Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 4:35 PM ET, 12/13/2010

The Redskins aren't doing very well at home

By Dan Steinberg

(By Larry French - Getty)


As an addendum to my previous note about the Redskins' relatively small crowd on Sunday, let me also note this:

The Redskins are 2-5 at home this season. That means they will finish without a winning home record for the third straight season. That's only happened three times in 40 years: from 1961-1963, from 1993-1995, and from 2008-2010. This is, clearly, the first time the Redskins have so suffered at FedEx Field.

Going back through the standings, that's hardly even the worst of it. The worst is this: in my lifetime, the Redskins have never had less of a home-field advantage than they do right now.

From 1969 to 1992, the Redskins never finished with a losing record at home. Never. Like, not once. In 24 seasons.

In the next decade -- from 1993 to 2002 -- the Redskins finished with a losing record at home twice.

And in the next eight seasons -- from 2003 to the present -- the Redskins will now have finished with a losing record at home five times. Overall, they're 29-34 at home in that span. Not dominant.

"There's still a home-field advantage," Chris Cooley told the Junkies last week. "It's terrible that we haven't won at home. I mean, we've all talked about it. Not as a team, I've just talked about it with buddies: why can't we win at home? We should win at home. We should win six, seven games every year at home. Good teams do that. We have to win at home. We have to figure out what it is to win at home, because we do have good fans, and when we're in games and it's close games, our fans are great. It's loud in there. It's a home-field advantage. So we have to take advantage of it. Which we haven't done."

FYI, the Redskins have won as many as six games at home one time since Joe Gibbs retired after the 1992 season. During Gibbs's first 12 seasons, the Redskins won at least six games at home seven times.

(One final note: when the Redskins had three straight sub-.500 home campaigns in the early 60s, the final loss came in mid-December, when the Skins missed two short field goals and an extra point. Sounds like fun.)

By Dan Steinberg  | December 13, 2010; 4:35 PM ET
Categories:  Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: About the Redskins' fifth down
Next: Chris Cooley might be getting frustrated maybe

Comments

Interesting analysis, but the question is: how does home field advantage fare when compared to our overall win/loss record? When we win 4 games in a season, for instance, they would all have to be home games for us to go 50-50 at home.

Posted by: baneofpigs | December 13, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"We should win six, seven games every year at home. Good teams do that."

The rub.

Posted by: ThisGuy | December 13, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

The team doesn't seem to have an identity that is built around playing outdoors on grass. Coach Gibbs brought that back for a little while - run the ball and stop the run.

Posted by: oconnra8 | December 13, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

"There's still a home-field advantage," Chris Cooley told the Junkies last week. why can't we win at home? We should win at home. We should win six, seven games every year at home. Good teams do that. We have to win at home. We have to figure out what it is to win at home,

Better minds than you have tried to figure this out for years Chris... Raljon is a vortex of stupidness..Get out while you can..and take the owner with you

Posted by: ocskins | December 14, 2010 12:56 AM | Report abuse

And I quote: "We should win six, seven games every year at home. Good teams do that."

Chris, you just answered your own question. Good teams do that. The Skins aren't a good team.

Posted by: stwasm | December 14, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Don't worry Chris. There aren't going to be many fans left to disappoint. Snyder has essentially destoryed the franchise.

Posted by: Scoonie97 | December 14, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

They can't win at home for the same reason they can't win on the road: they stink. Hope Cooley can understand that concept.

Posted by: dbunkr | December 14, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Obviously designed to provoke Snyder hate Also, the recent lack of success at home might be because of realignment in 2002 and the fact that the Redskins don't have Arizona to kick around at home once a year. I see in both 2000 and 2001, the last two years Arizona was a divisional opponent, the Redskins beat Arizona last week of the season to preserve a 4-4 home record. Obviously without that gimme most years, things got tougher.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | December 14, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Not to nitpick, but . . .

If the team had 3 straight losing seasons at home from '93-'95, how is it possible that "In the next decade -- from 1993 to 2002 -- the Redskins finished with a losing record at home twice."

Posted by: FlyersSuck | December 14, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

These guys haven't had a home field advantage since they left RFK. Forget the records. There haven't been a home field advantage because the teams have sucked during that period.

When they arrived at Fedex Field the drunken FANS didn't know how to provide a home field advantage. They screamed when the skins were on defense AND when they needed quiet.

I watched the colts at home recently and the place dam near went silent when they were on offense. I said "now that's a smart fan base". It seems like skins fans finally got it this year but having a 12th man for a team that needs 14 just to compete is hopeless.

They lose at home because teams KNOW that they can't go 4 full quarters and that if they just hang around that the skins will find a way to let them back in the game or win it. Rooting for them has been a miserable experience.

Posted by: keedrow | December 14, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Is it a coincidence that with the move to FedEx, the downturn in Team performance, and Danny's documented "show me the money" management style that that the home field advantage is gone? No. I do not go to the games regularly, I refuse to give Danny anymore money, Fedex is an annoyance to get to, and once inside the seats, the stadium, and the fans never have come close to recapturing RFK.
I went to the U in the early 90s and became accustomed to what home field advantage was supposed to be. I was there as the 58 home game undefeated streak grew until 1994. During that time I went to RFK and it is my honor that my last game at RFK was in 1992, the day after Christmas when sadly my Redskins lost to the Raiders. It was freezing cold and yet the stadium felt like it was about to collapse in on itself as the upper deck bounced and the yelling echoed. It was deafening and the Raiders were clearly affected as they eked out a win. On offense the Stadium was a snoring giant only to be awakened when a play was completed then back to an eerie stillness. On defense people lost their hearing, strained their voices, and created a cacophony that left most teams mistake prone. I returned for preseason games and found it to be similar; perhaps if the Raiders game was an 11 the preseason was a 7.
When I first went to FedEx I chalked it up to being preseason. Then I returned for a few regular season games and came to realize that when they installed the club seats and really started gouging the fans they removed the real Redskin football fans. You know the ones who understand to be quiet when the offense is on the field, the ones who are hoarse at the end of regulation having yelled on every defensive possession until the snap. The same fans who appreciated a 12-3 victory, a time of possession of 41 minutes and a 3 yard run to keep the chains moving as much as a blowout. They are gone or at the very least they have been marginalized. Home field advantage is for sale at FedEx, every time the Steelers, Eagles, or even the Giants come to DC we see that. Tell you what at the next Fandom or FedEx salutes the Fans preseason get Portis and Fletcher to take microphones and teach the fans how to cheer. Portis can hush them challenge FedEx field to be so quiet you can hear the beer guy in Section 407. Fletcher can take a DB meter and see if they can get above 120 DBs (Arrowheads average)
Until the fan intelligence and concern returns to RFK levels there will be no 12th man/Home field advantage.

Posted by: Hank4 | December 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

These guys haven't had a home field advantage since they left RFK. Forget the records. There haven't been a home field advantage because the teams have sucked during that period.

When they arrived at Fedex Field the drunken FANS didn't know how to provide a home field advantage. They screamed when the skins were on defense AND when they needed quiet.

I watched the colts at home recently and the place dam near went silent when they were on offense. I said "now that's a smart fan base". It seems like skins fans finally got it this year but having a 12th man for a team that needs 14 just to compete is hopeless.

They lose at home because teams KNOW that they can't go 4 full quarters and that if they just hang around that the skins will find a way to let them back in the game or win it. Rooting for them has been a miserable experience.

Posted by: keedrow | December 14, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Hank4 is right on the money. The home field advantage was lost when the team moved to FedEx and added an additional 35,000 seats. The club level is always 1/2 empty and the people closest to the field are in the DREAM seats and are usually corporate guests who are pulling for the other team. My family has had season tickets for over 40 years and the difference in atmosphere between RFK and FedEx is unbeleivable... and sad.

Posted by: VaBroker | December 14, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"There's still a home-field advantage," Chris Cooley told the Junkies last week.

The Skins are 26-29 (0.473) at home since Cooley joined the team in 2004. He apparently does not understand that winning less than half your games at home is not "a home-field advantage".

Posted by: DickNixon | December 14, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Building JKC in hindsight was a mistake in regards to home field advantage. Coming up in the late 80s and early 90s, I remember Madden saying RFK was one of the toughest places to play. Also one of the loudest.

Oh well it is what it is.

Posted by: cleancut77 | December 14, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I just would like to thank Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan for trading QB Jason Campbell to the Raiders. Now that he's entrenched as the starter because Bruce Gradkowski's gotten hurt, he isn't looking over his shoulder all the time and he's playing with a great amount of confidence. We out here in Oakland know he's not going to be one of the all-time greats, but his work ethic, professionalism and toughness have earned him big-time respect. We feel he's taking us in the right direction.

I'll bet he's happy to be out of that lunacy going on in Washington. Isn't it amazing how much a good running game improves the fate of a quarterback? With Darren McFadden and Michael Bush carrying the load, Campbell has the type of help he never had in Washington. It also goes a long way when your owner isn't badmouthing you or openly talking about bringing in other QBs. Wow! It's hard to believe, but the Redskins are even more dysfunctional than the Raiders. Bet you never thought that would be true.

Well, we're happy with Campbell in Oakland. Again, thanks Mike and Bruce...hope Donovan McNabb's all you hoped he'd be.

Posted by: digdkw | December 14, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company