1989: The Retrospective Year Of The Unhappy Fan...

[polywog999]

First a little background of what we were going through...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1989.htm

We were coming off a poor year in 1988. We were 7-9 and going through a lot of change. Timmy Smith, after a stellar SB, bombed in completely underwhelming fashion. Barry Wilburn (starting cb) was injured, tried to come back to soon and was never the same. Bad, forgettable year.

Forward to 1989... It was starting off with much of the same. We lost our opener, we lost a heart breaker against Philly the next week, after leading by 21 points. We had acquired Gerald Riggs through a trade, but realized that he did not have much left in the tank(or something was not quite right, work with me!) The coup de grace was losing to Cowboys 3 to 13. It was the Boys only victory that year! The home fans were starting to chant "Joe must go" at home games. They were 4-5 and going no ware.

We were booing our beloved two-time SB coach!

The outlook was bleak.

The team turned it around, with a new featured back (Byner) and ended with a five game win streak. Last game, they shut out the Seahawks 29-0,
Just missing the playoffs. There were a lot of similarities between that 89 team and this years team. The team changed. The fans changed.

I don't know that we can end with a five game win streak and I'm sure that the "fire Vinnie" crowd will fill my ear for this, but the same feeling is in the air. We are turning this baby around.

Someone forgot to tell these silly skins that their season was done and that they should have been positioning for a low first round pick in the draft. Am I being a homer again? Of course! Time will tell if we are for real or just another pretender.

Maybe in 20 years, another post about winning back the fans.

[hail2skins]

Didn't that team have players that, I don't know, had been to a few Super Bowls together?

Lets stop with the comparisons to the 80s.

[polywog999]

Didn't that team have players that, I don't know, had been to a few Super Bowls together?

Lets stop with the comparisons to the 80s.
Sorry, not your call.

[ntotoro]

That team was actually good beforehand and won two Superbowls before that season. This team hasn't won a blessed thing. There is no comparison. The feeling is not the same. The situations are completely different as is the era.

[polywog999]

That team was actually good beforehand and won two Superbowls before that season. This team hasn't won a blessed thing. There is no comparison. The feeling is not the same. The situations are completely different as is the era.
They stunk it up the year before. We were annihilated by the "House of pain." We were not that good. 1982 was a ways off and people were saying we could only win the Superbowl during a strike shortened season anyway.

[ryren]

Soo... since we don't right now, does that mean that we're doomed? We'll never get things going again because we don't have players that have been to a few Super Bowls together? This just doesn't make sense.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Sometimes you have to start from somewhere Ntotoro.

Needless to say, this team has some losers that need to be let go sooner rather than later.

[scruffylookin]

I will say you are accurate in the fan discontent at mid year of 1989. After the loss to the Cowboys, I admit that for the first and only time of the Gibbs era I thought that his time might have passed.

I was livid that he stuck with Doug Williams in that Cowboys game despite how rusty and old he looked. I put that loss squarely on Gibbs' shoulders for being stubborn and not going back to Ryp in the second half.

It was the low point of the Gibbs era. They were a below average 11-15 after Super Bowl 22 and things were not looking good.

Now how one goes from that team and make the analogy to this team? I don't have a clue. Different era. Different leaders. Just different.

This team resembles a hybrid of the 2004 and 2006 team. The offense is mostly of the 2004 variety and the defense is not nearly as good as the 04 team but not quite as bad as the 06 team (yet).

[polywog999]

I will say you are accurate in the fan discontent at mid year of 1989. After the loss to the Cowboys, I admit that for the first and only time of the Gibbs era I thought that his time might have passed.

I was livid that he stuck with Doug Williams in that Cowboys game despite how rusty and old he looked. I put that loss squarely on Gibbs' shoulders for being stubborn and not going back to Ryp in the second half.

It was the low point of the Gibbs era. They were a below average 11-15 after Super Bowl 22 and things were not looking good.

Now how one goes from that team and make the analogy to this team? I don't have a clue. Different era. Different leaders. Just different.

This team resembles a hybrid of the 2004 and 2006 team. The offense is mostly of the 2004 variety and the defense is not nearly as good as the 04 team but not quite as bad as the 06 team (yet).
Even though you do not agree, I highly value your input!
Evidently you remember quite a bit of that anti-team feeling that was actually kind of understandable!

That ended up being one of my favorite years.

[addicted]

Since we are comparing the older teams lets look at the 1991 Superbowl team and our QB position. Some might have forgotten this but during the previous offseason it was discussed that we should find a new QB as our starting QB Mark Rypien was not under contract. Not too many were convinced that he could lead the team to the Superbowl. Mark was so convinced of his ability he signed a one year contract to prove he was worth a new long term deal to stay in Washington. In the opening game of the season the Redskins started the year off against Detriot at home. In that game Mark ran for a pivitol 1st down in the red zone taking a brutal hit in the process. He got up, shrugged it off and led us to our first TD of the year and won the game easily. The rest for Mark Rypien was history.

The question I have in comparing our current QB and Mark Rypien is do you think Jason Campbell feels as confident in his own abilities to accept a one year contract to prove his worth to the team like Mark did? It was a gutsy move for Rypien for sure, if he didn't do well in 1991 he was off the team. If he did well he was going to get paid well. Does Jason have what it takes to take on that challenge?

[polywog999]

Since we are comparing the older teams lets look at the 1991 Superbowl team and our QB position. Some might have forgotten this but during the previous offseason it was discussed that we should find a new QB as our starting QB Mark Rypien was not under contract. Not too many were convinced that he could lead the team to the Superbowl. Mark was so convinced of his ability he signed a one year contract to prove he was worth a new long term deal to stay in Washington. In the opening game of the season the Redskins started the year off against Detriot at home. In that game Mark ran for a pivitol 1st down in the red zone taking a brutal hit in the process. He got up, shrugged it off and led us to our first TD of the year and won the game easily. The rest for Mark Rypien was history.
Dude! Awesome post! Despite making the playoffs in 1990 It was a frustrating year. We were swept by the Giants and lost twice to the 49'ers.

[Darth Tater]

Even though you do not agree, I highly value your input!
Evidently you remember quite a bit of that anti-team feeling that was actually kind of understandable!

That ended up being one of my favorite years.

While I don't remember this level of hate (of course, no internet then so my memory is faulty), I do remember that much of the conventional wisdom was that our glory years were over. No more Butz and a lot of other guys from the defensive glory days were getting old or retired. Marshall was looking like a bust. Jacoby was fading and we really didn't know what we had with Lachey yet. Actually, most of the Hogs now were past their primes. Your right, it looked like we really hadn't fixed our problem at RB.

However, I feel a better comparison is the 2001 season. Although we had lost, we had looked much better in the games preceding the Carolina game. In the Carolina game, we actually looked worse. I remember that the feeling I had when that pass was up in the air that might've been the third touchdown was very similar to the feeling I had on the time between the play before the LA interception and the interception in the Carolina game.

[flave1969]

We had an offensive team that was averaging 438 ypg and 23.3 ppg through 9 weeks in 1989. We had three quality wide receivers, a good offensive line, decent tight end and complimentary running backs in Riggs and Byner. We have none of these things today, the only thing that the offense has in commmon is a QB position in a state of flux.

On D we could not stop the big plays or teams scoring. The turn round in the season came on Defense where they really tightened up in ypg and in ppg. The other turnaround came from within from quiet leaders like Art Monk who organised the players only meeting that got that year turned around.

In 2009 we have nothing like the talent of that offense at any position and no pedigree to build upon at this point. Both sides of the ball are a mess with not even close to the talent level on display in 89. We have lost our best players to injury and have little depth to back them up. Whatsmore please do not compare this coaching staff to that of 89, it should not merit even being mentioned in the same breath.

There are no parallels between these teams outside of the fact at 9 weeks they had losing records. There is big difference psychologically being 1 game below .500 and three games. Whatsmore we faced teams with losing records in 5 of the last 6 games. At this point we have to play 6 of 7 games against teams with winning records.

There are indeed few parallels between then and now.

[NewCliche21]

We had an offensive team that was averaging 438 ypg and 23.3 ppg through 9 weeks in 1989. We had three quality wide receivers, a good offensive line, decent tight end and complimentary running backs in Riggs and Byner. We have none of these things today, the only thing that the offense has in commmon is a QB position in a state of flux.

On D we could not stop the big plays or teams scoring. The turn round in the season came on Defense where they really tightened up in ypg and in ppg. The other turnaround came from within from quiet leaders like Art Monk who organised the players only meeting that got that year turned around.

In 2009 we have nothing like the talent of that offense at any position and no pedigree to build upon at this point. Both sides of the ball are a mess with not even close to the talent level on display in 89. We have lost our best players to injury and have little depth to back them up. Whatsmore please do not compare this coaching staff to that of 89, it should not merit even being mentioned in the same breath.

There are no parallels between these teams outside of the fact at 9 weeks they had losing records. There is big difference psychologically being 1 game below .500 and three games. Whatsmore we faced teams with losing records in 5 of the last 6 games. At this point we have to play 6 of 7 games against teams with winning records.

There are indeed few parallels between then and now.

I have nothing to add except my agreement.

[Darth Tater]

We had an offensive team that was averaging 438 ypg and 23.3 ppg through 9 weeks in 1989. We had three quality wide receivers, a good offensive line, decent tight end and complimentary running backs in Riggs and Byner. We have none of these things today, the only thing that the offense has in commmon is a QB position in a state of flux.

On D we could not stop the big plays or teams scoring. The turn round in the season came on Defense where they really tightened up in ypg and in ppg. The other turnaround came from within from quiet leaders like Art Monk who organised the players only meeting that got that year turned around.

In 2009 we have nothing like the talent of that offense at any position and no pedigree to build upon at this point. Both sides of the ball are a mess with not even close to the talent level on display in 89. We have lost our best players to injury and have little depth to back them up. Whatsmore please do not compare this coaching staff to that of 89, it should not merit even being mentioned in the same breath.

There are no parallels between these teams outside of the fact at 9 weeks they had losing records. There is big difference psychologically being 1 game below .500 and three games. Whatsmore we faced teams with losing records in 5 of the last 6 games. At this point we have to play 6 of 7 games against teams with winning records.

There are indeed few parallels between then and now.

We had a middle of the road offense and an atrocious defense and we were an aging team.

[NewCliche21]

We had a middle of the road offense and an atrocious defense and we were an aging team.

And I'd still take the '89 team over the '09 team any day of the week.

[grhqofb5]

1989 was the year of the posse. No group of Redskins receivers comes close. The team had a good mix of veterans (Monk, Grimm, Jacoby, Green, Clark, Grant, Mann) and some up and coming talent. I can see where the some of the anxiety may have come in (QB, new GM, RB carousel, Manley's issues), but at least there was a core there.

This team has virtually no talent, and what they do have is aging quickly.

[polywog999]

We had an offensive team that was averaging 438 ypg and 23.3 ppg through 9 weeks in 1989. We had three quality wide receivers, a good offensive line, decent tight end and complimentary running backs in Riggs and Byner. We have none of these things today, the only thing that the offense has in commmon is a QB position in a state of flux.

On D we could not stop the big plays or teams scoring. The turn round in the season came on Defense where they really tightened up in ypg and in ppg. The other turnaround came from within from quiet leaders like Art Monk who organised the players only meeting that got that year turned around.

In 2009 we have nothing like the talent of that offense at any position and no pedigree to build upon at this point. Both sides of the ball are a mess with not even close to the talent level on display in 89. We have lost our best players to injury and have little depth to back them up. Whatsmore please do not compare this coaching staff to that of 89, it should not merit even being mentioned in the same breath.

There are no parallels between these teams outside of the fact at 9 weeks they had losing records. There is big difference psychologically being 1 game below .500 and three games. Whatsmore we faced teams with losing records in 5 of the last 6 games. At this point we have to play 6 of 7 games against teams with winning records.

There are indeed few parallels between then and now.
What!?! Todd Bowles? Talent? Jamie Morris? Reggie Dupard? Someone help me out here! Half the guys on this team were not even talented in the least!
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1989.htm
They call me a blind Homer! Afraid the years have clouded your memory somewhat! LOL! What a load! :silly:

This is not a thread about us tearing it up in the playoffs. "PLay0fFs!?! What? Ru kiDiNG mE? Pl..."
This is a thread about turning around a season and wining back the fans.
For %$@$ sake look at the bums we played that year!
Atlanta! Dallas! Chargers! Late in the year it was like the bum of the month club.

Relax... put away the voodoo doll.

As for the coaching staff... You are correct. Especially Buges.

[Peregrine]

There is a BIG difference between then and now. They were 1 year removed from a super bowl. They were 4-5, and not against the weakest schedule in NFL history. That was a team that knew how to win, but wasn't doing it. Fans were just impatient. With this team fans have been VERY patient. This isn't a team that has a history of performing...

Just not quite the same.

[prufRock]

In 1921, the Cincinnati Celts of the American Professional Football Association were 1-3 and the fans were upset, calling for the head coach's job. The team wound up folding and the franchise never played another game.

I only bring that up because it has about as much to do with today's team as the 1989 Redskins.

[polywog999]

In 1921, the Cincinnati Celts of the American Professional Football Association were 1-3 and the fans were upset, calling for the head coach's job. The team wound up folding and the franchise never played another game.

I only bring that up because it has about as much to do with today's team as the 1989 Redskins.
:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

[flave1969]

What!?! Todd Bowles? Talent? Jamie Morris? Reggie Dupard? Someone help me out here! Half the guys on this team were not even talented in the least!

Art Monk, Ricky Sanders, Gary Clark, Joe Jacoby, Russ Grimm, Jim Lachey, Mark Schlereth, Russ Grimm, Jeff Bostic, Don Warren, Raleigh McKenzie, Mark May, Ed Simmons, Earnest Byner, Gerald Riggs.

That is serious talent at skill positions and really good depth on the line.

The main problem with the offense and a serious one at that was ball security. 6 Turnovers against Philly, 8 against the Raiders. It was killing us but the point is we had the talent to turn that around, unless you consider the above lacking talent.


http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1989.htm
They call me a blind Homer! Afraid the years have clouded your memory somewhat! LOL! What a load! :silly:[QUOTE=polywog999;7031598]

My memory serves me well as it happens I remember how poor our D played to start the year despite a host of turnovers in our favour and a lot of sacks. We were thin at LB and the secondary was inexperienced outside Darrell.


[QUOTE=polywog999;7031598]
This is not a thread about us tearing it up in the playoffs. "PLay0fFs!?! What? Ru kiDiNG mE? Pl..."
This is a thread about turning around a season and wining back the fans.
For %$@$ sake look at the bums we played that year!
Atlanta! Dallas! Chargers! Late in the year it was like the bum of the month club.

Relax... put away the voodoo doll.

As for the coaching staff... You are correct. Especially Buges.


Lol. I think you need to relax. I don't remember cursing. I don't remember even mentioning playoffs. You even agree with my point about the strength of schedule above so I am not even sure where you are coming from.

It was you who said there were a lot of similarities between that 89 team and todays one. I pointed out the reasons why,(talent, coaching strength of schedule et al) there is little that is tangible to compare the two teams.

If you had put any team based details in your OP that can show this thing will be turned around and stayed away from the partly spurious comparisons then I would likely move on.

[polywog999]

There is a BIG difference between then and now. They were 1 year removed from a super bowl.
They were 4-5, and not against the weakest schedule in NFL history. That was a team that knew how to win, but wasn't doing it. Fans were just impatient. With this team fans have been VERY patient. This isn't a team that has a history of performing...

Just not quite the same.

Our stellar competition...

New York Giants L 27-24 12-4
Philadelphia Eagles L 42-3 11-5
Dallas Cowboys W 30-7 1-15!!!!
New Orleans Saints W 16-14 9-7
Phoenix Cardinals W 30-28 5-11
New York Giants L 20-17 12-4
Tampa Bay Buccaneers W 32-28 5-11
Los Angeles Raiders L 37-24 8-8
Dallas Cowboys L 13-3 1-15 !!!!
Philadelphia Eagles W 10-3 11-5
Denver Broncos L 14-10 11-5
Chicago Bears W 38-14 6-10
Cardinals W 29-10 5-11
San Diego Chargers W 26-21 6-10
Atlanta Falcons W 31-30 3-13
Seattle Seahawks W 29-0 7-9

[polywog999]

Original Quote by flave1969]
Lol. I think you need to relax. I don't remember cursing. I don't remember even mentioning playoffs. You even agree with my point about the strength of schedule above so I am not even sure where you are coming from.


Sorry! Got a little carried away. What strength of schedule?
This?

New York Giants L 27-24 12-4
Philadelphia Eagles L 42-3 11-5
Dallas Cowboys W 30-7 1-15!!!!
New Orleans Saints W 16-14 9-7
Phoenix Cardinals W 30-28 5-11
New York Giants L 20-17 12-4
Tampa Bay Buccaneers W 32-28 5-11
Los Angeles Raiders L 37-24 8-8
Dallas Cowboys L 13-3 1-15 !!!!
Philadelphia Eagles W 10-3 11-5
Denver Broncos L 14-10 11-5
Chicago Bears W 38-14 6-10
Cardinals W 29-10 5-11
San Diego Chargers W 26-21 6-10
Atlanta Falcons W 31-30 3-13
Seattle Seahawks W 29-0 7-9


If you had put any team based details in your OP that can show this thing will be turned around and stayed away from the partly spurious comparisons then I would likely move on.

I have to show you how we are going to win?
Man, I got to sleep sometime! I've been online since 5am! :hysterical:

[kentuckyskinsfan]

Ahhhh, we won Superbowl's back then. We have been waiting for twenty years and a generation...and counting...

[polywog999]

Ahhhh, we won Superbowl's back then. We have been waiting for twenty years and a generation...and counting...
It was a different world... no free agency!

[Annonymous Source]

I dont even follow what most of this argument is about...
Polywog, I will have to disagree with you on your main premise. In both years the fans were discontented with on field performance, but this year the issues go off the field. There is a deep seated dislike of ownership currently that Cooke was able to dodge for the most part.

This means that there is no way to compare the actual level of fan discontent (although I do feel that your assesment of the talent level of both teams is fairly accurate...fans remember the great names, and forget the decline in performance at the end) Winning will not cure all the ills that this franchise is currently undergoing, because the problems run much deeper than that.

Anyways I dunno how this thread got sidetracked into a discussion of relative wins and losses between then and now, because that whole discussion is absurd. The real question is why are fans upset now, and I hope that my post provides an answer.

[polywog999]

I dont even follow what most of this argument is about...
Polywog, I will have to disagree with you on your main premise. In both years the fans were discontented with on field performance, but this year the issues go off the field. There is a deep seated dislike of ownership currently that Cooke was able to dodge for the most part.

This means that there is no way to compare the actual level of fan discontent (although I do feel that your assesment of the talent level of both teams is fairly accurate...fans remember the great names, and forget the decline in performance at the end) Winning will not cure all the ills that this franchise is currently undergoing, because the problems run much deeper than that.

Anyways I dunno how this thread got sidetracked into a discussion of relative wins and losses between then and now, because that whole discussion is absurd. The real question is why are fans upset now, and I hope that my post provides an answer.
Thank you for posting Annonymous! Quite alright that we disagree. I count on strong opposition to all my threads!
Similarities...

We had a losing record, midpoint.
We lost to the worst team in the league.
We under achieved.
Philly and the Giants both had better records and both beat us in their first game.
Fans were starting to revolt.
Both teams (89,09)came back to life on the strength of the running game.
Unrest at QB and RB positions.
Lots of turnovers from the offense.
Broken down starting running back...

I can't for the life of me see how no one notices the similarities.

Oh, that's right... banking on failure to get a higher pick!

[iMeast]

Hope ... the only thing a Redskins fan can hold onto these days. Give the guy a break we all want the Redskins to win.

HTTR

[redskins55]

First a little background of what we were going through...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/1989.htm

We were coming off a poor year in 1988. We were 7-9 and going through a lot of change. Timmy Smith, after a stellar SB, bombed in completely underwhelming fashion. Barry Wilburn (starting cb) was injured, tried to come back to soon and was never the same. Bad, forgettable year.

Forward to 1989... It was starting off with much of the same. We lost our opener, we lost a heart breaker against Philly the next week, after leading by 21 points. We had acquired Gerald Riggs through a trade, but realized that he did not have much left in the tank(or something was not quite right, work with me!) The coup de grace was losing to Cowboys 3 to 13. It was the Boys only victory that year! The home fans were starting to chant "Joe must go" at home games. They were 4-5 and going no ware.

We were booing our beloved two-time SB coach!

The outlook was bleak.

The team turned it around, with a new featured back (Byner) and ended with a five game win streak. Last game, they shut out the Seahawks 29-0,
Just missing the playoffs. There were a lot of similarities between that 89 team and this years team. The team changed. The fans changed.

I don't know that we can end with a five game win streak and I'm sure that the "fire Vinnie" crowd will fill my ear for this, but the same feeling is in the air. We are turning this baby around.

Someone forgot to tell these silly skins that their season was done and that they should have been positioning for a low first round pick in the draft. Am I being a homer again? Of course! Time will tell if we are for real or just another pretender.

Maybe in 20 years, another post about winning back the fans.

It's a reach.. but I hope your right! ;)

[hail2skins]

I'm just struggling with the concept of "we are turning this around." Based on.....what? Winning one game against a team that had a QB that looked like he belonged on a high school field playing in the second half?

Here are some more recent examples of Skins teams that won midseason games at home:

2002: a 4-6 Skins team beat a 5-5 defending NFC Champion Rams team 20-17 at home......and finished 7-9

2003: a 3-5 Skins team beat a 6-2 Seahawks team 27-20 at home......and finished 5-11

2006: a 2-5 Skins team beat a 4-3 Cowboys team 22-19 at home.....and finished 5-11

I will admit that the offense last week looked better than than it has been. But it just seems like the win last week, combined with this being Dallas week, is giving some folks a real false sense of confidence.

Lets string together several wins in a row before we start making these pronouncements.

[polywog999]

I'm just struggling with the concept of "we are turning this around." Based on.....what? Winning one game against a team that had a QB that looked like he belonged on a high school field playing in the second half?

Here are some more recent examples of Skins teams that won midseason games at home:

2002: a 4-6 Skins team beat a 5-5 defending NFC Champion Rams team 20-17 at home......and finished 7-9

2003: a 3-5 Skins team beat a 6-2 Seahawks team 27-20 at home......and finished 5-11

2006: a 2-5 Skins team beat a 4-3 Cowboys team 22-19 at home.....and finished 5-11

I will admit that the offense last week looked better than than it has been. But it just seems like the win last week, combined with this being Dallas week, is giving some folks a real false sense of confidence.

Lets string together several wins in a row before we start making these pronouncements.

Will do! Thanks for telling me what I can and can't write!
I always listen to other people who tell me how to do things. I'm sure you do as well!

Now buzz off!

[hail2skins]

Polywog, I'm not telling you you can't express your opinion, and that it may not have some validity.......and admittedly maybe I'm coming across as harsh.

But what do you see as the mid-to-long term outcome here? Lets say the Redskins, as many expect, still finish out this year on a losing note? Then next year, somehow, we get into the playoffs (as we did in '90), and then the next year take it all the way (as we did in '91)?

Will you point back to mid-2009 as the "turning point".......or do you think it'll be the result of something else?

[NewCliche21]

Polywog, I'm not telling you you can't express your opinion, and that it may not have some validity.......and admittedly maybe I'm coming across as harsh.


Don't fall for it. As he's shown, and even outright said in a lot of his posts, most of what he says is a show. He does it to rile people up and elicit responses.

I still like him, but I wouldn't waste my time thinking that I've in any way offended him.

[DexterSackMachine]

First of all, I followed every move the Redskins made (obsessively) in 1989 and your post is the first time I have ever heard of a "Joe Must Go" chant in 1989 or any time prior to 2007. I guess it's possible that it happened, but must have been on a very small scale.

The 1989 Redskins were much better than this team. They still had an all-world OL buoyed by the 1988 in-season acquisition of Jim Lachey. They had also (In true Redskins overdoing it fashion) acquired 2 starting caliber RBs in draft day trades. They still had the Posse and the defense was still solid. They lost on the final play to the Giants in the opener, and then lost on a fluke fumble while icing the Philly game. In other words, they were a couple of plays away from being 12-4. A far cry from this team.

Finally, the 1988 falloff was a bit of a fluke for the SuperBowl champs. Doug Williams was one of the primary culprits as he could not sustain his health or play as the full time starter once again. They traded away Jay Schroeder who had carried them through a good part of the 87 season and were left with a third year rookie (Rypien) to fumble away several games. In addition, they had nothing at RB after George Rogers departure. Coincidentally, they did seem to suffer from meshing in some big name new faces (Lachey & Wilbur Marshall) just like the 2009 team.

My stance is that the 10-6 1989 team was worlds better than the 2009 team, no matter what we do the rest of the year.

[polywog999]

Polywog, I'm not telling you you can't express your opinion, and that it may not have some validity.......and admittedly maybe I'm coming across as harsh.

But what do you see as the mid-to-long term outcome here? Lets say the Redskins, as many expect, still finish out this year on a losing note? Then next year, somehow, we get into the playoffs (as we did in '90), and then the next year take it all the way (as we did in '91)?

Will you point back to mid-2009 as the "turning point".......or do you think it'll be the result of something else?
Sorry, the buzz off was more for comedic effect.
You know It could go ether way. I concede that It might not, but what kind of homer would I be if I didn't have high hopes and what kind of boring thread would this be if I wasn't my pampas, irascible, but fun loving self?

[polywog999]

First of all, I followed every move the Redskins made (obsessively) in 1989 and your post is the first time I have ever heard of a "Joe Must Go" chant in 1989 or any time prior to 2007. I guess it's possible that it happened, but must have been on a very small scale.

The 1989 Redskins were much better than this team. They still had an all-world OL buoyed by the 1988 in-season acquisition of Jim Lachey. They had also (In true Redskins overdoing it fashion) acquired 2 starting caliber RBs in draft day trades. They still had the Posse and the defense was still solid. They lost on the final play to the Giants in the opener, and then lost on a fluke fumble while icing the Philly game. In other words, they were a couple of plays away from being 12-4. A far cry from this team.

Finally, the 1988 falloff was a bit of a fluke for the SuperBowl champs. Doug Williams was one of the primary culprits as he could not sustain his health or play as the full time starter once again. They traded away Jay Schroeder who had carried them through a good part of the 87 season and were left with a third year rookie (Rypien) to fumble away several games. In addition, they had nothing at RB after George Rogers departure. Coincidentally, they did seem to suffer from meshing in some big name new faces (Lachey & Wilbur Marshall) just like the 2009 team.

My stance is that the 10-6 1989 team was worlds better than the 2009 team, no matter what we do the rest of the year.
I'm completely fine with that. I remember the year very well and in spite of an easy schedule, I think we had a good team.
I like the way the year rounded out and I am hoping for the same this time around.

My crystal ball, though, has gone missing. I only believe that is what will happen.

[polywog999]

Don't fall for it. As he's shown, and even outright said in a lot of his posts, most of what he says is a show. He does it to rile people up and elicit responses.

I still like him, but I wouldn't waste my time thinking that I've in any way offended him.
That you sniping at me from the grassy knoll NewCliche21? :D
You never responded to me in your crow thread. Would liked to have heard your comments on what I wrote. :)

[NewCliche21]

That you sniping at me from the grassy knoll NewCliche21? :D
You never responded to me in your crow thread. Would liked to have heard your comments on what I wrote. :)

Hahaha, you know I'm just messing with ya!

And the crow thread dropped off the front page while I was at work, so I didn't want to bump it.

Anyway, I just think that the comparisons to the '89 team aren't valid in terms of talent, but maybe if you're only referencing the fans' perception of the team/coaching/management? I could see where you're going with that.

[polywog999]

Hahaha, you know I'm just messing with ya!

And the crow thread dropped off the front page while I was at work, so I didn't want to bump it.

Anyway, I just think that the comparisons to the '89 team aren't valid in terms of talent, but maybe if you're only referencing the fans' perception of the team/coaching/management? I could see where you're going with that.
Thanks, I feel some folks are trying to hold up a mirror to show me that it isn't the same and missing the boat. I do not believe that we have a "better" team, but we could do some good things with the way we have come on as of late. That is a 'could' not a will.

[MarkB452]

We had an offensive team that was averaging 438 ypg and 23.3 ppg through 9 weeks in 1989. We had three quality wide receivers, a good offensive line, decent tight end and complimentary running backs in Riggs and Byner. We have none of these things today, the only thing that the offense has in commmon is a QB position in a state of flux.

On D we could not stop the big plays or teams scoring. The turn round in the season came on Defense where they really tightened up in ypg and in ppg. The other turnaround came from within from quiet leaders like Art Monk who organised the players only meeting that got that year turned around.

In 2009 we have nothing like the talent of that offense at any position and no pedigree to build upon at this point. Both sides of the ball are a mess with not even close to the talent level on display in 89. We have lost our best players to injury and have little depth to back them up. Whatsmore please do not compare this coaching staff to that of 89, it should not merit even being mentioned in the same breath.

There are no parallels between these teams outside of the fact at 9 weeks they had losing records. There is big difference psychologically being 1 game below .500 and three games. Whatsmore we faced teams with losing records in 5 of the last 6 games. At this point we have to play 6 of 7 games against teams with winning records.

There are indeed few parallels between then and now.
>> Monk actually gave that speech in 1990, when the team was 6-5 and struggling and on the verge of missing the playoffs for the third time in three years.
(See P. 170 - Redskins - A History of Washington's team (Wash Post))

[BigRedskinDaddy]

While I applaud the glass-is-half-full outlook, I must side with others in this thread who argue that such comparisons are pretty far-fetched. The mental toughness and perserverance of that squad, starting with it's unflinching HC, was like night and day compared to this current version. We've all seen players take parts of games off this year; with the exception of a few true warriors like Fletch and Iron Mike, most of the roster is teetering on the brink of completely mailing the rest of the year in.

That never happened to a Gibbs team. I don't care how bad things got for his units, they never packed it in. I lay some of that at Zorn's feet; his California cool "stay medium" mantra in hindsight was almost an open invitation to just shrug it all off, if one felt like it -- but even if he was a firebrand in the Cowher mold I don't think he would have a lot of guys playing any harder, and that my friends, is doubly disheartening to me as a lifelong fan.

'Skins teams ALWAYS fight to the bitter end. Don't they? Teams like the Lions, the Browns and the Raidahs quit, not the B&G....

right?

[polywog999]

'Skins teams ALWAYS fight to the bitter end. Don't they? Teams like the Lions, the Browns and the Raidahs quit, not the B&G....

right?
Sorry, I can't agree. I don't see any quit in this team. You will not see the kind of late game effort you have seen with this years Skins, with a bunch of 'quitters'. Also, skins have not really been blown out this or last year. That's because they are trying to win the game!

It is easy to think Zorn is laid back, because of his 'nice guy persona', but I think he is doing a fine job, in spite of what the so-called experts are saying.

We shall see if what I say comes to fruition, until then, I'm just another talking head.

[JoeGibbs3.0]

Fans are basically myophic and insane. How unhappy could you be if you won the super bowl the year before>

Scruffy? Gibbs time had passed? Did the world change in less then a calender year??

[polywog999]

Fans are basically myophic and insane. How unhappy could you be if you won the super bowl the year before>

Scruffy? Gibbs time had passed? Did the world change in less then a calender year??
Don't know what you remember from those days, but I remember them very clearly. They chanted "Joe must go" in RFK that year. I couldn't believe it. I was a homer then, just like I'm a homer now. It made me sick.

Aside from us fans being "myopic" and insane, did you have anything else to add?

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Sorry, I can't agree. I don't see any quit in this team. You will not see the kind of late game effort you have seen with this years Skins, with a bunch of 'quitters'. Also, skins have not really been blown out this or last year. That's because they are trying to win the game!

It is easy to think Zorn is laid back, because of his 'nice guy persona', but I think he is doing a fine job, in spite of what the so-called experts are saying.

We shall see if what I say comes to fruition, until then, I'm just another talking head.

You could well be right about the lack of quit -- it might be my perception is a little off on that. With each passing season I seem to have more questions than answers, and that adds to my mounting frustration. Still, I'm not going anywhere, ever. This team is what brung me, so to speak, and I'll dance with it until the lights come up.

Regarding JZ, he has done better in some areas than I expected but his shortcomings on the offensive side of the ball are particularly galling, especially considering he was initially brought in as our OC. With his background as a player and a coach I expected more, regardless of whether he had the athletes he needed to run his scheme to perfection. One of the hallmarks of truly excellent HC's, I believe, is adaptability. The best-laid season and game plans never go exactly according to the script, and if you want to take your team into the postseason you adjust on the fly.

He has been IMO very stubbornly resistant to that kind of flexibility from what I see, read and hear since he took over. That's kind of puzzling to me, because it's apparent he has an agile, quick mind. The old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," conversely says "if it IS broken, roll up your sleeves and get to work post-haste." Given that, and the statistical reality that our offense, Zorn's offense, is not only not progressing but regressing in a year and a half of play, leads me to the conclusion that either A) he doesn't believe it's broken, or B) he is not equal to the task of fixing it with the ideas he comes up with.

If I'm wide of the mark here I hope someone says so, because I would like to have some better understanding of why we struggle to score points as much as we have lately with an offensive HC at the helm. I'm far from an expert on these things, so I may not be accurately appraising the situation, I dunno.

[polywog999]

...
If I'm wide of the mark here I hope someone says so, because I would like to have some better understanding of why we struggle to score points as much as we have lately with an offensive HC at the helm. I'm far from an expert on these things, so I may not be accurately appraising the situation, I dunno.
Awesome post! No one can call out a post like that! :point2sky