A Burgundy and Gold Obsession
Injuries or not, this one we gotta have.

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Disagree Disagree:  0
Post of the Year Post of the Year:  0
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-28-09
    Location
    Yorktown, VA
    Posts
    2,015
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Who would you...?

    A friend of mine posed an intersting question. He said that the '83 Redskins were one of our best teams ever. His question was who from this past year would make the '83 starting roster as an upgrade?

    We both felt Fletcher would help improve the '83 team. Then we got into discussion of Cooley over Walker or Warren, Moss over Alvin Garrett or Charlie Brown, and McIntosh over Milot.

    One stipulation is you can't change position. I wanted to take Samuels and move him to RT over Starke. Then came discussion about Landry over Curtis Jordan.

    So...who do you think from this past year's roster would be an upgrade over 83?
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  2. #2

    Vescere bracis meis

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Mechanicsville, VA
    Posts
    804
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    VCU

    Default

    Wow....interesting question. I need some beer and pretzels for this one. Even thought they lost the SB that 83' team was a machine and IMO the best Redskin team ever fielded.

    I guess you could have Moss as a 3rd receiver. He wouldn't bump Monk, because he's Art freakin' Monk, and the numbers can't support sitting Charlie Brown. His numbers would project to being close to Alvin Garrett (if Garrett started). Moss would fit in with the Smurfs.

    Moss - 09'
    Catches -70 Yards- 902 Average - 12.9 TD - 3

    Charlie Brown - 83'
    Catches - 78 Yards - 1225 Average - 15.7 TD - 8

    Alvin Garrett - 83'
    Catches - 25 Yards - 332 Average - 13.3 TD - 1

    I loved Darryl Grant but you might bump him for Haynesworth. You couldn't cut Grant completely because Haynesworth would never finish 16 games. Butz would stay since he had 11.5 sacks that season. Man....I don't know if you'd break up the Grant Butz DT combo after all. They worked so well together.

    I can't do this. Here is a link to some stats from the 83' team. The numbers are impressive. Riggo had 24 TDs that season! Theismann threw 29 TD's. THEY WERE A MACHINE I TELL YA....A MACHINE.

    http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/st...nnual/1983-was

    and the 09' team

    http://www.nfl.com/teams/washingtonr...stics?team=WAS
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
    H. L. Mencken

  3. #3

    Join Date
    06-30-09
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,567
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Indiana

    Default

    Uh...Brian Orakpo over Mel Kaufman perhaps? Or, London Fletcher over Neil Olkewicz, maybe?

    As good as Carter's been I don't think he's quite at Dexter Manley's level. Nobody even in Monk's neighborhood-he's one of my all-time favorite Redskins, along with Darrel Green-little did we know how good he'd wind up being(!).


    I may think of some more-one thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that players now are somewhat larger, faster and stronger than players 25+ years ago were and that the stats accrued by the players on the '83 Redskins may not have been as great if they were time-machined into the present and put up against some of the physical specimens that haunt the NFL now.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    I'm giving it a 2-4 year window. Looking for improvement in all areas. Redskins, you're on the clock.

  4. #4
    2016 BGO Survivor Champ

    Join Date
    08-01-09
    Location
    My location
    Posts
    10,679
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Florida State

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by servumtuum View Post
    I may think of some more-one thing I'm trying to keep in mind is that players now are somewhat larger, faster and stronger than players 25+ years ago were and that the stats accrued by the players on the '83 Redskins may not have been as great if they were time-machined into the present and put up against some of the physical specimens that haunt the NFL now.
    I here this argument a lot. While we know a time-machine travel scenario is just for our amusement, it is a relative situation. The 83 team put up great stats against some of the best the NFL had ever seen to that point. The players in that era were bigger, stronger and faster than the player ten years prior. Could you imagine if Dexter Manly played as a part of the Over the Hill gang in SB VII with his abilities? He was a freak of nature at his time, just like LT. Would LT be nearly as good now? I doubt it, but against the players who were the best in their time, he was above and beyond the best of them all. It's relative.

    Now as far as the players on the 83 team as opposed to the players on the 2009 team, provided we take into account the physical abilities would be relative to the era regarding size and speed, I am not sure I would want any of them from 2009. The 83 team was one of the best "teams" the NFL has ever seen. A couple of freak mistakes by the players and coaching staff and that team got themselves into a hole the Raiders would not let them dig out of in SB XVIII. Not sure I would want to break up the chemistry we had that year.

    When I think about this scenario, all I can think about is Joe Gibbs in an interview stating, "I want to thank players like Otis Wonsley!" Gibbs knew it was players like him who just did their job that helped make his teams successful not all-stars at every position.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  5. #5
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-28-09
    Location
    Yorktown, VA
    Posts
    2,015
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Even though players today are bigger, stronger, and faster I don't see myself wanting a LaRon Landry over a Mark Murphy.

    Would you want Randel El or Mike Nelms? There isn't anyone on OL in 2009 would take over OL in '83.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  6. #6
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    11-10-09
    Posts
    111
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Wasn't the secondary the weak link on the '83 team? If Tony Peters and Jeris White had stayed from the '82 team, we probably go 16-0 (although not sure if they could've prevented what happened in Tampa). Had to instead rely on that rookie scrub Darrell Green
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  7. #7
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    11-17-09
    Posts
    25
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hail2skins View Post
    Wasn't the secondary the weak link on the '83 team? If Tony Peters and Jeris White had stayed from the '82 team, we probably go 16-0 (although not sure if they could've prevented what happened in Tampa). Had to instead rely on that rookie scrub Darrell Green
    Not at all.. they were +45 in turnover ratio as a defense, the majority of them interceptions. That is a record I think may never be beaten.

    Mark Murphy came down with so many tipped balls it seemed like at least one every week.

    I'd say the one guy I'd replace from that team with a guy from this team it would be Todd Collins as the holder. I never am confortable with the starting quarterback as the holder. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

    ~Bang
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  8. #8
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Section 106/ Eastern Shore
    Posts
    936
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Navy Salisbury

    Default

    So I'd guess Hunter Smith would be an upgrade, plus a great holder.
    Fletcher probably......as well.

    Outside of that......
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    :evil:Bring on the 12th Man!!!!!!:evil:
    It Is What It Is.......
    (The Official Blog of Walking Deadman)

  9. #9
    kirbster
    Honored Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bang View Post
    Not at all.. they were +45 in turnover ratio as a defense, the majority of them interceptions. That is a record I think may never be beaten.

    Mark Murphy came down with so many tipped balls it seemed like at least one every week.

    I'd say the one guy I'd replace from that team with a guy from this team it would be Todd Collins as the holder. I never am confortable with the starting quarterback as the holder. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

    ~Bang
    Actually the secondary was the weak link that year. Remember the pearl harbor crew? They earned that nickname because they got bombed so much and were unable to stop teams from throwing on us. All season long, that was our weakness, and boy did it come out in the SB.

    I maintain the '91 team was the best Redskins team of all. They were a complete team with no significant weaknesses unlike the '83 team. I could accept the '83 offense as the best for the Redskins, but the '91 wasn't much worse, and I maintain it's the most true Joe Gibbs offense we had (what he'd wanted to run from the beginning but couldn't until he got the right personnel in place). The '91 team dominated as a complete team, much moreso than '83.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  10. #10

    Join Date
    04-12-09
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    4,552
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walking Deadman View Post
    So I'd guess Hunter Smith would be an upgrade,
    Nah. I'd keep Jeff Hayes. His 48-yard run on a fake punt was the play of the game in the three-point win over the Chargers. For a punter he was pretty darn fast.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  11. #11

    Vescere bracis meis

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Mechanicsville, VA
    Posts
    804
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    VCU

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kirbster View Post
    Actually the secondary was the weak link that year. Remember the pearl harbor crew? They earned that nickname because they got bombed so much and were unable to stop teams from throwing on us. All season long, that was our weakness, and boy did it come out in the SB.

    I maintain the '91 team was the best Redskins team of all. They were a complete team with no significant weaknesses unlike the '83 team. I could accept the '83 offense as the best for the Redskins, but the '91 wasn't much worse, and I maintain it's the most true Joe Gibbs offense we had (what he'd wanted to run from the beginning but couldn't until he got the right personnel in place). The '91 team dominated as a complete team, much moreso than '83.
    I see you working and I cant disagree on a lot of levels, but for the sake of argument..

    The reason the 83 team got thrown on so much was other teams were always behind. Certainly the Raiders were built around a long ball offense so that didnt help once we got to the SB. Still, if the offense would have kept focus prior to the game (Im being kind here, weve all read the stories) I think they would have beaten the Raiders easily; they had already beaten them earlier that season. If they had won the SB that team would be thought of as one of the all time greats.

    Its hard to find much fault with the 91 though. That offensive line was one of the most dominant Ive ever seen.

    Man, Id love to be having a conversation like this about a Redskin team a little more recent. 91 was a long time ago.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
    H. L. Mencken

  12. #12
    kirbster
    Honored Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hog Fever View Post
    Its hard to find much fault with the 91 though. That offensive line was one of the most dominant Ive ever seen.
    I still wish we'd played our starters in the final game that year. 33% of our sacks that season came in that one game as the backups played. 6 sacks in 15 games, 9 in 16. While 9 is still amazing, 6 would've been astounding. Truly amazing line play.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

 

 

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •