Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
92 was the shakiest of BUF's SB teams. 91 scored the most points, 93 was a better defense, 90 their best overall team
Although I truly thought they would beat Dallas since they steamrolled through the last 2.5 playoff games before the Super Bowl. After going down 35-3 to the Oilers, they outscored opponents 91-16 the rest of the way.
They did steamroll, but it was against the Steelers and Dolphins, teams that the Bills owned at that point (I would have liked to have seen them play against the Chargers).
Also, while the 1993 Bills did finish fifth in points allowed, they were 27th in total yards, 24th against the run, and 21st against the pass.
92 was the shakiest of BUF's SB teams. 91 scored the most points, 93 was a better defense, 90 their best overall team
Although I truly thought they would beat Dallas since they steamrolled through the last 2.5 playoff games before the Super Bowl. After going down 35-3 to the Oilers, they outscored opponents 91-16 the rest of the way.
They did steamroll, but it was against the Steelers and Dolphins, teams that the Bills owned at that point (I would have liked to have seen them play against the Chargers).
Also, while the 1993 Bills did finish fifth in points allowed, they were 27th in total yards, 24th against the run, and 21st against the pass.
It's happened before. The 98 Chargers were 18th in points allowed, yet somehow finished #1 in total yards and against the run.
What happens if you replay the entire 1991 season, but that season's Giants, Forty Niners, and Bills are each replaced with the exact 1990 versions instead? And instead of the actual '91 Cowboys, you have next year's exact version instead??
I can't imagine it "written in stone" that Washington automatically doesn't still finish on top. I would place Big D as the favorite, but not by much. Just think of that NFC East in this scenario! With the Eagles (and that Classic defense) in there as well, Dallas is not finishing 13-3, nor is NYG. And Washington doesn't finish 14-2 (and Philly likely wins just 8 or 7 games).
Yes, in '91, the Redskins benefited by not having to be in the same season with better versions of each of the teams mentioned. But they still dominated, didn't have an easy schedule, won 14 games going into a meaningless finale, and dominated even more-so in the post-season! Not among the very elite teams of All-Time, but not far beneath. Just like Larry Holmes at his peak is not far behind Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc at their peaks.
Back to the hypothetical, I think Washington at least split with Dallas & NYG, Cowboys & Giants split with each other as well, and the division is up for grabs for all three going into the finale; Washington's game at Philly is now a meaningful affair. My best guess would be Dallas winning the division by just one game with Wash & NYG finishing with the same record taking up the 4th & 5th seeds thus playing each other in the 1st Rd. And if Washington wins that one, and then win at San Fran, and then top the Cowboys in Big D, I think they still would have been the better team than Buffalo and pull it off. It's just that this game would be competitive as opposed to what really happened.
The 1989 Redskins would have to serve as a nice example of the famous Bill Parcells "as good as your record" maxim. The same as being a good example of the saying, "a win is a win, a loss is a loss". Each of their two losses against the Giants could have gone the other way. And even more-so that Wk#2 miracle they allowed Philly to make at RFK. Why Gibbs didn't contest that vital fumble-return non-call late in the game beats me. They hanging on could have ended up making such a huge difference. And, in addition, just one of those close losses to NYG turning into a win!
But then you got that ultimate 'black-eye' of their '89 campaign and that's the home-loss to Dallas! Yes, a rivalry, but still. And though losing at home to a SB-participant-to-be, even an 11-5 one, is nothing at all to be ashamed of, the Eagles and Giants each beat Denver at Mile High. Going by the highest NFC standards of the time, along with Joe Gibbs Redskins standards, Washington really should have beaten that very team at home whom they demolished two Super Bowls prior!
Losing to the Raiders, which rounds out all six losses of theirs, not a real disgrace. Shell was now their HC and they were in rally-mode. But still. End of the day, when you look at all of it, Washington ended up right where they belonged...a good 10-6 team, yes IMO better and more dynamic than those 'Majik' Packers, but a team coming up just short of the playoffs just the same.
Could WSH have still done what they did in 1991 with Stan Humphries?
Given everything we hear about the Hogs and Posse, surely he could have been just as effective as Rypien considering he would have had everything benefit #11 had
Halas Hall wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 10:13 am
I write this as a huge New York Giants fan during that era. Those were terrific Washington teams, and I feel Joe Gibbs is a vastly underrated coach. Their 1989 team that just missed the playoffs was a very good team.
That 1989 team was fool's gold. Outside of road wins at Philly and New Orleans, they basically beat up on a weak schedule (DAL, PHX 2x, SD, SEA, ATL 6-10 CHI, Tampa)
Remember they wouldn't even have been the 3rd WC had it been around a year early (lose tiebreakers with GB)
