Joe Gibbs' 3 Super Bowls- a great achievment or an asterisk?

[Brian wolf]

Easy schedules ... In the NFC east with Parcells/Belichick, Landry/Johnson, Hanifan/Bugel, Vermeil/Campbell/Ryan ??

[Mark]

In another thread we were told the 49ers weren't that great as they benefited from easy schedules. Now we are told the same about the Redskins. Can some one tell me what teams were cheated in the 80s with strong schedules?

[RichardBak]

I gotta tell ya, there's about a zillion fans here in Detroit who'd love to be debating/dissing a Lions HC who won "only" three Super Bowls.

[CSKreager]

Easy schedules ... In the NFC east with Parcells/Belichick, Landry/Johnson, Hanifan/Bugel, Vermeil/Campbell/Ryan ??

Bugel’s Cardinals were practically a doormat and essentially a free win

Philadelphia basically rolled over at the sight of Washington

Parcells was the Woody Hayes of pro football- 3 yards and a cloud of dust

[Brian wolf]

Gibbs was 17-8 against Philly during that span between 1981-1992 but many wins were close. Not all blowouts.

[PaulDeVos]

As for the '87 season - from now on when I mention a W/L mark of a team from that season, I'm simply going to give the actual non-scab record without actually typing the word, "non-scab" before the record. Examples, I'm now going to simply type, "On the final week of the season, it was 7-4 Washington at 8-3 Minnesota", or "Both San Fran and NO each finished at 10-2", or "The Eagles finished above-500", and so on.

Very well stated for the actual records...

Those 1987 Vikings Beat:
AFC Champion Denver Broncos (8-3-1)
10-2 San Fran
10-2 New Orleans Saints
And two one possession losses to the SB Champ Redskins
24-27 OT in regular season
10-17 NFC Championship

That 1987 Vikings Defense had 36 Turnovers and 37 Sacks in 12 games. Same defense forced 53 turnovers in 1988 and had 71 sacks in 1989. Just had no offense... and that led to the Herschel Walker trade.

Random Note: Those "Scabs" for the Bears, had 25 sacks in 3 games. They were a terror.

[74_75_78_79_]

As for the '87 season - from now on when I mention a W/L mark of a team from that season, I'm simply going to give the actual non-scab record without actually typing the word, "non-scab" before the record. Examples, I'm now going to simply type, "On the final week of the season, it was 7-4 Washington at 8-3 Minnesota", or "Both San Fran and NO each finished at 10-2", or "The Eagles finished above-500", and so on.

Very well stated for the actual records...

Those 1987 Vikings Beat:
AFC Champion Denver Broncos (8-3-1)
10-2 San Fran
10-2 New Orleans Saints
And two one possession losses to the SB Champ Redskins
24-27 OT in regular season
10-17 NFC Championship

That 1987 Vikings Defense had 36 Turnovers and 37 Sacks in 12 games. Same defense forced 53 turnovers in 1988 and had 71 sacks in 1989. Just had no offense... and that led to the Herschel Walker trade.

Random Note: Those "Scabs" for the Bears, had 25 sacks in 3 games. They were a terror.

Ditka's..."guys"

I got 23 sacks but either way, it was the Giants who truly led in sacks in '87...

https://www.profootballresearchers.com/ ... 316#p50316


I decided to do it after all. And that's do a What-if-Sports simulation of '91 had the '90 Giants, the '90 Forty Niners, and the '92 Cowboys each replaced their 1991 versions. Of course in this case I didn't have to play the whole entire season with each and every single team. I strictly did all 16 games of the three NFC teams mentioned with everything else everywhere staying exactly as is (not each and every contrary-to-IRL W/L result butterflying away what comes after).

Surprising are some of the results! In my similar such WIS 1982 season exercise (https://mail.profootballresearchers.org ... f7b#p62034) which the Vikings finished 4-12, Miami missing the playoffs at (a rally to, mind you) 7-9, and Green Bay getting top-seed and a Super Bowl berth at 14-2 among others, below you'll see some weird stuff as well...

(differing W/L results from what actually did happen IRL in italics;
please correct/forgive if wrong)

'90 Forty Niners:
@NYG, W 20-3 (1-0)
SD, L 24-20 (1-1)
@Min, W 29-7 (2-1)
Rams, W 28-6 (3-1)
@Raiders, L 24-17 (3-2)
Atl, W 33-21 (4-2)
Det, L 23-17 (4-3)
@Phi, L 19-3 (4-4)
@Atl, W 20-7 (5-4)
@NO, L 24-13 (5-5)
Phx, W 20-0 (6-5)
Rams, W 38-14 (7-5)
NO, W 17-9 (8-5)
@Sea, W 24-0 (9-5)
KC, W 31-13 (10-5)
Chi, L 16-10 (10-6)

'90 Giants:
SF, L 3-20 (0-1)
Rams, W 16-13 (1-1)
@Chi. W 17-10 (2-1)
Cle, W 20-0 (3-1)
@Dal, L 29-6 (3-2)
Phx, W 48-10 (4-2)
@Pit, W 30-11 (5-2)
Wash, L 20-3 (5-3)
@Phi, L 16-6 (5-4)
@Phx, W 29-22 (6-4)
Dal, L 33-6 (6-5)
@TB, W 41-7 (7-5)
@Cin, L 25-10 (7-6)
Phi, L 23-13 (7-7)
@Was, L 27-17 (7-8)
Hou, W 14-12 (8-8)

'92 Cowboys:
@Cle, W 21-17 (1-0)
Was, L 34-0 (1-1)
Phi, L 11-0 (1-2)
@Phx, W 29-13 (2-2)
NYG, W 29-6 (3-2)
@GB, W 33-0 (4-2)
Cin, W 16-3 (5-2)
@Det, W 10-6 (6-2)
Phx, W 44-13 (7-2)
@Hou, W 34-23 (8-2)
@NYG, W 33-6 (9-2)
@Was, L 13-6 (9-3)
Pit, L 37-23 (9-4)
NO, W 19-7 (10-4)
@Phi, L 6-3 (10-5)
Atl, W 34-3, (11-5)

NFC
East: (1) Washington 15-1 or...16-0!**, (4) Philadelphia 11-5 or 12-4**, (5) Dallas 11-5, NYG 8-8, Phx 4-12
Central: (3) Chicago 11-5, (6) Detroit 11-5, Minnesota 7-9, Green Bay 4-12, Tampa Bay 3-13
West: (2) New Orleans 12-4, San Francisco 10-6, Atlanta 8-8, LA Rams 2-14

** - in this scenario, does Joe Gibbs and Rich Kotite do it '07 Belichick/Coughlin('54 Brown/Parker)-style for that finale at the Vet?

1990 New York Giants 8-8????

Yes, these standings, of course, based on results from up above with everything else staying as is. Played each game just once. 'Too Legit' getting swept by Joe Cool thus no playoffs at all! Bears win in an actual...play-in finale at the 'Stick and also win the division over the Lions who, yes, lost at home to Dallas in this case! San Fran, with Montana at all times, still starting off flat here, they do still rally, but come up just short in the very end at home to a team who IRL they were in-midst of sheer ownership of! Those who always didn't have much stock in this very '90 SF installment will sure have something to say here (especially the case with the '90 G-men here)!

In each game '90NYG/'90SF/'92Dal played against Philly, McMahon was their QB (the whole game) in this situation (still a shutout loss Wk#3 at Big D). Birds went 5-0 in those games hence their 12-4 top-WC finish instead of they not being in at all. Just for the heck of it, afterwards, I played Kemp in that late Dallas game and Eagles still won anyway. Jim's stats weren't that great in '91 anyway so would teams like...the '90 Giants & Forty NIners and the...'92 Boys really need for he to be out?

I was going to have 1990 Buffalo play all their '91 games but didn't bother. Yes, some of those inter-conference games contrary to what really happened butterflies/alters some playoff seedings in the AFC, but not enough for it to - let's face it - really make one assume that an even better Bills version still doesn't finish top-seed and make it to the Super Bowl. Whoever gets out the NFC in this scenario simply plays against the '90 Bills in that final game.

Well...here it is...

1st Rd: Cowboys 19, EAGLES 6; Lions 12, BEARS 7
Yes, McMahon played all game and Lions kick 4 FGs here!

Divisional: REDSKINS 23, Lions 19; Cowboys 20, SAINTS 17
Wash rallies 10-0 in 4th Q! NO one-and-done at home in this case as well!

CCG: Cowboys 20, REDSKINS 6

SUPER BOWL XXVI (Metrodome):
1992 Cowboys 24, 1990 Bills 23


PS - that Thanksgiving result NOT a misprint! Nor did I 'cheat'. Just simply 'clicked' and there it was.

[CSKreager]

IMO Gibbs is a historically overrated coach who benefitted basically from his offensive line, easy schedules, and fortunate circumstances

Three completely different times? Interesting.

1982: 9 game season, got to play the worst QB to ever make a Super Bowl in David Woodley
1987- 3 weeks of scabs, avoided 49ers/Saints in playoffs, got to host mediocre Minnesota team in NFC CG
1991- easy schedule, Giants aged out, 49ers shot themselves in the foot all season, Eagles without Randall were a defense without an offense

Gibbs’ 3 Super Bowl are honestly not impressive as it is made out to be.