PDA

View Full Version : Historical Rankings: No. 73



KDawg
November-5th-2010, 06:01 AM
Redskins Team Rankings:

It’s tough to compare eras, and I figured differential was as good a way as any to figure it out.

Formula:
1. Find rankings in offense to defense differentials for each category
2. Add rankings together
3. Sort rankings based on lowest to highest totals. Lowest is number one, highest is number seventy-seven.

***IMPORTANT INFORMATION: These are based on overall team statistics, please keep that in mind. Records don’t show the whole story when looking at the overall picture. In some cases a team that won 3 games could be worse than a team that won 1. These are statistical rankings. Keep that in mind.

There’s concern that this doesn’t take into account games played per season. I argue that it doesn’t really matter. A bad team is still a bad team. A good team is still a good team. It won’t vary their overall total by enough to make too large a difference. I’m confident teams are going to land at least in the vicinity of where they belong on the grand scheme.

I will post one as often as I can. We’ll start with No. 77 and work our way up to No. 1.

No. 73
1960 Washington Redskins coached by Mike Nixon

Rankings:
Record: 1-9-2, 8%. Ranked 76th.
Points: -131. Ranked 74th.
Yards: -1322. Ranked 74th.
Pass Yards: -1133. Ranked 76th.
Pass TD: -15. Ranked 74th.
INT: -8. Ranked 70th.
Rush Yards: -189. Ranked 49th.
Rush TD: 0. Ranked 31st.
Turnovers: -4. Ranked 54th.
Total: 579. Ranked 73rd.

To appease some, I’m not going back through and re-ranking the teams, it took entirely too long, but I’ll include their per game numbers in terms of differentials. Here they are:

Points: -10.91 points per game
Yards: -110.16 yards per game
Pass Yards: -94.41 yards per game
Pass TD: -1.25 PTD per game
Interceptions: -.66 interceptions per game
Rush Yards: -15.75 rush yards per game
Rush TD: +/- 0 RTD per game
Turnovers: -.33 turnovers per game

About the Team:

Of Mike Nixon’s two seasons as head coach of the Redskins, both teams managed to land in the bottom five of the all-time Redskin teams. I don’t know much about him, so I can’t say much as a coach, but that’s really bad timing to land as coach if it wasn’t his fault.

In 1960, the Redskins finished 1-9-2, statistically the second worst record a Redskin team has ever finished with, but their rushing differential helped save them from being the worst ‘Skin team of all time. The ‘Skins finished 6th in the NFL East, dead last.

Ralph Gugliemi was the quarterback and he threw for nine touchdowns and nineteen interceptions. Don Bosseler had 428 yards rushing and two touchdowns. Bill Anderson led the team in receiving with 38 receptions, 488 yards and three touchdowns.

Bob Scotti led the team in interceptions with four.

Bill Anderson and kicker Bob Khayat went to the Pro Bowl for this team

Mike Nixon coached two seasons and was 4-18-2.

Countdown:
77. 1954 Washington Redskins (Joe Kuharich) {653 points}
76. 1959 Washington Redskins (Mike Nixon) {626 points}
75. 1994 Washington Redskins (Norv Turner) {588 points}
74. 1963 Washington Redskins (Bill McPeak) {585 points}
73. 1960 Washington Redskins (Mike Nixon) {579 points}

Oldfan
November-5th-2010, 07:30 AM
Hey Dawg, I used a much simpler method based on net points adjusted for a 16-game season. So far, I have:

77. 1954 Kuharic
76. 1961 McPeak
75. 1959 Nixon
74. 1960 Nixon
73. 1993 Petitbon

Riggo-toni
November-5th-2010, 07:33 AM
Ah, the wonderful side effects of GPM's apartheid mentality. Do u think even Parcells could put together a winner if he could only sign whites.

KDawg
November-5th-2010, 09:03 AM
Hey Dawg, I used a much simpler method based on net points adjusted for a 16-game season. So far, I have:

77. 1954 Kuharic
76. 1961 McPeak
75. 1959 Nixon
74. 1960 Nixon
73. 1993 Petitbon

That doesn't seem too far off from what I have. Nice addition to the thread.

pjfootballer
November-5th-2010, 11:38 AM
Looks like most of the teams at the bottom will be from 1952-1969 and from the 1990's and 2000's

SonOfWashington
November-5th-2010, 11:48 AM
Looks like most of the teams at the bottom will be from 1952-1969 and from the 1990's and 2000's

No doubt. Though the 1969 season was a definite turnaround for this team, as we posted the first winning record in a number of seasons I believe. When Lombardi coached here for one season. And after Gibbs I ended, yikes...

KDawg
November-5th-2010, 03:58 PM
No doubt. Though the 1969 season was a definite turnaround for this team, as we posted the first winning record in a number of seasons I believe. When Lombardi coached here for one season. And after Gibbs I ended, yikes...

You're pretty close to the ballpark. :ols:

There's a few shockers in the bottom half of this thing, though. I guess I wouldn't use the word "shocker" but... You get my drift.

scruffylookin
November-6th-2010, 06:51 AM
I think what you are doing deserves a standing ovation KDawg. This really is alot of effort you are doing to come up with this list and I for one thank you.

Having said that I do see a flaw (not your fault it's just inherent in looking at stats alone) in compiling the list. The flaw is that the composition of the team isn't factored into the ranking. Case in point being 1993 vs 1994. Despite the numbers and losing one more game, the 1994 season was the team trying a rebuild whereas the 1993 season was the Gibbs 1 era collapsing as the old vets no longer could compete. I guess statistically they were worse so the list is fair but I always felt better about that 94 season (though the rebuild only ultimately got us to 9-7 two years later) than I do looking back at the 93 season.

To me 93 was the collapse and end of an era, 94 is the attempted rebuild and creation of a new one and feel that this effort to play younger players and rebuild should be factored in.

I guess technically 94 was a worse team but it was a better season than 93 because of the attempt to rebuild. If that makes any sense at all. :)

KDawg
November-6th-2010, 06:55 AM
I think what you are doing deserves a standing ovation KDawg. This really is alot of effort you are doing to come up with this list and I for one thank you.

Having said that I do see a flaw (not your fault it's just inherent in looking at stats alone) in compiling the list. The flaw is that the composition of the team isn't factored into the ranking. Case in point being 1993 vs 1994. Despite the numbers and losing one more game, the 1994 season was the team trying a rebuild whereas the 1993 season was the Gibbs 1 era collapsing as the old vets no longer could compete. I guess statistically they were worse so the list is fair but I always felt better about that 94 season (though the rebuild only ultimately got us to 9-7 two years later) than I do looking back at the 93 season.

To me 93 was the collapse and end of an era, 94 is the attempted rebuild and creation of a new one and feel that this effort to play younger players and rebuild should be factored in.

I guess technically 94 was a worse team but it was a better season than 93 because of the attempt to rebuild. If that makes any sense at all. :)

Makes 100% sense. I just wanted to keep this "opinion free" and going strictly by stats (differentials) I was able to do that. But I agree with you.