Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

The New York Giants lost all 3 "scab" games, including a game considered to be one of the worst in NFL history, a 6-3 overtime loss to Buffalo. If they win all 3, they finish 9-6 and get into the playoffs. That's why those Washington replacements all deserved Super Bowl rings long before they finally got them. It was their play in those 3 "scab" games that made the difference.

[Edit: 49ers went 3-0 in "scab" games, though Montana crossed the picket line.]

If the NFL had decided to discount the scab games, playoff seedings would have remained the same, but there would have been some subtle changes in the final standings.

The Chiefs and Raiders would have swapped places, with L.A. finishing in the AFC West cellar. Similar story with the Bucs and Lions in the NFC Central.

The Patriots would have finished third instead of second in the AFC East, ahead of the Bills on a division-play tiebreaker, and with Miami taking the runner-up spot.

The 49ers and Saints would both have finished 10-2, with San Francisco nosing out the NFC West crown, also with the division-play tiebreaker.

Finally, the Cowboys would have dropped from second to last in the NFC East, with the Eagles taking their place followed by the Cardinals and Giants at 6-6 each.

The Falcons would have kept the top 1988 draft pick with a record of 2-10. The Buccaneers, also at 2-10 but having beaten Atlanta, would have gotten the second pick instead of Kansas City.

The Falcons would have kept the top 1988 draft pick with a record of 2-10. The Buccaneers, also at 2-10 but having beaten Atlanta, would have gotten the second pick instead of Kansas City.

The Chiefs and Raiders would have swapped places, with L.A. finishing in the AFC West cellar. Similar story with the Bucs and Lions in the NFC Central.

It looks like the Raiders would have been picking ahead of the Chiefs, then, and they may have drafted Neil Smith if he was available (Al Davis really liked Smith).