Why Doesn't "Gibbs' Football" Work for the Redskins?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.
In 1986,
There were only 8 players that had 1000 or more rushing yards. 23 in 2006. (that's 15 more)
There were only 10 people that had 1000 or more receiving yards. 19 in 2006. (that's 9 more)
There was only 1 player that had 2000 or more yards from scrimmage. 5 in 2006. (that's 4 more)
There were only 16 that had 2500 or more passing yards. 21 in 2006. (that's 5 more)
There were only 2 that had 4000 or more passing yards. 5 in 2006. (that's 3 more)
There were only 7 that had 80 or more receptions. 18 in 2006. (that's 11 more)
There were only 13 that had 70 or more receptions. 27 in 2006. (that's 14 more)
There were only 28 that had 60 or more receptions. 44 in 2006. (that's 16 more)
There were only 19 players that averaged 6 or more points per game. 37 in 2006. (that's 18 more)

Those numbers speak for themselves. Every era is different, and usually the more we progress the better the players get. We have more prolific players and offenses today.

Interesting numbers. I'm assuming you factored in the addition of three franchises-Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Interesting numbers. I'm assuming you factored in the addition of three franchises-Texans, Panthers, and Jaguars

Actually it's 4 teams. You forgot the Ravens. (or the Browns depending on your point of view)
And those were individual acheivements, so the 4 extra teams out of 32 teams would not make THAT big of an impact.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Actually it's 4 teams. You forgot the Ravens. (or the Browns depending on your point of view)
And those were individual acheivements, so the 4 extra teams out of 32 teams would not make THAT big of an impact.

True, it's not that big an impact. But still more teams means more players means a larger sample size means it does impact the numbers somewhat