PDA

View Full Version : Historical Redskins Question?? Post Whatever Questions You Have as Well.


smoak
01-12-2006, 02:04 PM
All -

First off, let me say that this little tidbit of information won me $5, and if you ever get into a similar discussion, maybe you can use it for financial gain as well.

In 1994, the Washington Redskins played the Tampa Bay Buccaneers twice in the regular season (see link below for proof). I knew that because 1994 was the first year I started going to games and I have a magnetic schedule with a two games against the Bucs in a three week stretch. What I have never understood is how did that happen? Why did the Skins play the Bucs twice? I don't get it? I know it is painful to think back about the Norv Turner years, but any help is greatly appreciated.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was1994.htm

bwparker
01-12-2006, 02:08 PM
We also played a team from a city I've never heard of 3 times. "New"? where is that? looks like the changed thier name mid-season too, from the Orleans Saints to the York Giants...wierd.

Ok that was a bad joke...the Bucs thing IS wierd, I'll see if I can dig anything up online.

smoak
01-12-2006, 02:11 PM
We also played a team from a city I've never heard of 3 times. "New"? where is that? looks like the changed thier name mid-season too, from the Orleans Saints to the York Giants...wierd.

Ok that was a bad joke...the Bucs thing IS wierd, I'll see if I can dig anything up online.

Online knowledge rocks, but I'll be really impressed if someone knows this off the top of their head.

bwparker
01-12-2006, 02:17 PM
wait...Do you know it already and you're testing people? I'm just looking at the schedule and trying to piece it together, I think I have clue right now

smoak
01-12-2006, 02:20 PM
No, I just brought it up in terms of how Tampa is becoming our biggest non-divisional rival (replacing San Fran) and mentioned the fact. I was immediately told I was mistaken with such arrogance that I asked the guy if he wanted to put money on it (knowing I was correct). I am not aware of this ever happening with any other non divisional teams and there was no work stoppage that season???

I am really curious to know why we played Tampa twice.

bwparker
01-12-2006, 02:32 PM
Well, judging from appearances, it looks like back then you played every team that finished even with you in division rankings.(NFC and AFC). 4 of the divisions had 5 teams, the other two had 4..that creates a scheduling problem. what do the 5 place teams do for thier two games against those divisions?

I'm going to map it out further...but my guess is it comes from resolving this conflict.

smoak
01-12-2006, 02:33 PM
Well, judging from appearances, it looks like back then you played every team that finished even with you in division rankings.(NFC and AFC). 4 of the divisions had 5 teams, the other two had 4..that creates a scheduling problem. what do the 5 place teams do for thier two games against those divisions?

I'm going to map it out further...but my guess is it comes from resolving this conflict.

I guessed that it had something to do with the uneven divisions, but then why wasn't it an issue any other year?

-- It looks like we are the only two who care. ;)

bwparker
01-12-2006, 02:40 PM
I guessed that it had something to do with the uneven divisions, but then why wasn't it an issue any other year?

-- It looks like we are the only two who care. ;)
It certainly does look that way...I was right. It only effects the LAST place team in the 5 team divisions, the play the last place team from the other 5 team division twice.The Colts played the Seahawks twice as well.

Two new teams were added in '95 to make all the divisions 5 teams(Jags and Panthers I think). So it goes away after that.

Look at the Cardinals from '93. they finished dead last in '92 and played the last place Lions twice. Looks like the NFL resolved tiebreakers differently than pro-football-reference.

bwparker
01-12-2006, 02:43 PM
I went back a few years to verify it looks like my theory is correct. Tampa and the Cardinals must have seen alot of each other over those years :)

BurgundyNGold
01-12-2006, 03:48 PM
I guessed that it had something to do with the uneven divisions, but then why wasn't it an issue any other year?

-- It looks like we are the only two who care. ;)
No, I care. Just not that much. ;)

I would like to know if you find out though, but I just think it was a scheduling snafu.

smoak
01-12-2006, 04:06 PM
No, I care. Just not that much. ;)

I would like to know if you find out though, but I just think it was a scheduling snafu.

I'm pretty sure bw got it. It is just that the Skins had never finished dead last so we as a fanbase wouldn't know.

BurgundyNGold
01-12-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm pretty sure bw got it. It is just that the Skins had never finished dead last so we as a fanbase wouldn't know.
Well, there ya go. It sounds plausible.

helimech24
01-12-2006, 04:15 PM
I care. I love interesting useless info. It makes messing with people that much more fun.

cal_junior
01-12-2006, 04:26 PM
Ok, if questions are allowed I have one: How in the hell did we lose to the Raiders in the '84 Super Bowl. That was, like, the best Redskins team ever and they got spanked by 30. WTF????

smoak
01-12-2006, 04:28 PM
Ok, if questions are allowed I have one: How in the hell did we lose to the Raiders in the '84 Super Bowl. That was, like, the best Redskins team ever and they got spanked by 30. WTF????

Easy. The team was overconfident. They had beaten the Raiders (minus Marcus) earlier in the year, but it was still a dog fight. IMO it was not a better team than that '91 team.

PA Skins Girl
01-12-2006, 05:15 PM
It certainly does look that way...I was right. It only effects the LAST place team in the 5 team divisions, the play the last place team from the other 5 team division twice.The Colts played the Seahawks twice as well.

Two new teams were added in '95 to make all the divisions 5 teams(Jags and Panthers I think). So it goes away after that.

Look at the Cardinals from '93. they finished dead last in '92 and played the last place Lions twice. Looks like the NFL resolved tiebreakers differently than pro-football-reference.
Bingo.

BurgundyNGold
01-12-2006, 05:22 PM
Bingo.
Seriously, we should just have you handle these questions. I should've known that as soon as you go there that this question would be put to bed. :)

redskin_rich
01-12-2006, 05:28 PM
Ok, if questions are allowed I have one: How in the hell did we lose to the Raiders in the '84 Super Bowl. That was, like, the best Redskins team ever and they got spanked by 30. WTF????
The Skins were living it up in Tampa all week, they were overconfident and sure they would be the Champs. Meanwhile, the Raiders were busting their tails all week, thriving off of the underdog role.
There is a story, that I can't prove as fact, that Theismann got busted by his then-wife, in a hotel room with Cathy Lee Crosby, getting busy. I think every Redskins fan over 30 has heard it. That along with Riggo being miserably hungover were other theories but Riggo was always hungover, so I didn't buy that part of it.
Anyway, the Skins got massacred that Sunday and in one day Gibbs went from a genius to a buffoon, according to the Washington Post. :rolleyes:

PA Skins Girl
01-12-2006, 05:57 PM
Seriously, we should just have you handle these questions. I should've known that as soon as you go there that this question would be put to bed. :)
LOL! But BW beat me to it!

BurgundyNGold
01-12-2006, 06:00 PM
The Skins were living it up in Tampa all week, they were overconfident and sure they would be the Champs. Meanwhile, the Raiders were busting their tails all week, thriving off of the underdog role.
There is a story, that I can't prove as fact, that Theismann got busted by his then-wife, in a hotel room with Cathy Lee Crosby, getting busy. I think every Redskins fan over 30 has heard it. That along with Riggo being miserably hungover were other theories but Riggo was always hungover, so I didn't buy that part of it.
Anyway, the Skins got massacred that Sunday and in one day Gibbs went from a genius to a buffoon, according to the Washington Post. :rolleyes:
I recall hearing a rumor that Gibbs thought that Davis was spying in his practice sessions. For that reason, at the other two Superbowls, the team practiced in solitude.