replacement players were going to be pick and the Skins management went in a different direction.

The Redskins were if I'm not mistaken, one of the very few teams, if not the only team to have no players cross the picket line. The Cowboys, 49ers had their star players cross the picket line, yet the Redskins beat a Cowboys team w/ 7 regular players on a Monday night game. The Redskins stuck as a team and the coaching management gets the credit for getting those players ready to play and win.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

That is one year... they are a dynasty because they have been superbowl contenders every year, won 3 of 4, and have basically been a 11 to 12 win team every single year for about 10 years.

OK, so other than the 'skins not having 11 or 12 wins every season, they were also Super Bowl contenders nearly every year as well from 81 - 92, with the exception of a year or two.

Even though the Patriots were 11-5 a couple of years ago, they didn't make the playoffs that year, therefore were not Super Bowl contenders.

[SFREDSKIN]

I believe they go by the # of wins during the decade. 49ers had 4 SB wins in the 80's, Skins 2 and Giants 1. NE 3 wins, that's what they look at.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

I believe they go by the # of wins during the decade. 49ers had 4 SB wins in the 80's, Skins 2 and Giants 1. NE 3 wins, that's what they look at.

Honestly, I agree with you. But, I just wonder if a team won the Super Bowl in the last two years of a decade, and won it again in say, year two and four of the next decade - I wonder if they would be considered a dynasty? Especially if it's the same coaching staff, virtually the same players in the skilled positions, etc...?

In the end, I think it's just whatever the media crowns them to be. I don't think they really have a certain set of rules or some chart to go by in determining a dynasty. For me, I tend to support the idea that it's numerous aspects: Multiple Super Bowl wins in a short amount of time (at least 3 SB wins in10 years), being consistent Super Bowl / playoff contenders for at least 80% of that 10 year stretch, virtually the same coaching staff or same group of players. I think strictly going by timeline decades is a cop out, personally. I'm sure some disagree and that's OK, but I'd much rather look at the accomplishments of a coaching staff rather than to divide it into separate regimes based on decades alone.

[SFREDSKIN]

In the 70's it was the same thing, the Steelers won 4, Dolphins 2 and Raiders 1 in 1976. Going into the 80's the Raiders won in 1980 and 1983, yet they aren't mentioned as team of the 80's or 70's.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I would disagree with you here,from what I remember the rest of the NFL and the NFLPA were'nt very happy with the Skins management at the time.There was an understanding among the owners of how the replacement players were going to be pick and the Skins management went in a different direction.

As Fredskin mentioned, I'm going to rehash it here. The fault lies in organizations or players who decided to cross the picket line. Dallas and other teams had their own regular players play during these replacement player games while the Redskins had 0. The Redskins management didn't go into any different direction. That statement is clearly false. With the direction of Redskins GM Bobby Beathard, the team got a great bunch of replacement players, that were coached up well, and performed admirably. Joe Bugel even said that it was those bunch of nobodies who served as the bridge for the Redskins to make it to the Super Bowl that year.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

As Fredskin mentioned, I'm going to rehash it here. The fault lies in organizations or players who decided to cross the picket line. Dallas and other teams had their own regular players play during these replacement player games while the Redskins had 0. The Redskins management didn't go into any different direction. That statement is clearly false. With the direction of Redskins GM Bobby Beathard, the team got a great bunch of replacement players, that were coached up well, and performed admirably. Joe Bugel even said that it was those bunch of nobodies who served as the bridge for the Redskins to make it to the Super Bowl that year.

So actually I was right,as you and others stated the league it seems wanted the players who crossed the line to play to intis the others to come across....the Skins did not ,it was the replacement players that got the team to the playoffs ...not the Washington Redskins per say.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So actually I was right,as you and others stated the league it seems wanted the players who crossed the line to play to intis the others to come across....the Skins did not ,it was the replacement players that got the team to the playoffs ...not the Washington Redskins per say.

No, Giants fan. You are not right. While the replacement players were vital to the outcome of the season during the strike, it was the real Redskin players that got them to where they were. Your Giants sad to say didn't make it to the playoffs that year. The replacement players served no other purpose other than being fill ins during the strike while the real players still practiced together on their own, just like in the 1982 season.

What happened was the replacement players played well. I'm not certain about the replacement players on the other 27 teams at the time, but if replacement players can defeat a Dallas Cowboys team on a Monday Night that had 3 regular players that crossed the picket line, what would the real Redskins players would have done to Dallas? They would have demolished them!

Don't try and take anything away from the Redskins franchise just because some replacement football took place, and don't try to twist my words to make them sound as if the Redskins could not have reached their goals after coming so close in 1986 as the NFC runner ups that year. The Redskins were clearly the best team in football in 1987.