Dynasty

TheMalcolmConnection · 02-07-2005, 01:14 PM

Yeah, I was a little pissed at that too. I don't see how they could say that and not mention the Skins.

BIGREDSKINFAN63 · 02-07-2005, 07:20 PM

you guys just now seeing that the redskins dynasty gets no respect?if they would have won the sb vs the raiders,they would be called dynasty.who cares?i know how good those redskins teams were,and that team that went 16-3 in 1983,could hang in and imo,beat the cowboys,49ers,steelers,and yes the patriots.of all the coaches of those teams,walsh(only won 3 sbs),johnson(only won 2),and now belichek 2,there is no way anybody in god's ever expanding universe that can tell me gibbs can't outcoach all 3 of them.chuck noll,i respect,belinchek also,as for that ole fart walsh and jimmy johnson,gibbs is way above them.

:screama:

irish · 02-08-2005, 02:33 PM

I dont really see the skins as a dynasty. They had some good teams 3 different times but the titles were so spread out (4 years between each) that compared to the other teams that wont their titles in a short span, in my eyes they just dont count as a dynasty. Also the skins won during a strike season which even though the NFL does not asterik it, almost everyone else does.

Bottom line: The skins had 3 great teams but they were not a dynasty.

SmootSmack · 02-08-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish

I dont really see the skins as a dynasty. They had some good teams 3 different times but the titles were so spread out (4 years between each) that compared to the other teams that wont their titles in a short span, in my eyes they just dont count as a dynasty. Also the skins won during a strike season which even though the NFL does not asterik it, almost everyone else does.

Bottom line: The skins had 3 great teams but they were not a dynasty.

It was two strike seasons, 1982 and 1987. I don't know if time span should be a factor. Isn't it more impressive to stay dominant over a larger period of time? But anyway, I would have to basically agree with you. When I think dynasty I think of one team that was the clear dominant team. In the 1980s it was all about the Redskins AND the 49ers.

I'm not going to get all curmudgeonly here and rip the Skins accomplishments during Gibbs 1.0 because going to 5 NFC Championship games, winning 4 and 3 Super Bowls in 10 years is a remarkable feat but does that make them a dynasty?

02-07-2005, 01:14 PM	#1
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia Age: 44 Posts: 19,264	Yeah, I was a little pissed at that too. I don't see how they could say that and not mention the Skins. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

02-07-2005, 07:20 PM	#2
BIGREDSKINFAN63 Special Teams Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: bassett-va Age: 62 Posts: 289	you guys just now seeing that the redskins dynasty gets no respect?if they would have won the sb vs the raiders,they would be called dynasty.who cares?i know how good those redskins teams were,and that team that went 16-3 in 1983,could hang in and imo,beat the cowboys,49ers,steelers,and yes the patriots.of all the coaches of those teams,walsh(only won 3 sbs),johnson(only won 2),and now belichek 2,there is no way anybody in god's ever expanding universe that can tell me gibbs can't outcoach all 3 of them.chuck noll,i respect,belinchek also,as for that ole fart walsh and jimmy johnson,gibbs is way above them. :screama: __________________ "7 days without the redskins, makes one weak!!!"

02-08-2005, 02:33 PM	#3
irish Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,575	I dont really see the skins as a dynasty. They had some good teams 3 different times but the titles were so spread out (4 years between each) that compared to the other teams that wont their titles in a short span, in my eyes they just dont count as a dynasty. Also the skins won during a strike season which even though the NFL does not asterik it, almost everyone else does. Bottom line: The skins had 3 great teams but they were not a dynasty.

Dynasty

Locker Room Main Forum