The Legitimacy of Super Bowls 17 & 22

[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.

[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.

[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....

[Giantone]

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.

wow, I now understand why you are having problems up in NY,I'm done.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by Giantone

wow, I now understand why you are having problems up in NY,I'm done.

Do you really? The Packers, 49ers, Saints and other NFC playoff teams were indeed good. The NYG on the other hand were lucky.

[coggs]

Originally Posted by REDSKINS4ever

Do you really? The Packers, 49ers, Saints and other NFC playoff teams were indeed good. The NYG on the other hand were lucky.

And, the Giants walked into Green Bay and totally dominated the Packers. If not for two horrendous calls the Giants win that game 50-0, then walked into San Fran and won.

[coggs]

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.

In that case the 87 Redskins were nothing like the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, 84 Niners, 89 Niners, 90 Giants, 83 Raiders, 92 Cowboys, 93 Cowboys, 94 Niners, 95 Cowboys and so forth. What is your point? Seems like it is you who needs the convincing about the legitimacy of the Skins titles, not the Giants fans. In fact, I have never in my life ever heard a Giants fan make the claim to which you are accusing.

[REDSKINS4ever]

Originally Posted by coggs

In that case the 87 Redskins were nothing like the 85 Bears, 86 Giants, 84 Niners, 89 Niners, 90 Giants, 83 Raiders, 92 Cowboys, 93 Cowboys, 94 Niners, 95 Cowboys and so forth. What is your point? Seems like it is you who needs the convincing about the legitimacy of the Skins titles, not the Giants fans. In fact, I have never in my life ever heard a Giants fan make the claim to which you are accusing.

You failed to mention the 91 Redskins. Anyway, I hear that argument in New York City all the time from NYG fans. Not all of them, but those of them who claim to really know football. Once the NFL commissioner presents the Vince Lombardi trophy to an NFL organization, that alone legitimizes the SB victory, I tell them. It's sort of like a new world leader being sworn in.

[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.