7DnBrnc53 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:49 pm
CSKreager wrote:Sonny9 wrote:1991 Redskins. 7 games against teams with 10 or more wins
9 of their 14 wins were against teams that didn’t make the playoffs
They also beat one-hit wonders Atlanta and Detroit in the playoffs. This team gets way, way more credit than they deserve.
Ah Yes, the 91 Skins. One of the more interesting cases out there in my opinion.
On the downside of things, they were in the perfect spot in history to accomplish everything they did. Atlanta and Detroit who they played on the NFC side of the playoffs being labeled one hit wonders is rather fair (though Detroit would make the playoffs a few more times in the 90's, they wouldn't win another playoff game that decade).
Also, Dallas, San Francisco and New York were in transition simultaneously. Specifically, the Cowboys were pretty darn good, but hadn't drafted a few players from their Super Bowl teams (in the secondary in particular), San Fran had just handed Steve Young the keys to the car, and started Steve Bono for a few games. They played a good 10-6 season (one statistical analysis I did found them to be the second best team that regular season), but missed the playoffs for the only time from 1983-1998.
The Giants had an 8-8 record the year after winning the Super Bowl. They had lost Bill Parcells to retirement, and Bill Belichick was hired by Cleveland, and they were coached by Ray Handley. Even with Parcells and Belichick, I don't think they are repeating as champions, but that was an average team at the end of the day.
Also, if you are someone who is a fan of teams who were dynasties, or who favors teams with a lot of Hall of Fame players, then the 91 Skins probably won't occur to you either. In 1990 and 1992, they had many of the same players, and put together solid seasons that ended in the divisional round at the hands of the 49ers both times. They had only three Hall of Fame players as of the day of this writing (Darrell Green, Art Monk, and Russ Grimm; the latter of whom wasn't even starting anymore). If you want to include non players, that team was coached by Joe Gibbs and Bobby Beathard was the GM I believe, and both are in Canton.
Some also may mark them down for having Mark Rypien at quarterback who is one of the least accomplished Super Bowl winning quarterbacks career wise (though he arguably played well in 1991 itself).
So this was a team in a great situation, and who didn't have the most talent in the world, and didn't repeat. I could see why some would be lower on the 91 Skins because of that.
But on the upside of things, while the 91 Skins were handed a tremendous opportunity, they also parlayed that situation into a lot.
That Skins team went 14-2, with the losses by a combined five points. They had the top offense by points, and the second best defense by points.
In addition to a stellar point differential of +261 in the regular season (the best that year by a margin of 107), they also had the best differentials of yards (+1,448), first downs (+60), turnovers (+18), passer rating (+39.1), sacks (+41), adjusted net yards per attempt (+5.03), and third down conversion rate (+16.5%).
As far as I can tell, they are the only team in NFL history to officially lead the league in every differential I just listed in a season.
These Skins also had nine players named first or second team all pro by the Associated Press in the same season.
Jim Lachey at left tackle and Darrell Green at cornerback were the only first team all pro selections, but there were seven players that the AP named second team all pro:
Their kicker Chip Lohmiller, Mark Rypien at quarterback, Wilber Marshall at linebacker, Gary Clark at wide receiver, Earnest Byner at running back, Charles Mann at defensive end, and their return man Brian Mitchell.
If they are ranking top two by points on both sides of the ball, and had multiple all pros on both sides of the ball (or all three if you want to count special teams), then they must've been a very well rounded team.
The 2007 Patriots, 1998 Vikings, and 2012 49ers are the only other three teams since the merger (when all pro selections covered both conferences) to have nine players who were named first or second team all pro in a season. Say what you want about who did and didn't deserve that accolade, but if you are one of only four teams since the merger to do something positive like that like that, then it's something going for you.
Their schedule in the regular season was of opponents whose collective winning percentage was .5041 which is 12th among Super Bowl champions through 2023. Though as pointed out earlier, that did include a couple teams that narrowly missed the playoffs, and if I averaged the statistics of their opponents (which I did do an analysis of on my own time), it'd be well below average; though still probably better than 15 champions.
Also, while the 91 Skins had a relatively easy set of playoff opponents (as stated earlier they faced the Falcons and Lions, and a pretty good Bills team but arguably the worst of their four Super Bowl teams), they also played quite well in their playoff games.
In three playoff games, the 91 Skins put up a point differential of +61, had 14 takeaways to only two turnovers, had 14 sacks produced to none allowed, and never outright trailed.
The 91 Skins are the last team to my knowledge to go through an entire NFL postseason without ever trailing.
All told, a lot of analyses have found Washington in 1991 to have played the best regular season statistically of any team that played at least 16 games, and followed it up with a Super Bowl title. The now defunct Football Outsiders' DVOA stat has also found their team to have played the best season since 1981 after factoring in the playoff games.
Don't get me wrong, if you think the 91 Skins' season wasn't as impressive or the team wasn't one of the most talented ever, because of the things I typed earlier, I could totally see it. But if you think they played one of the best seasons ever because of the things I typed later and how they executed, I could totally see that line of logic too.
As for the hardest schedule ever, they aren't one of the hardest or easiest I'd say. The opposing record is above average for a Super Bowl champion, but a statistical analysis might find their schedule to be easier by a similar margin.
As for the statistical analysis I ran that produced the opposing record, (and a few other things I've thought of), I can share it in another post if you'd like. I'll also say that there are definitely teams with higher opposing win percentages and lower win percentages than any Super Bowl champion.
What do you think?