The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22

[Bishop Hammer]

Awww screw the Giants. They win a couple Superbowls recently and now they have big heads.

Why some Skins fans rooted for them in their SB's abainst the Pats is beyond me? No matter how you felt about NE the Giants are division rivals. I don't want them to do well no matter who they play. I dislike NY more than Dallas at this point. Here's hoping the Skins even the series in the rematch.

[REDSKINS4ever]

I do agree that the NYG fan base heads have swelled because of those 2 Super Bowl wins over Brady and NE. But they met their match yesterday even though the managed to win the game.

[Evilgrin]

This must be a troll....

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

I do agree that the NYG fan base heads have swelled because of those 2 Super Bowl wins over Brady and NE. But they met their match yesterday even though the managed to win the game.

.....and that never would have happen in Washington,ever.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

I wonder if Archie knew his wifes uterus was going to be a quarterback factory.

LOL , maybe a new wing will be in the Pro Football Hall of fame . " This is were Peyton and Eli are from "

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.....and that never would have happen in Washington,ever.

Only if those Washington teams were great 14-2/13-3/12-4 etc. The NYG teams that won Super Bowls 42 & 46 were not great teams. They were 10-6 and 9-7 going into the playoffs those years. Especially the 2011 NYG team that at one point had a 4 game losing streak and a little luck within the post season. Their credibility in the SB comes from already have beaten the Patriots in New England during the regular season that year. But I don't see how a fan base can brag and boast about a lowly above average team that were fortunate to win out. They were nothing like the Saints and Packers in 2011.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

Only if those Washington teams were great 14-2/13-3/12-4 etc. The NYG teams that won Super Bowls 42 & 46 were not great teams. They were 10-6 and 9-7 going into the playoffs those years. Especially the 2011 NYG team that at one point had a 4 game losing streak and a little luck within the post season. Their credibility in the SB comes from already have beaten the Patriots in New England during the regular season that year. But I don't see how a fan base can brag and boast about a lowly above average team that were fortunate to win out. They were nothing like the Saints and Packers in 2011.

You're really not helping your case here at all.

You want Giants fans to respect our wins in strike shortened years, but you're discrediting their wins by saying they were lucky or didn't have a great W/L record? Makes no sense.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You're really not helping your case here at all.

You want Giants fans to respect our wins in strike shortened years, but you're discrediting their wins by saying they were lucky or didn't have a great W/L record? Makes no sense.

Mattyk, I don't like the Giants and I'm beginning to dislike them more than the Cowboys, believe it or not. You don't live up here in NYC like I do. I don't want and care for their respect. The way they see us is the way I see them.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

Mattyk, I don't like the Giants and I'm beginning to dislike them more than the Cowboys, believe it or not. You don't live up here in NYC like I do. I don't want and care for their respect. The way they see us is the way I see them.

Born and raised in NY, I've lived here for all of 2 years of my life, I know what it's like.

Either way your totally contradicting yourself in this thread.

[ForkLifter]

In my mind, the best response is this: In 1982, the Redskins beat 4 other teams, including the Cowboys who featured multiple hall of famers in the primes of their careers, in the Championship game to finish the year out at 12-1.

In 1987, the Redskins beat the Bears, a team they had also beaten in the 1986 divisional playoff, in Chicago. That Chicago team was supposed to have won multiple super bowls, but they didn't due in large part to the fact that the Redskins were simply better than they were during 1986-1987. 8-4 in non-scab games. 3-0 in the playoffs. Giants were 6-6 with their regulars that year. And the same basic nucleus formed the 1991 team, which was undoubtedly one of the greatest of all time (despite the short memories of some).

If anything, the 1982 and 1987 teams benefitted from not having to face the 49ers , in 1982 because the 49ers were a mess, and in 1987 due to the Vikings upset. That Vikings team was dangerous in 1987, but the Redskins beat them twice when it mattered (although maybe the regular season game didn't matter so much).

Anyways, I don't know where I'm going with this....

[punch it in]

helmet catch schmelmet catch

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.....and that never would have happen in Washington,ever.

never, you wouldnt even know we won, because we would be so modest about it and never ever ever talk about it. ARE YOU EFFIN KIDDIN ME - my head is still big and swollen because of 70 chip!!!!! Please give me another big swollen head again - PLEASE!

are they supposed to be ashamed of it?

:confused:

edit: as for the strike teams well - only difference a full season would have made is a few more W's for us.

[53Fan]

As far as I know all the teams played the same amount of games and had the same opportunity to win it as we did. The only difference is we did and they didn't. Whining about it doesn't change a thing.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

As far as I know all the teams played the same amount of games and had the same opportunity to win it as we did. The only difference is we did and they didn't. Whining about it doesn't change a thing.

Everyonce in a while my giant friends will point this out and they always resort to the fact that the scabs made it unfair because we had better scabs (which we did). They always wind up admitting that the true team was so good that it probably would not have made a difference though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Everyonce in a while my giant friends will point this out and they always resort to the fact that the scabs made it unfair because we had better scabs (which we did). They always wind up admitting that the true team was so good that it probably would not have made a difference though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether we had better scabs than they did or not, that's a front office problem that falls on the general manager. If they weren't able to assemble a team with the best players that could be located then that's their fault. Bobby Beathard was like 10 GMs in one. He's truly the reason why the Redskins were so successful during that era.