How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

NWebster
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:21 pm

How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by NWebster »

82 strike shortened 9 games with a long hiatus and expanded playoffs

87 shortened but sullied by 3 scab games

50 NFL absorbing AAFC players and teams

70 AFL / NFL merger

War years where talent disparities tipped the scales

And of course, whatever happens this year.

Do you discount the 80's Redskins at all given 2 Super Bowls is strike seasons?
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2509
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by Bryan »

NWebster wrote:Do you discount the 80's Redskins at all given 2 Super Bowls is strike seasons?
I think the Redskins going 14-2 in 1983 and 12-4 in 1986 kind of shows that those Redskin strike-season teams were legitimately good.
Oszuscik
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:34 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by Oszuscik »

I've always considered '82 to be the most oddball season, mostly due to the "Super Bowl Tournament" and the fact that a kicker won league MVP. As for '87, I have a hard time acknowledging that season at all. The whole strike and replacement player situation was a debacle, and as a Packers fan there was absolutely nothing redeeming about that year either. It's just hard to find anything good about the '87 season.

It is funny that the Redskins hold the distinction of winning both strike season Super Bowls. I don't feel you can knock the '82 Redskins. They began to peak at the end of '81, and they put up historic numbers in '83, so there's no doubt they were an elite team at that point. The '87 season, again, what can you say? The replacement players going 3-0 for the Redskins sure didn't hurt them, but a Super Bowl win is a Super Bowl win.
BD Sullivan
Posts: 2318
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:30 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by BD Sullivan »

Oszuscik wrote:I've always considered '82 to be the most oddball season, mostly due to the "Super Bowl Tournament" and the fact that a kicker won league MVP. As for '87, I have a hard time acknowledging that season at all. The whole strike and replacement player situation was a debacle, and as a Packers fan there was absolutely nothing redeeming about that year either. It's just hard to find anything good about the '87 season.

It is funny that the Redskins hold the distinction of winning both strike season Super Bowls. I don't feel you can knock the '82 Redskins. They began to peak at the end of '81, and they put up historic numbers in '83, so there's no doubt they were an elite team at that point. The '87 season, again, what can you say? The replacement players going 3-0 for the Redskins sure didn't hurt them, but a Super Bowl win is a Super Bowl win.
The combination of the Saints getting destroyed by the Vikings, who then stunned the 49ers was what changed the Redskins' odds of winning. Had the Saints won, the Skins would have played the Niners in that first playoff and maybe SF doesn't overlook them.
JohnH19
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by JohnH19 »

1970 is the most unusual non-strike season that I can think of. There were no true powerhouse teams. They all had flaws.
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

As much as myself, and others, may entertain the "what-could-have-been" had my Steelers not had their 2-0 "momentum" over Dallas/Cincy "stunted" by those infamous 57 days, I have opined here already that I still think Washington wins-it-all in a hypo-full-'82-season (and the SB-opponent would not have been Pittsburgh). As Bryan said, the following campaign and '86 (12-4 w Schroeder at QB, mind you) thus the entire Joe Gibbs Era shows just how legit '82 & '87 was. '91...consider it an exclamation point to that!

I may have said in the past about Washington 'avoiding' SF in '87. Changed my tune as of late. Maybe SF does beat Wash if they get by Minn, but bottom-line is they didn't! Though SF may have been the best team during the regular season, perhaps they weren't ready just yet to win-it-all again; and even in the regular season, Washington was not at all far behind them anyway. After going one-and-done convincingly at the Meadowlands back-to-back years (especially 49-3 the year prior), and finishing as strong as they did in '87, you think SF would be too fired-up/hungry for another Lombardi/motivated to actually "take" the Vikings "lightly" - especially after seeing what they, indeed, did to the Saints (that had to serve fair warning)! Now in '88 & '89...they were definitely ready to run-the-table again. Therefore, I treat that very Washington squad as the Lombardi winner that they actually were. They win-it-all as well had '87 went full (no scabs) IMO.
7DnBrnc53
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by 7DnBrnc53 »

As much as myself, and others, may entertain the "what-could-have-been" had my Steelers not had their 2-0 "momentum" over Dallas/Cincy "stunted" by those infamous 57 days, I have opined here already that I still think Washington wins-it-all in a hypo-full-'82-season (and the SB-opponent would not have been Pittsburgh)


I have to agree. Injuries may have caught up to the Steelers. I also think that the Raiders may have been exposed somewhat if there would have been a full season. That team didn't deserve to go 8-1. They had to come back from a lot down to beat SD, and Gary Barbaro dropped an INT in their December game with KC that would have given the Chiefs a win (along with saving Marv Levy's job in the process).
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

’99, ’00, & ’01 can each be considered “unusual” in that there were now 31 teams in the league with the re-addition of Cleveland. Every single week someone had a bye. Six teams in the AFC Central which, looking back, I actually didn’t mind at all! Of course, in ’01, the games were delayed due to 9/11. Each Super Bowl during that span was won by an “out-of-nowhere” team. Of all six SB-participants-period, the only one that wasn’t a surprise going into the season were the ’01 Rams.
Oszuscik
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:34 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by Oszuscik »

74_75_78_79_ wrote:’99, ’00, & ’01 can each be considered “unusual” in that there were now 31 teams in the league with the re-addition of Cleveland. Every single week someone had a bye. Six teams in the AFC Central which, looking back, I actually didn’t mind at all! Of course, in ’01, the games were delayed due to 9/11. Each Super Bowl during that span was won by an “out-of-nowhere” team. Of all six SB-participants-period, the only one that wasn’t a surprise going into the season were the ’01 Rams.
The 1999 season I think was the most jarring. Football as we knew it in the 90's really seemed to "end". In Green Bay Holmgren was gone and after a "race for points" with Carolina in Week 17 the Packers missed the playoffs for the first time in six years. After two decades of dominance San Francisco went 4-12 and Steve Young's career ended after three games. Michael Irvin's career ended after four games and though the Cowboys snuck into the playoffs it was clear that their dynasty was over. Dan Marino played his final year in 1999. John Elway was now retired and after back-to-back Super Bowl wins the Broncos missed the playoffs. Kurt Warner and the Rams came out of nowhere to absolutely dominate the league. The Music City Miracle. A playoff game decided by 55 points. A Super Bowl decided by one yard.

The 1999 season was jarring, unexpected, and really closed the book on the 90's.
Oszuscik
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:34 pm

Re: How would you rank odd / unusual seasons?

Post by Oszuscik »

Oszuscik wrote:
74_75_78_79_ wrote:’99, ’00, & ’01 can each be considered “unusual” in that there were now 31 teams in the league with the re-addition of Cleveland. Every single week someone had a bye. Six teams in the AFC Central which, looking back, I actually didn’t mind at all! Of course, in ’01, the games were delayed due to 9/11. Each Super Bowl during that span was won by an “out-of-nowhere” team. Of all six SB-participants-period, the only one that wasn’t a surprise going into the season were the ’01 Rams.
The 1999 season I think was the most jarring. Football as we knew it in the 90's really seemed to "end". In Green Bay Holmgren was gone and after a "race for points" with Carolina in Week 17 the Packers missed the playoffs for the first time in six years. After two decades of dominance San Francisco went 4-12 and Steve Young's career ended after three games. Michael Irvin's career ended after four games and though the Cowboys snuck into the playoffs it was clear that their dynasty was over. Dan Marino played his final year in 1999. John Elway was now retired and after back-to-back Super Bowl wins the Broncos missed the playoffs. Kurt Warner and the Rams came out of nowhere to absolutely dominate the league. The Music City Miracle. A playoff game decided by 55 points. A Super Bowl decided by one yard.

The 1999 season was jarring, unexpected, and really closed the book on the 90's.
Another fun fact about 1999, the Jaguars went 14-2 and lost in the AFC Championship game. Their three losses that season? ALL to the Tennessee Titans.
Post Reply