83 Skins Rank #4 All Time

[PWNED]

Originally Posted by Giantone

[PWNED]

they dont call me impact rookie for nothing.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by PWNED

they dont call me impact rookie for nothing.

thank you. you've done good kemosabe

[dirthogs311]

Originally Posted by PWNED

:headbange :headbange :headbange :headbange :headbange :headbange :headbange

[That Guy]

I don't get it... if you only want to bash the skins and make stupid statements without any sort of reasoning, sense, or evidence to back it up, why are you here? aren't there plenty of giant boards for you to cohabitate with your pointless drivel?

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by That Guy

I don't get it... if you only want to bash the skins and make stupid statements without any sort of reasoning, sense, or evidence to back it up, why are you here? aren't there plenty of giant boards for you to cohabitate with your pointless drivel?

I guess he's sick of hearing "hey, yo, coughlin's tha man, fa'get'abow'it."

[PWNED]

we should be flattered hes taking a brief respite from his busy cornholing schedule to grace us with his presence

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

You are right the league didn't start 25 years ago, but like someone stated earlier in this thread the game evolved and changed alot since it did start. Maybe they should have started from when the AFL and the NFL merged. Would that have ben better for you?

Also your example of Barry Bonds is just bad!! As to your half hearted attempt with Jim Brown. Again you need to be reminded that they are individuals not the whole offense or team. Againg if the list was top (insert individual contribution) then your examples of Jim Brown and Barry Bonds would fit.

As for "the Giants have never had a top five O....ever" I wouldn't know, but I would not be surprised if they didn't!!!!

What's the title of the thread ???

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Giantone

What's the title of the thread ???

But read the first line of the first post in this thread

"Actually CNN ranks 83 redskins offense fourth best in the last 25 years, NOT best of all time."

The creator of this thread lured us in with a sexy headline, so that here we are 6 pages later still talking about it.

[jermus22]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Plus the '83 team had some ridiculous turnover ratio of +48 or something like that (though for the purposes of this poll it's only about the offense). And they lost two games by a combined 2 points.

I think you can argue that the '91 team overall was better because they won the whole thing, but that '83 offense was ridiculous.

The '91 Redskins won by an average of 16 points per game and lost by a total of 4 points in two games. It would be interesting to compare the strength of our schedule in '91 compared to '83. About six or seven years ago there was a website that evaluated teams based on strength of schedule, wins/losses, and total points scored (I think). The '91 Redskins at the time were rated #2 of best teams of all time (the '85 Chicago Bears were #1). Not sure where to find that website but it would help with evaluating best teams of all time.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

But read the first line of the first post in this thread

"Actually CNN ranks 83 redskins offense fourth best in the last 25 years, NOT best of all time."

The creator of this thread lured us in with a sexy headline, so that here we are 6 pages later still talking about it.

I know but my post had to do with the headline ,hey he did a good job.