- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 1991 Washington Redskins is the best pro football team of all-time
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:41 pm to St Jean The Baptiste
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:41 pm to St Jean The Baptiste
quote:
Beat the best team in NFL history that didn't make a Super Bowl (Minnesota).
The '98 Vikings were a damn good football team.
and further proof that a single game elimination doesn't always get it right.
it is what it is though.
2
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:43 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
-14-2, Super Bowl champs
lol try again
Posted on 6/6/17 at 10:56 pm to LooseCannon22282
The 98 Vikings probably weren't the best team in football that year: they had the 13th ranked defense, 18th in permitting 1st downs, 19th against the pass, 15 against Y/A, putrid against rush TDs and rush Y/A and couldn't even preserve a 2 min, TD lead in the NFC title game against Chris Chandler of all people. Not that big a surprise they didn't advance to the SB.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:15 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Not that big a surprise they didn't advance to the SB.
yes it was.
they didn't play the better game that day.
like I said.. the one game elimination style is what it is.
one of all-time great kickers missed a FG that would have put that game out of reach. Gary Andersen was having a great year until that day as well.
look.. I get it if you don't agree with me.
but Minnesota was better than Atlanta that year. Just not in the NFC title game that day.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:28 pm to LooseCannon22282
First, Randle got injured and, if we want to engage in this unproven hypothetical, the Denver offense likely would've torched the Vikings D: 7th best pass offense, 2nd best rush offense with NFL MVP. The New York Jets were the best overall team that season considering everything.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:33 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
First, Randle got injured
he wasn't 100% coming into the game to start with.
quote:
the Denver offense likely would've torched the Vikings D: 7th best pass offense, 2nd best rush offense with NFL MVP.
I don't disagree there.
but Minnesota's offense would have most likely done more damage than the Falcons O did against the Broncos.
all I'm saying is that the Vikings were better '98 than the Falcons were. Just my opinion.
they just weren't better that day.
quote:
The New York Jets were the best overall team that season considering everything.
Statistically?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:39 pm to LooseCannon22282
Absolutely, 10 pt MOV, strong SOS, top ten offense and defense, only 16 ppg allowed and 11.19 SRS, Parcells as HC, why wouldn't they be the best overall team in football?
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:46 pm to ThePTExperience1969
all I remember about that game was that Jets turned the ball over way to much to Denver.
and then.. as if it were a built in excuse.. the Denver reps on America's Game 1998 edition said they were distracted that ATL had UPSET the Vikings.
pretty crazy.
and then.. as if it were a built in excuse.. the Denver reps on America's Game 1998 edition said they were distracted that ATL had UPSET the Vikings.
pretty crazy.
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:49 pm to LooseCannon22282
as if to say they were thinking they were gonna play Minnesota and not ATL. People were watching the monitors.. they knew what had happened.
so that was their stance on why they played a sloppy 1st half vs. the Jets.
I know all about it (the Denver here say).
so that was their stance on why they played a sloppy 1st half vs. the Jets.
I know all about it (the Denver here say).
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:51 pm to ThePTExperience1969
Posted on 6/6/17 at 11:55 pm to SeeeeK
Absolutely, only 2 losses in 91 look it up.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 7:15 am to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
PLEASE, please tell me how a team can be determined the best if they didn't win the CHAMPIONSHIP of that particular profession which acknowledges them as the BEST? That makes literally zero sense bc if you're the best team you win the championship, that's how sports works it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
This is a staggering post from someone touting advanced statistics as the only measure. Clearly some that understands advanced stats would understand the best team doesn't win every game right? And that giving a game a special name doesn't change that right?
This post was edited on 6/7/17 at 7:19 am
Posted on 6/7/17 at 7:58 am to H-Town Tiger
What makes that redskins team special is how many stars off the top of your head can you name? I'm not sure that team had any super stars
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:02 am to Statsattack
Joe Gibbs, Rypien, Ricky Ervins, Byner, Gerald Riggs, the Posse, the Hogs, Charles Mann, Darrell Green, etc.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:10 am to Statsattack
quote:
What makes that redskins team special is how many stars off the top of your head can you name? I'm not sure that team had any super stars
If you dominate the point of attack, you don't need superstars.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:20 am to Crowknowsbest
Superstars can help from a persuasive standpoint, but it's not the whole story. Also must account for the dominance of the team that season, their postseason performance, strength of schedule, overall MOV, turnover margin, league ranks in categories, etc.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:28 am to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Superstars can help from a persuasive standpoint, but it's not the whole story. Also must account for the dominance of the team that season, their postseason performance, strength of schedule, overall MOV, turnover margin, league ranks in categories, etc.
You have to consider all factors just using stats or just using "eyeball" can be misleading. A compelling case can be made that the 91 Redskins had the most "dominate season" but take that with a grain of salt.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:37 am to H-Town Tiger
Yeah that's my point all factors and, by assessing all factors, one can reasonably conclude the 1991 Washington Redskins is the best team in pro football history.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 8:50 am to ThePTExperience1969
It seems to me you are relying entirely on the stats. SOS is a decently guideline but can be misleading. You also can't help who you play so to say the 91 Redskins are better than the 89 49ers due to SOS and MOV is not, imo looking at everything.
Posted on 6/7/17 at 9:34 am to LooseCannon22282
quote:
that is my biggest beef with College Football.
And that beef will never change so long as there are 120+ teams playing the sport in a single division. You can't have a "TRUE" champion because of the nature of the sport, the amount of teams involved, and the way the conferences are set up. It's just not possible.
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News