The Kevin Sheehan Show - Star-Studded Defense

Episode Date: May 29, 2020

Kevin opened with the 4th and 15/onside kick proposal being tabled. He talked some Dwayne Haskins' social media and then brought Ben Standig/The Athletic on to talk Redskins. They recapped the last two days of coordinator press avails including Jack Del Rio's yesterday. Then they got to Skins' past......specifically the Gibbs 1.0 era and whether or not it's been properly remembered. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In a world of uncertainty, one thing is for sure. Cancer doesn't stop during a global crisis. On Saturday, June 13th, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society will host a trailblazing event. Big Virtual Climb, sponsored by Abbe, to support their investment in groundbreaking research to advance blood cancer cures and its first-in-class patient education and services, including financial support and clinical trial navigation. Step up to take cancer down by climbing 61 floors or 1,762 steps inside or outside. On stairs, on the road, or your treadmill, climb your way. Join us for an opening ceremony and then take on your climb with our heart-pumping playlist. Join us on June 13th from coast to coast as we come together to climb, conquer, and cure.

Register at lLS.org slash big climb. You want it. You need it. It's what everyone's talking about. The Kevin Sheehan Show. Now here's Kevin. Ben Standing's going to be on the show today. Ben Standing, of course, good friend, writes for the athletic. Lots of things to talk about with Ben. And it's going to be a lengthy interview. We're going to talk about the two coordinators, Jack Del Rio and Scott Turner talking the last two days, see what we think Ben learned from those conversations. We will also talk. talk to Ben about two stories he's written over the last week dealing with the Gibbs era Redskins. So we'll get to that with Ben Standing coming up here shortly. First of all, this fourth and 15 thing did not pass. And it didn't pass because it wasn't voted on. The alternative to the onside kick, the fourth and 15 alternative. Apparently there was a straw vote and it was 16-16. You need three-quarters vote for it to pass. They didn't vote on it. They tabled it. It'll be voted somewhere down the road. I did see, though, the full explanation of the rule. Tom Pellasaro

put it out. I think Tom's with the NFL network. I'm pretty sure. He does a really good job, too. And he put together basically the summary of the rule proposal. And there are a couple of things in here that I didn't know. The things that I did know is that this would be an alternative, a kickoff alternative, that could be used only in regulation, and it could only be used twice, and could only be used twice in regulation, could not be used in overtime. I actually didn't know that portion of it, but it makes, I mean, first of all, are you going to use it in overtime? Probably not.

You're not going to choose to, you know, go with the fourth and 15 from your own 25 as your first snap in overtime as a kickoff alternative. the fourth and 15 from your own 25-yard line, we knew. You know, it would be officiated as a normal play. If it comes up seven-yard short, then the other team takes over at the 32-yard line, first and 10. If there's a penalty, the penalties apply just like they would on any fourth and 15 play. Here's something I did not know about the rule proposal. When the team elects the kickoff alternative, the fourth and 15 play,

The down becomes an untimed down. Well, an onside kick is not an untimed down. I don't know why this one would be. You know, is it because of the possibility that the play will take longer than an onside kick and they don't want that much clock taken off? I don't know, but the down itself would be an untimed down. I didn't know that about the rule proposal.

I think it should be a time down. You know, if you score with three seconds to go in the game to make it 24 to 20, 24 to 21, they'd go for two, 24-21, and you're lining up to kick an on-side kick, that's a time down, and the on-side kick's going to take some of those three seconds off the clock, if not all of them. You know, so the fourth and 15 play, if it's going to be used in lieu of an on-side kick, should also be a timed down, not an untimed-down. The other thing that apparently was in issue with this particular rule is that a lot of the people that voted against it didn't like that you could advance the fourth and 15 play, but you couldn't advance an onside kick. So there was some discussion about, look, if you convert it with a 25-yard pass, it goes to a 15-yard play.

And so the ball, if you convert it to keep the ball, it goes back to the 40-yard line, the 15-yard play. But, you know, that's not exactly how an on-side kick works. You know, it doesn't go back to 10 yards. You know, if the on-side kick gets knocked around a little bit and gets knocked forward and you recovered at the other team's 40-yard line, even though you kicked it off from your own 35-yard line, that's where you recovered it. You just can't advance it.

Apparently, there was some pushback on being able to advance the 4th and 15. You could theoretically score on that play. You could score on the on-side kick alternative with a 75-yard touchdown pass or a 75-yard run. And apparently there was pushback on that. But the real pushback, and this is the part I don't like, is that there were some, apparently, that just considered the play to be too gimmicky. I don't consider the play to be too gimmicky.

You know, what you're doing here is you have decided to essentially legislate a play that you've had available to teams in the past. you've legislated that play essentially out of the game for safety reasons. The formation on on-side kicks, that rule change in 20, you know, prior to the 2018 season, you know, where you couldn't overload one side and you couldn't get a running start were for safety reasons. Well, that's fine. But what it did is it lowered significantly the percentage of success on the play.

And so for all intents and purposes now, that play is such a long shot that you really don't have a chance to come back from two scores down late in the game with no timeouts. I mean, we've seen that the last few years. It's like, you know, you're done because you're not going to recover an onside kick. So why not try to get it back to what it used to be without having to impact the safety of the formation, you know, the risking safety with the old formation by coming. up with something that it's comparable, odds-wise, to the old onside kick. And that's what the

fourth and 15 was. And if you don't, if you think the fourth and 15 is too easy, if you got great quarterbacks, make it a fourth and 18 play, make it a fourth and 20 play. Just make it something that has a chance versus something that has, you know, nearly no chance, less than a 10% chance. I think it's tabled because it's not going to pass. If they only at 16 out of and needed 24, you know, what sort of new information is going to be provided between now and the time

that they actually vote on it where you're going to get eight new yeses. I think it's dead. I thought it had a legitimate chance. I really did. One last thing, then we'll get to Ben Standing. It's a Dwayne Haskins retweet. I'll just mention it real quickly. I'm a fan

of Dwayne Haskins. Most of you that listen to this podcast or the radio show know that, you know, as far as sports media people in this town, I'm as optimistic as anybody. Maybe somebody's as optimistic, but I'm very optimistic. I was impressed with Dwayne Haskins last year. I don't love the social media stuff. Either does his former coach, Urban Meyer, either does one of his mentor, Sean Springs. What he did today was he retweeted another compliment. It seems to be one of the things he does. It's ironic because his Twitter handle starts with, you know, his Twitter profile

profile includes the following line. A humble man is all this world will ever need. And then he does things that are very self-promotional. But, you know, this is not unique for athletes, for younger people, for older people, whatever. He's the quarterback of the Redskins. I wish he wouldn't do it. It comes off to me as needy and insecure. And he doesn't need to be that. He retweeted a compliment from Dan Orlovsky, the ESPN NFL analyst, who basically, you know, he's a you know, broke down Dwayne's season and was very complimentary. And he listed a bunch of things that Dwayne did really well. And Dwayne retweeted that with a couple of eyeball emojis and hashtag HTTR.

I just wish you wouldn't do it. He doesn't need to do it. Dan Orlovsky has 160,000 followers on Twitter. A lot of people were going to see what Dan Orlovsky wrote about Haskins. And a lot of people were going to retweet it as well. Duane doesn't need to do that. Other people can speak on his behalf. Other people can promote him. He does not need to self-promote.

You know, for his business that he has, okay, that's different. For his job as the Redskins quarterback, trust me, if he keeps progressing like he did last year, there are going to be plenty of people tweeting comments, positive comments about him, and he's not going to need to retweet those. Everybody else is going to do it for him. You know, anyway, that's it. A quick word about hawthorne.co, that's hawthorne with an e. dot co, not dot com. Hawthorne.com is basically a site for guys primarily who don't have any of the following things figured out.

You know, you don't know if you're using the right deodorant or if it's a deodorant that matches well with your personal tastes. You don't even know if you're using the right bar soap or body wash or shampoo. who, all of those different things, you can figure out at hawthorne.co. It starts with this, a simple quiz where you don't have to mention anything specific or even buy anything. And they take you through a quiz that helps you identify the right products for you, based on things like your skin type or your hair type, or how many times you, you know, you shower a day. and whether or not you have sensitive skin or very oily skin or normal skin. Do you use bar soap or body wash or both?

It even gets into questions about whether or not you feel sweats okay like it's a natural thing or, you know, if to you're trying to absorb and minimize sweat or prevent sweat completely. It gets into the real details about the fragrances that might work for you. It also will ask you some questions about, hey, what kind of cocktail do you like? Is it beer, whiskey, booze, wine? Do you smoke? They want to know about whether or not you're a smoker and where you work and what kind of job you have. And, you know, your night out is it at a club or a bar or dinner or at a friend's house?

And they even ask you a question in this quiz about your personality. You don't have to purchase anything. But what they're doing for you is they're setting up a list of products. that fit you when it comes to deodorant and bar soap and body wash and shampoo, et cetera. Take this quiz. It takes no more than two minutes to take. And I promise you that it'll be worth your while because I don't think most of you have a clue as to what kind of soap or what kind of deodorant you should be wearing.

Most of you are wearing the deodorant that your wife or your girlfriend purchased for you years ago. smelling good is important. Hawthorne smells really good. Getting Hawthorne is easy. Again, this could be a perfect Father's Day gift for you or for your own dad. Take the two minute quiz at Hawthorne. It tells you the two colognes that are best for you, one for work and one for play, by the way.

So it'll give you two recommendations. It's risk-free. All right, you get free shipping, free returns on anything you get. Check out Hawthorne at hawthorne. That's hawthorne with an e and dot co, not dot com. Hawthorne.co, use my promo code, Kevin D.C. K-E-V-I-N-D-C to get 10% off your first purchase. That's hawthorn.co.

Use my promo code, Kevin, D.C. to get 10% off your first purchase, Hawthorne.co. All right, let's bring in our good friend, Ben Standing, from the athletic. You can follow him, of course, on Twitter at Ben Standing, but I really urge you to subscribe to the Athletic. Right now, Ben, just catch me up to speed. Is it still free for a period of time? I believe the answer is yes.

They've been moving the goalpost around. I don't know if we still have the 90-day thing or not, but there's definitely an opportunity to go look at the athletic for a free trial one way or the other. So go, yeah, just go do that. I'm a subscriber to the Athletic, and it's all for the athletics coverage of local teams, and I would urge you to do the same,

especially if there's an opportunity to do it and sample it for free. Everybody knows that Ben's been covering sports in this town for a while and has been covering the skins for a while now for the athletic. You've written a couple of stories here recently, and I do want to get to those, but I want to start with more of the last two days specifically the two Zoom conference calls with the coordinators.

Scott Turner and Jack Del Rio. And I want to start with Del Rio from yesterday. His was super long. Lots of information there. But I'm going to start with something that I spent time talking about on the radio show this morning. And, you know, I'm not going to tell you that it really got me worked up because it didn't. I'm not super worked up over it because I've come to expect it. But I did give the context for it, which is when he first got it,

here, he basically said, look, you know, we're going to have to do it on the field. We haven't earned anything yet. And there was this sort of hard-ass, you know, approach, which is what I like. I don't want anybody promising anything. And then yesterday, we get the following quote from Jack Del Rio, the Redskins defensive coordinator. And the context of the answer was he was answering a question about sort of the depth along the offensive line and balancing all of the talent along the defensive line in particular. And I'll cut to the money part of the answer. He said, that is definitely one of the things that I'm going to have to navigate. It's kind of like a basketball team not having enough balls to go around and you have a bunch of stars. But it's good to have

good players and we have good players on our front, guys that were well thought of coming out of the draft and that they were taken high and we should expect them to be really good players for us and be a really solid foundation for us to build around. And that's how we're going to approach it. First of all, I want to start with this, Ben Standing. Are we sure that there are a bunch of star players on their defense or there are a bunch of good players up front? You know, we can blame it all on coaching if we'd like from last year. They were dead last in third down defense with all of those stars. The worst third down defense in the last seven years in the NFL.

What do we really think about their defensive talent? Trying to be objective. Yeah, I mean, his use of, ironically, that was the question I asked him because I was, in the question, I was sort of, I said basically, you've got all these guys, including Ryan Carrigan, who's, you know, how do you balance having these young guys golf, you know, a guy like Kerrigan who's, you know, been there, done that, had you balance getting all these guys out on the field together. No, I mean, the reality is that, though, they don't have a lot of stars on defense.

In fact, if we're really literally taking him at the literal phase value of star, you know, they may not have anybody unless you want to say, based on Kerrigan's career, Landon Collins, you know, having played in New York getting attention and maybe Chase him being the number two pick. But in terms of actual playing, what they have is four, recent first-round picks along the defensive line. That, in and of itself, counts for a lot of potential, and they do have a lot of upside potential with guys on that defense,

far more, I think, than on the offense. But they're definitely not proven. I mean, to your point about last year, right, we can sit here and say Greg Minnowski is the worst and whatever. But, you know, and obviously, I think in football more than basketball, you know, how the schemes are executed or, you know, or the calls, does, I think, factor how things are going to go. But, you know, wherever you think of pro football focus, as an example,

they had Jonathan Allen rated in the 80s among, like, 110 defensive lineman last year. This is a guy who was, you know, a first-round pick, the first one of these guys to come in. Is that just, you know, the scheme maybe. We'll find, we'll find out. So there's definitely a lot of potential and hope, and obviously everybody's excited, even a cynic like me, he's excited to see what this defensive line is going to do. I do think it's going to be fascinating to see how Del Rio navigate this, though, because you do now have, with sweat, Kerrigan, and Young,

now defensive ends rather than being a three-four edge, you have a lot of guys on the defensive line. And, you know, there's obviously only four spots at any given point, typically, and you've got, you know, six, seven guys who are going to need to work. So it'll be interesting to see how he does navigate it, then. It's funny because as you're going down and listing the first-round picks, the most productive player along their defensive front last year was their fifth rounder, Matt Ionitis. It's like, who cares where they were drafted?

And I understand your point. But, you know, we've learned over the years it doesn't necessarily matter. I guess, you know, for me, and I'm, I've just gotten to the point where while I am tuning it out with respect to getting emotional about it, I am watching and listening. And what he just did in my mind's eye is he said, You know what? If we're not really good next year up front, it's my fault. You know, instead of saying what he said early on, and some of his early on comments were not only the right way to handle it in my view, but they were accurate. And that is, nobody here's proved anything yet.

I mean, to talk about, look, there's one thing to talk about the challenge of navigating what he believes to be are a bunch of guys. you know, that might be good, might not be, you know, or highly drafted. So, you know, but, you know, figuring out how to get enough balls onto the field so that they all can play enough. And, you know, that's essentially the analogy. It's a playing time thing, not a, you know, getting the balls into your scores hands that they can score. It's basketball versus football. He's talking about playing time and figuring out how you get them all into the game. I just, I would love to hear him be consistent and just say, you know what?

the talent on the defensive line? We'll see. They finished 32nd last year against, you know, on third down. They had one of the worst third down defenses in modern history. I know Greg Minnowski, it may have been, you know, a little bit dysfunctional over there, but it's not all on the coaches. They're going to have to prove a lot to me when we start. Instead of, you know, essentially creating an expectation of, yeah, we're pretty damn talented.

I just like, it's amazing to me what they do when they get here. Well, you know, it's interesting, and obviously we're in this, you know, breaking news, we're in a very unique time in society right now. When Del Rio was the one, I suspect, all of us wanted to hear from the most, because he brings the intensity. I mean, when he showed up, I mean, we've all seen him on TV. He's got those, you know, Mike Singletary in 10-Eyes, former player. You know, every time he talked to it, like, you all, especially in the beginning,

I kept waiting for him to say, not drop and give me 20 kind of thing. Like, he's got that vibe. And so yesterday was interesting because, you know, who knows why? He was far less of that yesterday. Right. He was nice, which doesn't say he's not nice before, but I didn't feel like yesterday I was talking to that footballer, kind of a coach kind of a guy.

He was much more, maybe cerebral too much, but he was just more laid back. Now, look, I don't know why is that. Is that because to your sort of what you're saying, I think people come here and immediately start talking a certain way that's different than what we maybe kind of hope for, or is the world just so different? I mean, he can't get these guys on the field. He's mentioned, as they all did, you know, I'm excited to get blank on the field and see what we can do with this group, this player, what have you. And to this point, you almost have to just imagine what may be. And so I get, you know, maybe to that end, the idea of saying, well, we'll go off to prove it on the field.

Until we know when we're getting on the field, it is maybe a little bit hard to project that in your own mind. As to that, because it definitely was a different version of him. It's all like, again, it wasn't like, I'm going to think Dr. Decloseckel, Mr. Hyde, but he definitely was not that the same. Yes, like he wasn't, he wasn't saying the same stuff that you were suggesting, and he wasn't just tonally speaking the same way he had when he first got here. So I don't know. Maybe the coronavirus staying home and stuff does to a guy like Del Rio who lives to be on the field, and you obviously can't get there. Did we learn anything from Del Rio yesterday?

I thought some things. You know, some of the smaller stuff, maybe it sort of jumped out to me. He was asked that sort of a blanket, generic blanket question about what he thinks of the linebackers, which is, you know, any interesting group, there really is no obvious starter there. I mean, we could assume maybe Cole or Ryan Anderson or Thomas Davis. playing a lot. But, like, you know, there's no, like, one player that's like so obvious. And he, when I asked about him, he specified Kevin Pierre-Louis as a guy to keep an eye on beyond the special team that he thinks he's somebody that can, you know, that can contribute.

And I was told when they signed him by one of my colleagues in Chicago where he was at the Bears, that he really did a good job coming in the last four games as a nickel linebacker. So in a group in which I don't really know there's any particular. order. I thought that was, I thought that was interesting. Beyond that, you know, I mean, you know, a lot of those things you would imagine, he's excited for Chase Young to see what he can do. He was asked about if Chase Young, the guy who's going to change things on defense, I mean, the one thing I have thought is, you know, does this is not an original idea, but if Chase Young sort of does he do for Washington what Bosa did for San Francisco last year, a similar group that

had a bunch of recent first-round pick along the defensive line, but it hadn't put it all together, and then they get this one extraordinary player, and it becomes too much for the defense to sort of have to navigate. And, you know, Del Rio wasn't completely saying Chase Young is going to do that, because obviously he hasn't gotten out on the field, but he also

said, yeah, there's a decent chance. He's the type of guy that the opponents are going to hack the gameplay for, and that's where you get an advantage defensively, because, okay, now if you're focusing on him, with an extra blocker or running your scheme away from him or whatever, that in theory helps everybody else.

So, you know, I think those are probably some of the things that stood out. Yeah, I think when you started with the linebackers, he actually referred to Kevin Pierre Lewis as KPL. I had to go look it up when I heard it because I didn't know who KPL was. I'm being totally honest with you. And then, you know, I found it on the depth chart. And I'm like, of course, I remember that they signed him. But it didn't occur to me that that was a player of his.

Absent from those mentions of linebackers, and I said this morning on the radio show, he sort of did the Jay Gruden thing where someone asks him about a position, and he mentions every player, including the players on the practice squad, on their roster. I mean, Gruden used to do that all the time

with the running backs in particular. But he didn't mention Ruben Foster. And I guess Ruben Foster hasn't been medically cleared at this point. I know there was a specific question about Ruben Foster and Ryan Anderson, by the way, but in that answer on how he views the line backing room, he didn't mention, actually three guys, I mentioned another one. He didn't mention Nate Orchard either. I thought Orchard was actually pretty impressive last year when he got a chance to play. But, you know, where are we on Ruben Foster? And where do you, I thought Ryan Anderson was the most improved player on the team last year,

and I was expecting big things from him this year, but different coaching staffs have different views. Give me your thoughts on both of those players. So before I get to the player, so one thing that is I'm trying to wrap my own brain around is this. Typically, right, if we had Del Rio in a normal circumstance, it would be at the podium following a day of OTA practice or mini-camp or something,

and we would have already watched some practices, right? We would have maybe already talked to some other players. get our own sense as to, oh, this Jimmy Morland kid, where's this guy coming from? And so then when the coordinator says X, Y, or Z, you know, we can, we have some context as we've seen it. We, you know, the first team, second team isn't really that relevant in these kinds of camps, but okay, you can see who is lining up where. So, like, these things are, there's more context.

Right now, we have no context. All we have is the word of these people. So it puts more weight on how they say stuff, who they talk about, And these are exactly the things like you're saying that I pay attention to. So in the story I have up today on the athletic, it's basically here's what the coordinator said and here's what I heard. And on the Ruben Foster part, the lack of clearance was my focus, specifically, that Delria, this is now the, you know, umpteen's time. We've heard some version of, you know, he's still working out. He's still trying to get better.

We haven't, you know, we haven't gotten word yet that he's been cleared. right now we are more than one year past when Ruben Foster hurt his knee towards ACL that was on I think the first day of an OTA meaning we'd be in OTAs right now if things were normal so based on that he wouldn't be

assuming he wouldn't be clear to play now we're still a long way to go before training camp or week one but you know if you can't even go now you know you have to wonder what's the potential impact this season so I I basically just wrote, I've been putting Ruben Foster on the 53, but just like as a holding spot, I assume it's healthy, he's on the team.

But in terms of making an impact, I'm not having any expectations. And now Del Rio's comment sort of added another drop or two of concerns because of the lack of clearance. And again, we would be in theory, they would be in theory playing right now or doing some practicing. So, yeah, to me, I'm not really factoring in Ruben Foster as being a massive part of his defense unless there's a big swing of a health report come, you know, July or could come to August, September. What about Ryan Anderson? I'm with you. I thought Ryan Anderson had a really good year last year, and I've been excited to see, you know, I never really viewed him as a three-four end in the way that we kind of view those guys typically coming off the edge.

I kind of like the four-three fit for him, I think. And he's such a strong guy. So I'm excited to see what he can do. And, you know, if you did say to me, who's the one guy in that linebacking corps you think could break out? Like, he would probably be the one maybe call Holcomb. But, you know, so I am excited to see what he can do. I guess we'll have to see, you know, if you're going to play that four-three spot, that four-three out-side linebacker, and you're going to have all those pass rushers going, you know, he's going to have to get into some.

coverages, and if they go with, you know, a lot of nickel packages, obviously, with the extra defensive back, and take a linebar across the field, which of the two guys, they're going to stay out there. I almost kind of feel like Holcomb might be the guy who's out there the most because of his speed, and, you know, my sense is that Rivera kind of off the bat was a fan, and then you have, you know, Jonathan Bostic has speed. Obviously, they like Thomas, you know, Rivera likes Thomas Davis for a variety of reasons. So I don't, you know, I think Anderson, like I said, maybe the guy if I had to pick the

the chance to be the best of the group. I pick him, but at the same point, you know, we'll see how how they decide to keep him on the field enough when they go to nickel in particular. This is what he said about Ryan Anderson when he was asked about him yesterday, Jack Del Rio. It was a short quote, one of the shortest of the day. He said, quote, we're excited about him getting more opportunities. Looking at the film, he did some nice things. So yeah, we're looking forward to getting Ryan involved. I agree with coach. We kind of look at it the same way. We think we have some depth in that group and we're going to try to get everyone involved. Obviously, there will be some fierce competition for playing time and roles once we get started in camps.

So he's clearly not saying that answer. Yeah, I was really, really impressed watching, you know, Ryan Anderson on tape last year and he's going to be, you know, a major factor here. I mean, when you hear the coaches say there's going to be some fierce competition and they brought in Thomas Davis. And I think I think you're right. I think Cole Holcomb and, in Cooley was on the radio show with me yesterday, and he sees Cole Holcomb as a clear-cut, you know, weak side linebacker with that speed. And he sees a guy like Ryan Anderson and Thomas Davis more as a strong side outside linebacker. They sign Davis.

Maybe that's who Del Rio and Rivera in their own mind right now have penciled in as the starter. So, you know, I've already done a 53-man projection because, you know, what? I did one, like, soon after the draft. Well, you know, okay, so obviously, again, it's borderline and sane, not even just for the calendar, but just because, like, you know, who knows when things are going to happen or what's going to get on the field and all that. But in a general sense, whenever it's sort of a tie and you have to make some decisions, you know, I'm always, especially when you have a brand-new coaching staff,

I'm going to lean towards the players that the coaching staff brought in, either by the draft or free agency and by the players that they view as long, long-term pieces, right? Part of the, to your point of what we're sort of exploring what Del Rio didn't say, when I asked about the defensive front, I specified Ryan Carrigan. He's the answer to never mentioned Ryan Carrigan. Now, do I take that to say, well, look, Ryan Carragans over 30, he's on the last year of his contract, as good as he's been through his career,

realistically, this is it for him with us. This is the last year. We have Chase Young. We have Montes sweat. It wouldn't make logical sense to bring back Ryan Carragon for all kinds of reasons. So do I view it, like, Del Rio is thinking the longer haul? I mean, I don't, I don't know what your projections are, but like I've had this team sort of of a five-win team,

give or take, you know, if Dwayne Haskins has a major leap, and we can have a different conversation. But until then, you know, a young team, a new coach, they didn't go crazy in free agency, a five-win team. So you're thinking more long-haul, I imagine, even though the coaching staff would obviously shoot me for a match, for suggesting they're not trying to win every game, and of course, I'm not saying that.

But, you know, so I just, in my head, as I'm listening to these guys talk, I almost feel like everything, I'm at least putting into the answer, this is more about the long term. This is more about the long term. And so to this point, Ryan Anderson is a, he's on the last year of his deal. But, you know, when you think about all the players they have on defense, I almost wonder, how are you going to be able to over time, re-find all these defensive linemen? Well, how, you know, you've got four first-round picks. You want to keep them, right? Well, what about Ryan Anderson? How are you giving him money on top of it? Plus, like next year, they're still going to have to go out and get another cornerback, right? I mean, they only have Kendall Fuller right now of the main players who's under contract for next year. I mean, Jimmy Morland's on the rookie deal, but, you know, of the likely starters. So, you know, in my head of imagine they're not thinking Ryan Anderson is a definite long-term piece, and maybe that's part of the answer because I agree with you. And the short term, seems like he's a guy you would want on the field based on last year,

but maybe to some degree their head is thinking beyond next year. All right. The day before, what did we learn from new offensive coordinator, Scott Turner? Well, we learned that Scott Turner and I share the same thought about the left tackle situation. That is no idea what's going to happen. I appreciate it his candor. He didn't just try to say, well, we have three guys who could definitely start. He didn't say that.

He basically said, look, I really have no idea what's going to happen. You know, I mean, you've got – it's weird to be in this circumstance. It's one thing, like last year, it was Trent William, except he wasn't there. So the issue became, boy, did he ever going to come back? And then once it became clear he wasn't, and Eric Flowers was floundering there. They had to go out and get Donald Penn. If they had Donald Penn now, we would have said Donald Penn to starter, but with his group, no idea.

And Scott Turner essentially said the same thing. With regards to Haskin, you know, I think Scott Turner was as upbeat as you could imagine, considering he hasn't had the opportunity to really work with him yet, other than some of these video virtual conference calls. But look, he said, you know, so what were some of the issues? We heard about Haskins last year. Forget all in the field stuff. We heard, you know, there were some struggles picking up the playbook. Maybe there was, it wasn't working as hard at some level as people would have liked. Scott Turner was saying, hey, he's putting in the work, he's doing a good job of when we ask about this play of the coverage here, what have you,

of quickly grasping what he is seeing. Right. And then, you know, in terms of what he's been able to review on the film, he made a point that is, you know, true both about football and life in general, you know, confidence is a really big deal. And if you don't have it, that could be a struggle. And there were times after where it looked like Haskins maybe didn't have it, but those last couple of games, everything picked up.

He was much more impressive. You know, he's got the physical size, obviously, to do what he needs to in the pocket. He's able to create his own space because of his size. And, you know, he's got the arm to get things done. So, you know, he said a lot of good things. I mean, look, I'm still a little bit curious, I guess, to say the least, about how things progress. But, you know, at least in terms of that, I thought, you know, Scott Turner, you know, gave as much positive as I might imagine at this point. Yeah, I think you hit on one of the things that I talked about yesterday, and that is almost, you know, not directly, but almost repeating the same thing Bill Callahan said at the end of last year, which to me is all.

always impressive when you hear it from a coach, which is, you know, he doesn't repeat the same mistakes. He says, you know, he said you've got dialogue, you know, on something that happened, and then they give you the correct answer and are repeating the things that you've talked about in earlier sessions. You know that it's really starting to click. And Callahan said at the end of last year, he's not a mistake repeater. You know, that is that when you hear a coach say that, and I'm beating a dead horse here now for the listeners, but it means they're coachable. You know, able to point out a mistake or, you know, explain a concept and they get it. And that is Dwayne. And I've heard that going back to the beginning of last year. You know, the issue was whether or not,

you know, early in the year he was committed to everything as a non-starter. I want to get to the other two stories you've written, and we'll do that right after I talk about hydrant here for a moment. Hydrint's definitely something that I think I need. I'm getting a shit very soon. Why do I think I need it? Well, top performers in business and sports often attribute their success to their morning routine, whether it's waking up early, which I do, setting their goals for the day I don't necessarily do, exercise I don't do it in the morning, or meditation I don't do. Not everybody's got the time to do all of that. With hydrant, you can jumpstart your mornings. Did you know that 75% of us are walking around everyday life chronically dehydrated?

You're suffering needlessly from frequent headaches, energy slumps, and poor focus. It doesn't have to be this way. You want to kick the coffee habit, but you're worried about your energy levels. To avoid the morning sluggishness in that midday slump, you need to make sure you're hydrated. Hydrant creates flavored electrolyte packets that you mix directly into your water to make hydrating your body easy and delicious. Each rapid hydration mix has the four essential electrolytes your body needs. Sodium, potassium, magnesium, and zinc. All four of those help you hydrate quickly and then stay hydrated all day long.

Hydrant is backed by research. The formula was developed by Oxford scientists to provide perfectly balanced efficient hydration. There's no synthetic coloring or artificial sweeteners. The formula is vegan and you can choose between three different flavors or, a variety pack. Hydrant starts at just a buck a packet for a 30-day supply. You can save even more with a monthly subscription. And for 25% off your first order, go to drinkhydrant.com slash Sheehan. That's drinkhydrant.com slash Sheehan, S-H-E-H-E-H-A-N, for 25% off your first order. drinkhydrant.com and that's hydrant spelled h Y-Y-D-R-A-N-T. Drinkhydrant.com slash

Ian. All right, let's continue with Ben Standing from The Athletic. You wrote two other stories that I've read here over the last week or so, something like the last week. You write a lot. You're very active on the athletic, which is good for those of us that are subscribers to the athletic and want to read about the Redskins. But the first one that I wanted to start with was the story you wrote most recently, maybe a day or two ago. The title of it was, it just pisses me off. Redskins talk Hall of Fame snubs diminished legacy. It just pisses me off in quotes. And you wrote about the Joe Gibbs Version 1, the 1981 through the 1992 Gibbs teams, specifically those that were the championship teams, four Super Bowls and three Super Bowl wins over a 10-year period from

82 to 91, and players who were sort of snubbed in what those players feel today about how they were snubbed. By the way, let me just begin with this. I don't feel like they're snubbed that much. Joe Jacoby has been snubbed from the Hall of Fame. There is no doubt about that. The 91 Redskins to me are arguably, and I would put them at the top of the list of the greatest teams I've ever seen play, and I think sometimes they are rated and ranked below that level, and we'll get to that here shortly. But tell me, first of all, what made you write this story? What gave you the idea to write this story?

And then tell everybody essentially who you reached out to and what they said. Sure. So the genesis was, you know, at the athletic, like any other media outlet right now, we're all kind of scrambling to come up with ideas, topics to write. about. And we have different stories that we're kind of using across the whole company. So one of the ones was, like, greatest teams of all time, you know, regardless of sport, you know, it could be obvious ones like the Jordan Bull teams or, you know, maybe just, you know, a very specific team to that region, that team, whatever. So, you know, I was asked us to participate. And so I was like,

all right, let's write about that joke there of their team. And so I kind of went into it thinking, well, you know, look, I grew up all this. I know all these players, these stories. You know, I view them as great. You know, I argue that other than maybe Belichick, Joe Gibbs is the greatest coach, NFL head coach I've ever seen in my lifetime. And obviously, some of the players are icons and so on. So, you know, I sort of went into it thinking, I'm going to let me ask about, but, you know,

I just don't say how great they are. Like, what's the specific thing? And, you know, having lived this over the time, you know, when Joe Gibbs retired the first time, the Redskins were right there, other than maybe like, say, the Steelers and Packers, you know, some sort of legacy team, they were right up there when you talked about who are the greatest franchises of all time in the Super Bowl era, right? But that doesn't roll off the tongue as easily anymore.

So I kind of just went into this like, hey, do you guys feel like you're collectively a bit overlooked? And I was, you know, expecting anything from yes to, eh, we don't worry about those things. But by and large, the responses were to various aspects of this. Absolutely. No question about it. I talked to Joe Jacoby. He and I mostly talk about the team aspect, not his own personal situation. But like the quote you mentioned in the headline, you know, I'm pissed quote or that pisses me off,

that that stems from Joe Jacoby saying that when he hears conversation about best teams of all time, best friends, you know, dynasty, things like that, that the Redskins get to submit because the first two titles were won during strike seasons. And somehow that gets dismissed. It's interesting. we're kind of going through that right now with sports, right? We don't know if these things are going to be not for a strike reason, but, you know, people are talking about the asterisk that could be applied to an NBA or NHL winner right now because of unusual circumstances.

But, you know, the Redskins are the same boat as everybody else. They had just, they used it a better job of navigating the situation. And Jacob's like, why on earth would those years be downgraded? If anything, he feels like there should be the other way. And I agree. I totally agree with that. Let me just interject that. I've always felt like it required a lot more creativity.

It created a lot more from an organization to win during those two unique seasons. But go ahead. Yeah, no, 100%. I mean, you know, the replacement player situation to me, I've always said, other than the Super Bowl themselves in the 82 championship game, my favorite game of all time may have been the third of the replacement player game when they go to Dallas, win on Monday night, Washington has no players across the picket line, and this was mentioned in the story that Jacoby said that Gibbs told the players before they went on strike,

whatever you do, do it together. If you're going to come back or staying out, everybody do the same thing, just promised me that. And they did. They were, I believe, the only team that didn't have anybody crossed, whereas that Dallas team had Danny White, Tony Dorset, and a few others, and they replaced the players won. that was just an unbelievably remarkable job by the coaching staff, both in terms of that game, but also and the front office,

to plan ahead to take this seriously. And that was something they did, not just with this replacement player situation, always under Joe Gibbs. And that was made it such a remarkable group. So, yes, agree with that. But I guess there were some other factors as well. You know, I spoke to Charles Mann.

I spoke to Dave Butts. I spoke to on your colleagues, your Brian Mitchell and Doc Walker, and, you know, answers to what was the, what do they see of the issue? You know, some of them focused on what's happened since the Joe Gibbs era, you know, 27 years, five playoff appearances, a lot of, you know, inept moments in the Snyder era, as has been discussed many times, how did that factor? And there is also, of course, the name was a wonder because that became more of a topic in recent years and it had been when they were playing,

they never won back-to-back titles. I don't know so much that the players brought this up too much, but obviously I think when younger people in particular are looking at lists of champions, the back-to-back ones stand out. Yes, they went to a Super Bowl and back-to-back years, but they didn't win it. You know, how much does that factor in and so on?

So, you know, it was just interesting, again, for me, somebody who lived through these times, as a kid, it was fascinating to talk to these guys, and even some stuff that I couldn't get in. The story was just fantastic. But it's just interesting to hear them. I think my biggest thing, like you said, you didn't think that they had been snubbed. And I think to a degree you're not wrong.

But I think, you know, I think the thing is that I do feel that when we talk about who are the best teams of all time. But more I get more from a dynasty perspective, it doesn't feel like that error gets to the same love that it did once upon a time, even in that time, because it didn't have the one dominant, they didn't have Troy Aikman, they didn't have Joe Montana, Emmett Smith. They always thought they were a little behind the star power of some of the other teams, but then even more so as the years have passed, because what was their biggest claim to fame, offensive linemen?

That doesn't sell. That's not sexy. That's not a, you know, and so it does feel like they've gotten sort of checked down over time. Plus, they have, you know, there's been nothing added to it, no legacy added to it, And if anything, it's been diminished for some because of what's happened since then. You know, I'm going to give you a comparison with the 60s Packers here in a moment. But the claim to fame really is Gibbs, you know, and the organization, in addition to the hogs, in terms of what people will first think of, and Wiggins.

But beyond that, you know, it's funny because that now, that era, okay, if you take the last Super Bowl, It's basically 30 years ago. It's 29 years ago. 29 to 30 years ago was the last Super Bowl. And the last time that this franchise was truly relevant. I can remember how I felt during the Gibbs run about when people would say, yeah, but they're not the 60s Packers. And the 60s Packers were only 20 years earlier.

You know, like the last Packers Super Bowl was actually, there was only a 14-year difference between their last Super Bowl and the Redskins' first winning Super Bowl under Gibbs. Like it was so much closer in terms of an era to that time. And I remember thinking as a football fan and a young football fan, yeah, don't talk to me about those teams way back when. Well, that's sort of what happens now, except now it really was way back when. You know, 30 years ago, 29, 30 years ago is way back when.

And I felt the same way when the way back when was half the time that we're talking about. You know, the Packers and the Redskins, there are similarities in their sort of dynastic runs. Now, I would consider the Packers a greater dynasty than the Redskins and everyone else would too. But the Packers went from being, you know, Lombardy's Packers and one of the great franchise in the history of sports and winning all of those NFL championships and then winning the first two Super Bowls following the 66 and 67 seasons. And then they were irrelevant for a long period of time until, you know, Holmgren and Farrv got together in the 90s. Like it was literally close to 30 years before they became relevant

again. You know, if you take that last Super Bowl in the 60, you know, in January of 16, when they beat the Raiders in Super Bowl 2, and then fast forward to the next Super Bowl game they played in, it was 1996, right? The 95 season, 96 Super Bowl, when they beat the Patriots, when they beat the Parcell's Patriots. So the Redskins had this incredible run, not exactly the comparison to the 60s Packers, but still this incredible run of three Super Bowl wins, four Super Bowl titles, a dominant team, the second most dominant team of that era, you know, behind the 49ers. And it's been 30 years since.

Maybe they're on the verge. Maybe 30 years is the max, you know, between, you know, being a legitimate contender. But the Packers really, you know, they had occasional years. 72, they went to the playoffs, lost to the Redskins, ironically. 82, they went to the playoffs when the playoff format was expanded. you know, I may have missed a year that they made the postseason, but for the most part, they became an irrelevant franchise. Well, let's cross-ports here for a second.

You know, it was just in the last couple of years that the wizard slash bullets were honored the 40th anniversary of the only NBA title they had. And I remember being around that weekend, and Elvin Hayes is there, and Bobby Dandrich. And, like, I was fortunate enough they had, like, a private event. with just the players and other people from the current organization and Ted Leontas and some others, and they're all in there watching,

so Dick Mottos there, they're watching, like, video from back then. They're telling stories, and I'm thinking this is the greatest thing ever, because I remember all this stuff, but when they bring them out to the public thing, I'm like,

you can tell most of the crowd has no idea who these guys are. Right. 40 years. And it's not, you know, no offense to Elvin Hayes or anybody. It's not Michael Jordan. and it's sort of the same thing with these Redskins teams. The matter of who we point to, it's not Tom Brady, it's not Jim Brown.

It's guys who are really good, but it's not the same thing. It has been for so long. I mean, it's all, you know, you mentioned Green Bay. I mean, think about the Miami Dolphins. The only team to have an undefeated season, the Dolphins won back-to-back Super Bowls early on. They had been to five at the point when the Marine, I believe when the Marino, Montana, matchup happens. They have been terrible pretty much since.

I mean, they've even been worse than Washington over the last 15 or so years, and they were right up there among the most the Prattest franchises and things go quickly. You know, where it's not even quickly, it's over time, but it does change. I'm sure if you ask people today, what do you think of the Miami Dolphins is a franchise?

They would be like, they think, they're terrible, but they were the Don Chuletons were unbelievable. So, you know, You can't stay away forever. At some point, you have to be... The Dallas Cowboys seem to be the one thing that seems to be... They don't have these issues.

I mean, Dallas hasn't been back to a Super Bowl, or even in an Olympic championship game, I think, since, like, 95. And yet, yes, there's always a lot of talk about what they are or they aren't, but, like, they're always in the line line. They're always in the discussion. They're always viewed as still being relevant, even when, you know, they haven't always been. Yeah, well, it's sort of the same.

There are certain franchises, the Yankees, the Lakers, the Cowboys, that have a certain brand, and the Redskins have never had that brand, even though, you know, they've been in the conversation with the Cowboys, in part because they've been such arch rivals over the years, that you're always going to have generation after generation that recognizes it for something that maybe it doesn't even resemble today. By the way, two things. One, because you mentioned his name, and it's going to be a complete 180-degree turn here on the conversation.

But did you know that Elvin Hayes is still on the all-time rebounds list number four and on the all-time scoring list number 10? When they came out with that ESPN top 74 all-time NBA players list, Elvin Hayes was 44 on the list. And whenever they have those lists, I'll always look to see where Wes and Elvin end up being on the list. I do remember those teams. I'm older than you. And those were the teams of my youth. I mean, I remember, you know, the bullets of the 70s were a powerhouse. You know, in Washington, they went to three NBA finals.

If you count the year in Baltimore, they went to the NBA finals four times during that decade. And I think I always kind of feel like Elvin Hayes doesn't get the credit that he should get. And I know what the reason is. The reason was he didn't play his best in the biggest games of his career. But statistically, my God, to still be on that list at number four all time in rebounds and 10 in scoring, you know, you could look at him and say, you know, he's probably higher than 44 on that list. He is sometimes way, way underappreciated. for how great you was. 100% when a couple of few weeks ago,

one of our sort of random stories that we did was we came up with which player best represented each jersey number, you know, zero to 99, DC athletes. And there were a few of them. I was myself, Tar, Calvert Shear, and I'm assuming since we're not on the radio, I can mention Grant Paulson here,

who works with me of the athletics. The three of us were the parents. channel, right? And there's a big of Tark and I are relatively the same age, grand, it's significantly younger. But Tark on a basketball guy. I thought I was the one typically pushing for various older bullets and stuff, and we had a big debate at 11 because you have Ryan Zimmerman, Mark Rippin. Mark Rippin.

You go, and Adelodon for more of a young, for more recent things. You have Mike Gardner. I'm probably forgetting a few things, but then you had Elvin Hayes. And, you know, I was pushing for him for reasons you said, I mean, I'm not, again, not even factoring in what he did at the University of Houston, when he's going toe to toe to toe with Lou Alcinder at the point when he, when he's the greatest, arguably the greatest college player ever, and they're going head to head to head, and, you know, to your point about the stats, our direct boss is David

Aldridge. So we went to him on a couple of these things just to say, yeah, hey, what do you think? And his push was, he was essentially a tiebreaker to give Elvin Hayes the win, and he pointed out some of the staff that you're talking about that he's still in all. all-time figure. He also wasn't named final of MVP. They gave that to Unself. I always think Bobby Dandrich is criminally underrated. But, you know,

to sort of connect us to the other topic, the wizard, the bullet, it's almost like this, the last four years, it's almost like it was preordained because they were like, that team was at its best, right before Bird

and Magic entered the lead and completely changed everything. When people talk about the NBA, they do it two segments from a historical standpoint. It's 1980 and up, and then everything else is lumped in old school. Yeah. So everything that happened from Bird and Magic is the modern era, and the wins of the bullets were right the team right before that,

back-to-back finals, they win one, and I think it's part of the why they get completely lost, and then again, they haven't backed it up with anything, essentially, for 40 years. So there is no reason to go back a lot and discuss. those scenes, and that's why I think guys like like Hayes get overlooked. There is no doubt that a conversation about the NBA, you put it really well.

I mean, I would have said, rather than saying, you know, in two ways, the old timers, I would have just said, you know, the Bill Russell Celtics, you know, the Red Arabac Celtics, and then, you know, the era that started with Magic and Bird in 1980, Magic and 80 and Bird in 81,

Magic and Burden 80 when they both came in and they went back-to-back titles to open up their careers, Magic and 80 and Burden 81. And it is very interesting that the era that preceded it was two straight NBA finals matchups between Washington and Seattle, between the bullets and the supersonics. And the bullets were completing a decade in which they were one of the dominant teams of the decade. They were. And yes, Elvin Hayes didn't get the MVP in that NBA finals win in 78 because he wasn't their best player. He fouled out of game seven. You know, in Seattle and was a non-factor in that game. And that's why I say that, you know, those of us that remember that era can appreciate the greatness of Elvin Hayes.

And I think he's underrated in the conversation of the greatest players of all time. You know, there aren't more than three power forward. that I would put in front of them. You know, I mean, he's in that conversation for the greatest power forward of all time, and he was a true power forward. And a versatile one, too, who could back you down on the post or could face you from 20 feet, 25 feet in knock down shots. He was a prolific score.

But he didn't play his best in the NBA playoffs. In the NBA finals in particular, they got swept by Golden State in 1975, Ben. that still to this day is the biggest upset in NBA finals history. There was not a bigger favorite, I don't think, that lost like the bullets did in 1975. They were supposed to sweep the Warriors, and Rick Berry completely outplayed Elvin Hayes and Wes Unselden Phil Schneer in those NBA finals. And then even in 79 when they lost the NBA finals to Seattle, and they were sort of out of gas that year, You could see the age, and they'd gone back-to-back seven-game series, too, going into those NBA finals.

Seattle was a bit younger, and it was a whole revenge thing. And by the way, they were exciting back-to-back those NBA finals, not just because I'm a Bullets fan, but those who were NBA fans will remember those. The problem is the NBA had reached this point where it was not a popular sport for sports fans. You know, if you were a basketball fan, yes, those games were taped delay. some of them, you know, during the playoffs on CBS. Like he couldn't even watch them live. In 79, game seven of the Eastern Conference Finals,

between the Spurs who were in the Eastern Conference Finals, led by George Gervin, against the bullets led by Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, Bobby Dandrich. That game was at the Capitol Center. Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals was not on live television. If you weren't at the game, you had to listen to it on radio and then watch the tape delayed version later that night. That's crazy. But then again, Magic's first year, 1980, same thing until they realized that Magic and Bird were

changing the perception of the league. But by the way, we're having a conversation here as many of you can hear, which Ben and I always sort of turn into. It turns from an interview into a lengthy conversation about things we had no intention of talking about. It always happens when you're on. Gary, Joe Jacoby should be in the Hall of Fame. That's the biggest snub. After that, I've made the case for Gary Clark before. Gary Clark has better numbers, and in my mind's eye, is better than some of the receivers in the Hall of Fame, you know, who may have better numbers. You know, personally, I think Clark was every bit as good as Andre Reed.

That's my memory of it. You know, I think Clark was just as dynamic in many ways in a different era as a guy like Marvin Harrison or Isaac Bruce. But, you know, their numbers are much better. His numbers, if I recall, Gary Clark's numbers are better than guys like Bob Hayes and I think John Stallworth and certainly Lynn Swan, who had a much shorter career. but other than that, and B. Mitch and returners never get their due, where's the real snub? Like, where's the real, I don't really, I mean, other than the time that's passed, historians understand the greatness of the Gibbs teams, I think. Right, and just to put a finer point on the Clark thing, this is in the story I don't have it in front of me,

but I think from 86 to 91. You put it in the story. Gary Clark. Yeah. Right. So Gary Clark at that point, the only receiver in the NFL who had more yards, receiving yards in him was Jerry Rice, and only Jerry Rice and Mark Clayton with the Dolphins had more touchdown. A six-year span in the – and if that was the NBA, maybe I'm not as impressed because those careers tend to go a lot longer. In the NFL, a six years out of for anybody is a career almost.

And so he was right there. He out-produced Art Monk in that stretch in all the main categories, including receipts. exceptions, and yet, for me, it's not even so much that they're not in. You can't put everybody in, and, you know, we are, like I said, we are biased towards these local guys because they were the guys that we all watch. I'm sure the people who in the comparable cities would make the same argument about their guys, and that's fair, right? That's kind of what's going to happen.

But it's the lack of even like, hey, where is the, why don't we talk about them at least? Jacoby is the one guy who it feels like on a national level still get some attention. and B. Mitch, unfortunately, it's not him specifically. It's that specialist just don't returners just don't get in, even though he obviously has crazy numbers, you know, notably second all-time and all-purpose yards also behind Jerry Rice. So, you know, for me, I don't, I think Jacoby and probably B-Mitch are the two that are the most like, hey, it seems like they should be in based on their peers, based on their production. Beyond that, you know, you know, I wrote about Charles Mann, he was somebody that I talked to, it was really

cool to talk to him, and you know, Dexter Manley has a bunch of sacks, you know, Seisman's numbers by himself were not Hall-Fameworthy, and even when he was playing, I never, you know, I didn't see, you know, I wasn't viewing it like, oh, he's going to the Hall fame, but, you know, there are reasons if you look at Seisman's resume, he won a league MVP,

back-to-back Super Bowl, whatever. Like, again, I'm not saying he should be in, but I feel like people should be like, oh, wait, Joe Seizman's not the Hall-Fame, Oh, okay. Like, it's stuff like that for me, and I think at a minimum for some of these guys, as to why are we at least as being discussed more? Why are we just getting overlooked? And I think that was like sort of the biggest issue I sort of took away, at least for me, from talking all these people. Yeah, the Clark thing, and you did, you put together basically a six-year span from 86 to 91, where he was, you know, essentially the second best receiver in the game behind Jerry Rice. And, you know, I don't know that I would have needed the numbers to have said, well, he's certainly in the top three to four during that span in the NFL.

And by the way, you pointed this out, and you just mentioned it too. Clark was a bigger producer during those years than Art Monk was. He was. And Gary Clark was more of a threat to a defense and probably kept defensive coordinators more concerned, you know, game planning wise than maybe Monk did. I'm not diminishing Monk's greatness because Monk was great and he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. But for that span of years, you know, Clark was really a bigger threat. Now, they had three of them with Ricky Sanders included and it was a hell of a trio. But, you know, Clark gets hurt also because these first three years out of James Madison were played in the USFL.

You know, if you took the, if he had, you know, let's just say a slow developing rookie year, but he's got two productive. two more productive NFL years, now all of a sudden the catch total instead of $699, maybe you add another $150 to it. And he's up there in the mid-800s. And now you've got him way ahead of some of the guys that are in the Hall of Fame right now, and maybe it would have been a no-brainer. But Gary Clark, you know, taking the numbers out of the conversation, if you watched him, you could make the case very easily.

that he was a Hall of Fame receiver when you look at some of the receivers that were better in the Hall of Fame. You know, I mean, and I'm not talking about the old timers. Like, I'm not going back to compare him to Don Maynard or Paul Warfield or Lance Allworth, who was, you know, according to everybody that saw Lance Allworth play is truly one of the great receivers in the history of the game. I'm talking about guys that we've seen in recent years in a different era. Like, to me, I know Marvin Harrison was a really good receiver.

also played with an unbelievable Hall of Fame quarterback. Gary Clark would have had the same numbers, if not more than Marvin Harrison, in my opinion. I think Gary Clark personally was a better receiver than Andre Reed, and the Buffalo fans have killed me in the past for saying that. And that's fine. That's just my opinion. You know, obviously Lynn Swan's in the Hall of Fame with a very short career because of injuries. And so Clark's numbers really dwarf, you know, Lynn Swan's numbers. But I don't know. I think, you know, I think that's the guy. Like Mitchell, because of the returner thing, I'm talking about the Gibbs era guys, because then we could go back to Jerry Smith and have a conversation. But the Gibbs era guys, the snub is Jacoby, the next best argument you could make.

But it, you know, it's a bit of a reach, but you could make it as Gary Clark. Can I tell you a Gary Clark story really quick? Yes. So I used to back in the day when I was a little in shape, and I played basketball all the time. I would be in these very direct leagues, a lot of Montgomery County Rec League type stuff. But there was a point I was working in D.C.,

and some guys I knew were getting into a league at the L.A. sports club, which is a higher step up than the Montgomery County League. Right. So I was like, all right, sure, I'll go. Why not? But I'm thinking, you know, still, the level of competition is going to be your standard, you know, random guy. And the first game we play, I look at the court, the first game we play, Mark Allery of on the other team, he's only been out of the NBA, like, last in a decade.

This was like, I don't know, maybe the turn of the century. He's 6'8 to boot. Fortunately, he didn't try to post anybody. And then their point guard was Gary Clark. And I'm like, oh, come on. Are you this serious? What is this league? Get out here.

And so because Gary Clark was the shortest on his team and I was a short of on my team, we got matched up. So this is like insane. Like, I'm so, you know, a big fan at this point. So, you know, I'm guarding Gary Clark. You know, he wasn't trying to kill me by any stress of the imagination, but, you know, I'm sure he kind of thought it was comical. So we're out there, and I'm thinking to myself, okay, I got, I got one shot here to get off a basket on my own. Like, he's going to, I'm not going to be able to run past Gary Clark.

and, you know, my handle wasn't so hot. So what do I do? I thought, I thought, I thought I thought I thought, I thought, I have one chance to do Beagle devious here. So I start talking to Clark, I'm like, hey, man, when you get in the Hall of Fame? And at this point, Art Monk is not in yet. As we recall, Art Monk took eight years to get in. This is sort of a sign of how it was going to be a struggle for some of these other players. So I'm like, when you get in the Hall of Fame, I'm at the top of the key, the balls on, like, the left wing.

And he turns to me and he goes, yeah, man, I mean, you know, until Art gets in, you know, I don't know. And as he's saying this, I immediately cut back door while he's, while he's doing me a hard belt thought, I immediately cut back door and get the ball for the layup. I felt kind of bad because, you know, I purposely brought up this topic knowing he'd be distracted. Right.

But at the same point, he was right. It needed Monk to get in first. I think part of the reason, I mean, there were a lot of reasons why it took Monk a while, but I think for some part of it was that Gary Clark, always felt like more of the playmaker, because Mark, Monk was more of the possession receiver. Clark was the big play guy. He put up some prolific stats. Munk obviously were pretty great over time. And so it's like on the one hand, Munk got delayed for all months several reasons, but one of them is Gary Clark was so productive. And yet, it doesn't ever feel like Gary Clark

himself then gets that, okay, fine. You think he was the best guy? Well, then make that case. Why is he not to be discussed more? I couldn't agree more. And the thing is, when you look at staff now, I haven't looked at his numbers all time. But I'm like Elvin Hayes, I'm sure, I think even Art Monk, like his reception total, he was the old-time leader in reception when he retired. Now I heard he's like 20th, I think. Oh, Monk. You're talking about Monk.

Yeah, yeah. So you can only imagine what Farks numbers by comparison to what we see now with these, you know, video game stats that people put up don't look the same. So, you know, when you go back and look at numbers, they don't look the same. you had to have lived the era to really get a feel for it. He's one of those guys that, yeah, absolutely was one of the best of his position when he played. Yeah, he's currently, I think it's 20th or 21st,

because I just pulled up the list as you were saying that. And, you know, the Redskins had two receivers that set the all-time receptions mark while they were playing with the Redskins. Charlie Taylor did it the first time. He passed Don Maynard, Joe Namath's favorite target, in New York. He passed Maynard in 77, I think, and became the all-time receptions leader. And then it was Charlie Joyner who passed him. I think it was Charlie Joyner who passed Charlie Taylor. And then Art Monk passed Charlie Joyner. I'm pretty sure that's the order.

And then I don't know who passed Art Monk. I mean, I can't remember exactly how that played out. It may have been somebody like Tori Holt or Randy Moss or somebody like that. I don't know. Probably Jerry Rice. Jerry Rice probably was the first to pass Art Monk when Art Monk was number one. And then everybody else that's passed him has passed him since in terms of receptions. Yeah, he is on the receptions list. Monk is 20th right now.

That's amazing. That's amazing. And even more incredible is that Charlie Taylor is all, I mean, he's like 40th or 50th somewhere around there. You talk about, you know, an era conversation and the way the games played. But anyway. And just like it's laughing for me on this, like, part of the reason why I thought what I thought interesting was, like I said, I didn't have any expectations going into most of these

conversations while I've obviously talked to Doc and Beam it. You know, I don't really know the other guys at all. And so you wonder what you're going to get. And to me, it almost felt like maybe on some level they recognize, hey, we don't talk about this now, nobody's going to talk about it again, because once the Ben Standings and Kevin Sheehan stopped talking about us, what else is going to happen? Somebody always pick it up. Somebody's still writing about, you know, Pat Fisher at this point. What a great career he had. Occasionally you'll read something about that. By the way,

I was wrong. Monk is 17th. 17th on the all-time receptions list currently with some guys, you know, still out there on his heels. Like Welker is only 37 behind. I'm looking for guys that are still playing. Well, Antonio Brown is about 99 behind. Julio Jones is gaining ground, man. Like, Julio Jones has 797 catches, and he is already ahead of sort of the average

Hall of Fame reception number. And he's got half of his career left to play, at least. you know, he's going to be the one maybe that makes a real run at Rice. And, you know, to that point, because the Redskins have had a weird quarterback history throughout the year that they haven't had, you know, as we've discussed many times for other reasons, they haven't had one through guy for, you know, it's always every three or four years or somebody new. I mean, Joe Seizman still holds the record for most passing yards. It's not even like that big of a number.

They've only had five, four thousand yard individual seasons for passers. I mean, Peyton Manning, how many did that guy have by himself? Right. And three of those were Kurt Cousins. You know, I mean... No, no, no, no, you're not allowed to say that. You're not allowed to talk about the franchise records, the six-passing franchise records that Kirk Cousins holds.

My bad. So let me get to the other, because we've sort of crossed over here in our conversation to the other story you wrote last week. You know, you talk about, you know, and you talk to Charles, man and Jacoby and Clark and all these guys about how they feel that era of Gibbs' teams was snubbed. And then your story last week, why did Joe Gibbs 1.0 era Redskins were one of football's greats, which they were. And I just, I just have the impression that they're recognized more than maybe some. I don't like the way the 91 team gets portrayed by some.

Now, some people have rated them super high, if not the best. I think football outsider says according to the DVOA number, they're the number one team of all time. I think USA Today did something a few years back and ranked the 91 skins as the all-time team. But this story that you wrote, you know, Gibbs's 1.0 Redskins were one of football's greats. We may be repetitive here because we mentioned some of these things. But here was the thing that I wanted to start with because you did, you basically put a graphic together. and you ranked the top 10 teams during the Gibbs, you know, 1.0 version era.

And what's really, what really stuck out to me, I would have guessed that the Redskins were behind the Niners and were the second most successful team of that era, which they were. The 49ers had a 136, 47, and one record with four Super Bowl wins. The Redskins were 124 and 60. So basically a 13-game difference between them and the 49ers. They had three Super Bowl wins. Then in third place were the dolphins, then the Bears, Broncos, Raiders. And then this is where it became really interesting to me. And this is one of the reasons that I think Gibbs sometimes gets underrated a little bit

in the greatest coach conversation. The Eagles were the seventh best team in terms of, overall record of that Gibbs 1.0 version era. The Giants were eighth, the Cowboys were ninth. Four of the five NFC East teams were among the top nine teams over a 12-year era. That's unbelievable, how difficult the NFC East was. And then if you extrapolate that to the rest of the NFC, the 49ers didn't have any competition other than occasionally a good Rams team. You know, the Redskins were fighting it out year in and year out with the Giants and the Cowboys primarily, but also the Eagles who were good, even though they didn't get to a Super Bowl during

that era. But that's where, you know, you can look at the Redskins and three Super Bowls, and by the way, a record that was 20 games better than the next best team in their division during that span, but understand how competitive the landscape was. It may be, Ben, the best division in NFL history, the NFC East of the 80s into the early 90s. Right. I mean, before Washington made the Super Bowl with Gibbs, the Eagles were in the 1980 Super Bowl, then, of course, the Redskins famously beat Dallas in the 82 NFC Championship game to get in.

When the Redskins win again in 87, it was the Giants who won the year before. So, I mean, just even there, that's just even a shorter span.

Every one of those teams at least made the championship game, and that was, of course, you know, Dallas was the dominant team in the late 70s, and then obviously

they picked it up again right after Gibbs retired. Or they won their first Super Bowl under Jimmy Johnson with that Gibbs team. So, yeah, I mean,

that division was not, and that's part of the argument. for Joe and Kobe that I've heard people make, including Gibbs is that, look, it looks like he was going again. Lawrence Taylor, the most obvious one, but you've got, you know, Reggie White, too tall Jones, whoever Douth had, you know, again, it's all relative any known. Not to mention guys like Richard Dent and Fred Dean, who they were playing almost every year. You know, the Redskins always played the 49ers in the Bears, and they played them a bunch

in the postseason. Yeah, no. percent. It was insane. I, you know, I mean, the snub thing is all relative, right? I mean, like, Gibbs is a good example. Gibbs gets a lot of attention and all that, but I guarantee if we threw out a conversation to the world, who is the best NFL coach in, let's say, the Super Bowl era, or even if we dial it back to 1980 or recent, Joe Gibbs is, I don't know if he's in the top

five, not in terms of reality, but in terms of perception, because people are going to go to Belichick or maybe go to Jimmy Johnson or, you know, I don't know, pick some other people who just get more attention. We had this conversation a lot, Tommy and I did on the podcast right after Don Schula passed away a month ago or whenever it was. And, you know, when you go through a lot of these lists, you know, Gibbs is pretty much, you know, a lock for the top 10. And then it's a matter of whether not, you know, he's in the top five or just outside of it, you know, somewhere in there. And I think you're right. I think that you can make the case for Gibbs to be sort of on that

Mount Rushmore like the top four. I will tell you personally, and this is why it became a conversation on the podcast, I think Shula is the greatest coach of my lifetime of watching NFL football. Now, I think if it's not him, it's Belichick. So I have Belichick and Shula in that same, you know, category of the two greatest. And then I draw a line before I get. And it's not a line and then count seven spaces. But then, you know, it's Lombardi, it's Walsh, it's Paul Brown, who I didn't see coach, and it's Gibbs. Like, that's the next group of guys before you get to Noel and Landry. I can't even talk about Hallis because I don't know. But Gibbs is in that conversation, there's no doubt in terms of one of the greatest four or five coaches of all

time. He has to be, and part of it is what you illustrated, the competitive landscape that he faced. I mean, George Hallis and Paul Brown and Vince Lombardi, they were in an NFL where you won one game to win the championship or maybe two, and you were in a league with eight, 10, 12 teams. What Joe Gibbs had, Joe Gibbs had two 10 and six teams that didn't even make the postseason. It's crazy. Yeah, and, yeah, I mean, like I said, for anybody who's a real football head, this is no-brainer that Gibbs rings tied. General Populah's not a late.

Shulah is a good comparison, I think, with Gibbs, because, look, I'm not just counting Belichick or Bill Walsh or some others who had, just because they had one dominant quarterback for the bulk of their time. But, you know, circumstances are where they are, and like Gibbs, Shula had different quarterback. And yes, he had Bob Greasy, but like, you know, they had some other, they'll mean, they were in that Super Bowl that they lost to Washington, Super Bowl. He was David Woodley. David Woodley. And by the way, and by the way, no running game either.

Yeah. And also, like they were, you know, the classic, when they had their team in the 70s of Larry Zonka and Jim Kick, they were a classic grinded out, running team. But then when Dan Marino shows up, he flips it to, wait a minute, we have this. this guy who can do all these things. We're going to, I don't even know what the modern era of football is, meaning this is what you must have been thinking then, but we're going to start creating it right now. We're going to throw the ball all over the place because this guy's awesome,

and that's sort of what Gibbs did. He enters with the Eric Coriel stuff. Immediately recognizes this isn't working for my personnel, so it's to a ground-oriented game with Wrigan's and the hog, but then as the decade progresses, and he gets guys like Doug Williams and Mark Rippett who can throw the ball down the field, plus all these great receivers. he opens it up and they start doing something else.

And that, to me, is what was so interesting. Anytime I ever hear a coach talk about his system, this, that, and the other, and you can tell he's not veering from it, I'm out. Hard pass. That's not going to work unless you just get incredibly lucky with personnel. Because if you're stuck to your system is precious and can't be altered, well, then that's the preposterous. You need to coach to the personnel.

And that's what Joe Gibbs did as well as anybody. You know, you really, really stated it on Shula very well, and the comparison is really apt. And I talked about some of that. But you sort of enhanced the conversation about Shula in talking about the multiple ways that he won. Now, you know, after the 70s, he didn't win another Super Bowl. You know, he went to two, you know, the one with Woodley in that team that lost to the Redskins. and then the Marino year that they lost to the 49ers. But if you just, you know, the most incredible statistic

during his 33-year coaching career is that he had two losing seasons, two. That's it. That's unbelievable. And by the way, one of them was six and eight, which is a game, you know, under 500. But he did it with, to your point, he did it with a running style hard-nosed team with a no-nose team with a no-name defense in the 70s.

And then he did it with a bunch of people you've never heard of in 82 got to a Super Bowl. And then he got this quarterback in Marino and the guy becomes the first 5,000-yard passer and he takes that team to the Super Bowl. And even when they weren't going to Super Bowls, they were winning, you know, games and going to the postseason. Marino went to the post-season with Shula. I'm going to guess at least seven or eight times that they won divisions or were in is wild cards because Buffalo was a really good team, obviously, when you got to the late 80s

and into the 90s in that four straight years with Marve Levy losing in the Super Bowl. But yeah, I mean, that's the comp to Gibbs, you know, is that Gibbs, you know, did it so many different ways with different, you know, personnel. Gibbs ended up winning three Super Bowls, but I still think, I mean, Shula, I'm telling you, Ben, some of those teams were not very talented. Some of those teams had Marino, and that was it. And somehow they'd win 10 games and end up in the playoffs. And I don't know, there was something about watching Shula's teams. I was felt that they were incredibly disciplined and smart and just seemed to be a step ahead of everybody, which is the way I felt about Gibbs, too. By the way, like to this point, and this is

like, you know, we're so far off a field. I appreciate you letting us ramble. To that point, you know, Tom Brady is now universally. claimed as the greatest quarterback of all time. Maybe somebody will throw in Joe Montana. I thought for me personally that John Elway was because those Denver teams were crap. He had nothing on those teams. Go back and look at the receivers and the brunnyback he had when they were losing in Super Bowl. If you think, look, LeBron James had to have some terrible supporting cast, which I had debate, if you think that, go look who John Elway had. He was so another level. He was, I think, for quarterback the way people view LeBron.

He was so athletic. He did so many things he overcame so much, and I feel he gets overlooked at times now because he lost those games. And this is like, this is more to the point of how my brain works. I love the people who clearly, it's easy to win with talent. It's not easy to win with talent, but it's easier to win with talent.

Show me the guys who succeeded consistently when they didn't have great things around them because they either as a player made it work or as a coach figured out how to push the right buttons and those are the ones no matter what to support that always I gravitate towards. No doubt. Elway was always my number one.

He was always my number one, number one. It was something that I was never going to get talked out of. But I do think that Brady in recent years is probably just edged Elway out on my list. Because the truth of the matter is, is Brady has won so much. and he hasn't always had the best talent around him. You know, there are different styles of quarterback, obviously. Elway's one of the great comeback quarterbacks. He's one of the great, you know, sort of one of the biggest arms

and also one of the most elusive and the best at extending plays. He's much more Aaron Rogers, you know, like in the way he played. But I also feel the same way about Marino. And whenever I've gotten into these conversations before, you know, I'll have people call me and say, Marino went to one Super Bowl. What are you talking about? I'm like, did you watch him play? I mean, those teams that he was on, it was all him.

And, you know, if you watch this guy play, I don't know that there's ever been a greater pocket quarterback with better, you know, a quicker release and more command and more accuracy. This guy threw for 5,000 yards and 48 touchdowns in 1984. Like this is, you know, 25 years before somebody was thrown for 5,000 yards again. I'm the same way. I don't need Lombardi trophies next to their name to call them great or even the greatest of all time. It's, you know, it's the thing that Thaisman says every single time he's on with me about the position. And he's right.

It's the most dependent position in sports. is different than basketball. One player, you know, doesn't, you know, can't win a championship by himself. And you're only out there, you know, half the time. So, yeah, I'm with you on Elway. I think Marino suffers from the same thing, you know, and when I hear people talk about Dan Marino and they're like, well, he's off my list because he never won a Super Bowl and he only went to one, all you got to do is go back and just watch, you know, on YouTube some of the games. He was He's in that conversation of the greatest of all time, in my opinion. But anyway, yeah, both of your stories were great.

I mean, they were both great. They're perfect for now, but they would be perfect even, you know, if we're in the middle of watching the NBA playoffs right now, I would have read them. But I urge everybody to go read Ben on The Athletic, and of course you can follow him on Twitter. By the way, I guess the last thing that I was going to get to, you with on is the story that Mike Sando wrote on the athletic, along with, who was the other guy that

wrote it? I'm sorry. Zach Boyer, her used to be on the Redskins to be back in the day. Right. So, oh, that's right. Zach was. I remember that. They basically wrote and ranked the top 25 teams of the last 50 years, which was a really good story. And they had, To me, they had the 91 Redskins in the area in which I think they should be. They had them third behind the 85 bears and behind the 84-49ers, which those are the two teams. It's funny. I forget how we got into this conversation either earlier this week or last week. And I – oh, I know what it was.

It was a conversation that we had on radio about – Tommy and I may have done it too. sort of the one sports take, the one hot sports take you'll never back off of. You know, the one thing that you're absolutely convinced of and nobody's ever going to talk you out of. And for me, one of them was that the 91 Redskins are the greatest Super Bowl team of all time. And part of it is just because I think over the years, sometimes they get put into a category that's ridiculous. Like I've seen them outside the top 10 or 14, 15, 20. I'm like, give me a break. This is one of the great teams of all time.

But the teams that are in the conversation with them are the 85 bears, the 84-9ers. I think the 2007 Patriots personally, the 78 Steelers, you know, those are the teams that I would put into that conversation. Obviously, the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl, that 2007 team. But one of the things real quickly, and then I want you to comment on it as well, the 1983 Redskins that, lost to the Raiders in the Super Bowl came in 24th on this list. They're one of seven teams on the list that didn't win the Super Bowl. The guys on that team, Thysman, Doc, Rigo, that I've spent a lot of time with over the years, they think it's the best team they played on. Now, some of those guys didn't play on the 91 team. It was such a ridiculously explosive offensive

a football team. They just weren't very good defensively, even though they were a turnover machine. But I loved what Zach Boyer and what Mike Sando used as one of the criteria in creating this list. And it was regular season and postseason point differential, not overall, but versus teams that finished the regular season with winning records. That was 10% of the criteria. I think that often, you know, also reflects what we're watching when we watch the teams. Like, no, they're killing everybody. You know, look at how good they are. They're blowing everybody out. Well, the 72 dolphins didn't do that. The 91 Redskins did. They blew everybody out, basically. What did you make of that list? Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think this is

sort of an example of what we were talking about before about why, why does it feel like this era of Redskins football, that team, and maybe a little bit, but just in that era overlooked. Again, if you said to the random people, name the best individual single season teams of all time, I bet you those Redskins teams do not get mentioned significantly beyond people who were around here. But when you pull out the numbers, which is what these guys did, then it shows how insane that group was.

You know, the offense, defense, defense special teams, they had highly productive groups all over the place. And they just blew people out the whole year. I think Bruce Smith, you know, I haven't played him in the Super Bowl, said it was the best team. Yeah. He ever faced in his career. And, but, you know, again, that quarter of Mark Rippin of the three quarterbacks under Gibbs, he was, at least in the career. You know, he probably was the least of the three. Who would have been running back?

Okay, the first one you had John Reagan, the second one you had Timmy Smith, obviously the Golden was the guy primarily during the regular season. Right, yeah. But I'm thinking of, in the biggest game, and then in that Super Bowl, sure, you have Gerald Riggs and Biner and whatever,

but, like, you don't have a guy who's like just such an obvious go-to. And the defense, that was probably the best defense, I would think, of the three Super Bowl champion. But, you know, again, what was the thing? I mean, like, they didn't have, I mean, Darryl Green is obviously sort of, you know,

the most recognized individual player, you know, that the Redskins probably have. But, you know, it's just a constant way that's where they were an amazing team and the numbers show it, but it's just not one that just rolls off the tongue for a lot of people when you talk about the best. And, you know, again, I think a lot of that is just gives was not a self-promoter. You know, there's no, you know, there's no, how about them, Cowboy Speech, there's not that moment, you know.

And, you know, it is what it is. And that's why it's fun to talk about these things. But, yeah, it was good that they got recognition on that 91th who got recognition on that list. Yeah, they've gotten recognition. It's been hit and miss. But USA Today ranked them as the greatest team to ever win a Super Bowl back in 2016. Football outsiders ranked them as the greatest team of all time. I'm sorry, they ranked them as the greatest team, I think, of the post-merger era.

They've gotten some due over the year. I've seen them ranked consistently in the top 10, top five, but I've seen some lists where they're like 14th or 18th. And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, you got that wrong. Here's the one knock against the 91 race. Redskins, and it's not their fault. They couldn't help it. But their postseason path to the Super Bowl had two teams that just weren't very good. They were okay to run-and-shoot teams, which Pettabone owned the run-and-shoot in Atlanta and Detroit. But then they played Buffalo in the Super Bowl,

and Buffalo was a great team and a prolific offensive team, and the Redskins completely shut the bills down in that Super Bowl game. Now, they ended up scoring 24 points in the second half. You know, a lot of that after they got down 31 to 3, I think, was the score. But it was a dominant team. To your point, you're right, there aren't like players that, you know, on both sides of the ball that were obvious Hall of Famers. I mean, Monks in the Hall of Fame. And Jim Lachet was an incredible, an incredible offensive lineman. And Jacoby and Grimm were on those teams, but, you know, they were a little bit past their point, and Jacoby's basically playing right tackle at that point.

And the defense was dominant, even though, you know, it's guys like Tim Johnson and Fred Stokes and Jumpy Gathers, who was a phenomenal pass rusher and a havoc wreaker. Wilbur Marshall was on that team. He's a great player for them. Monty Coleman and, you know, obviously Darrell Green's your Locked Defensive Hall of of Fame on that team, who, you know, is phenomenal. But, yeah, I think that 91 team, sometimes, you know, depending on the rankings, gets completely forgotten. And other times, recognized appropriately.

I think it depends. Are we having an emotional conversation or are we having a analytical conversation? The numbers like them, but I think the bar room conversations, which is, I suspect what most of these players are talking about, you know, when Jacobi is hearing, whatever conversation he's involved with, it's probably not people reading football outsiders would be my guest. It's not something like, well, I just poured through all the data, and based on that, you guys were not one of the top five teams. It's just like a gut thing, and on that level is where I think they get overlooked.

And look, I would probably argue even for some All-of-Fame voters, especially historically, maybe be a little bit different recently, but historically are also probably that way as well. What do I think happen? Not necessarily. Let me look at data. provide a conclusion. I think that's totally true because I think the number one team on this list that was put

together on the athletic or the 85 Chicago Bears. And I think that a lot of NFL fans without looking at numbers would say, you know, that was the team. Like you watch that team and they kicked everybody's ass except for one team and that was the dolphins, but they were just so dominant. And the 91 Redskins, you know, they don't have like, one of those marquee games, like the Bears were going through there, and the Bears had the Super Bowl shuffle, and they did have, I mean, I think the 85 bear defense is the greatest defense I've ever seen in my years of watching football for sure. By the way, that particular season, they beat the Redskins 45 to 10 at Soldier Field. The Joe Thysman punt. The Joe Thysman negative one-yard punt. Yep. I think it was, was it negative one-yard or was it positive one-yard? I don't really recall.

I think it was positive one yard. It was not a very good punt. And the Redskins were completely dominated that day. It was funny because, you know, Joe Gibbs just didn't, they didn't get killed. You know, they didn't get beat badly except by the Raiders in that Super Bowl. And they lost 45 to 10 that day at Soldier Field. And you knew the bears were for real. And by the way, like not to keep deliberated.

What happened to the next year so the bears obviously don't repeat? They get knocked out of the playoff by Washington with not Joe Seventh, not Doug Williams, not Mark Rippin, but another quarterback, Jay Schrader, playing. And then they went to the NFC championship game, loose to the Giants. So they even had a fourth quarterback who went to the least an NFC championship game. I mean, that doesn't get discussed enough in the sort of the overall thing. But that's the thing. The Bears couldn't repeat.

The Redskins knocked them out. And, you know, with a guy who nobody talks about as a quarterback. No, it's so true. and then they went to Chicago the following year with Doug Williams on their way to the Super Bowl and won again against the Bears at Soldier Field. Thank you for doing this. Thank you for spending so much time with us. I appreciate it.

I always love the conversation. Have a good weekend. We'll chat next week. Thanks, man. Ben Standing, everybody. I always enjoy catching up with him. All right, we're done for the day. All right.

Have a great weekend. Safe weekend. I'll be back on Monday.