Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Chris bringing up this link http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6415 on the other thread inspires this one. Of course the what-ifs get out of hand as for what would happen after '87 (Browns beating Washington) and into the '90s but I simply ask not for us to make this quite a what-if thread but who you all think were really the better teams in each division and conference that year? Who lucked out due to the circumstances albeit higher seeding or making playoffs in the first place, and who got the bad end of the deal? Not only is it the scab games Weeks #4 through #6 that played a role in altering things, but the outright cancelled Week #3. And why was that week ever cancelled? May as well resume it if all other 15 games were played, I'd like to think. That week by itself may have changed a tone, that Broncos@Browns one (homefield?) in-particular. Here are those Week #3 games that never were...

Atlanta Falcons @ New Orleans Saints
Buffalo Bills @ Dallas Cowboys
Chicago Bears @ Detroit Lions
Cincinnati Bengals @ Los Angeles Rams
Green Bay Packers @ Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Indianapolis Colts @ St. Louis Cardinals
Los Angeles Raiders @ Houston Oilers
Minnesota Vikings @ Kansas City Chiefs
New England Patriots @ Washington Redskins
New York Giants @ Miami Dolphins
New York Jets @ Pittsburgh Steelers
Philadelphia Eagles @ San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks @ San Diego Chargers
Denver Broncos @ Cleveland Browns (MNF)

Take Giants for instance. Start off 0-2 and then come the scabs in which they lose all three. You can say that put them too deep in a hole to rally back from, but look who they played them three weeks: SF, Wash, and at Buf. Their Week #3 date at Miami a pretty interesting one (NYG@Mia rarity to boot). As that link Chris offered says, both Buf & Mia were victims of the scab games. Or were the Colts best in division after all? They were 2-1 in scab games, but did start out 0-2 beforehand. Once Dickerson came along afterward, they posted enough division wins along with beating Cleveland & Houston (big) down the stretch. The Pats also in the convo and the Jets (6-5 before the big skid; 1-2 in scabs) shouldnt be ignored either. A super-tight division that was. I like that Colts/Cards Week #3 match and, back to NFC East, where does Stallings' gang play into this? Both they and G-men, who split, were 6-6 in non-scabs. Of course all eyes on 0-3 scab Eagles but they likely don't get in anyway with Saints & 8-4 non-scab Vikes in the way. Of course technically 2nd-place Dallas will always get the 2-1, many starters playing, scab gruff. However, their sweep over the Giants were both non-scab, as was their win in Foxboro, as was that finale vs Cards.

A lot to say about this notorious season. What are your takes?

Well the scab games definitely skewed the final standings a bit. The Vikings were certainly not a barely above .500 team that year and they showed it in the playoffs. I'd say they go 3-1 in the cancelled game/scab games and finish 11-5 if the strike never happens. My assumption is, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, that week 3 was cancelled because the owners needed some time to figure out what to do (bring in scabs or not play at all like in '82).... OR if they knew they were going to take the scab route all along, it would make sense to need an extra week to bring in 45 guys from off the street who had never met each other before, let alone be familiar with their new coaches, and put together some semblance of a game plan. Didn't the strike officially start on that Tuesday IIRC? It probably would have been nearly impossible to play that Sunday.

Week 3 cancelled games: Denver @ Cleveland would have been a gem. Buffalo @ Dallas would have been interesting. Bills on the upswing and Cowboys on the decline at the time. It would have been a rematch of the 0-11 Bills upset from 3 years earlier. I remember the game was blacked out... because EVERY game was blacked out since the Bills sucked. so no game to watch on TV, my friend Jason was over and we were constructing something with Legos. My Dad comes in the room and says... "We just beat the Cowboys!" I remember having a "waitwhat??" type of response because there was still that "Dallas mystique". Greg Bell went over 200 yards in that game too.

I remember that Bills win over the Cowboys was considered the upset of the year for '84. It was said at the time that Bell had had a dream the night before the game that he carried the ball on the first play for a touchdown. He told one of his linemen (I forget who) in the locker room before the contest about his dream, and the teammate claimed to have had the same dream. Bell did indeed take his first carry 85 yards to the house.

Lot of stuff happening that year.

Jerry Rice catching TD's left and right. The Saints becoming winners. The Chargers looking like they had one last run with Fouts/Chandler/Winslow before maybe the most forgotten late-season collapse ever. The Dickerson trade. The Giants just flat out falling apart (save for 1983, the one really bad year of the Bill Parcells Big Blue era). Bills/Eagles showing signs of future prominence. The Fumble. The first of many Houston Oilers teams under Warren Moon that from September-December were winners more often than not. A goofy AFC East race where nobody was out of it.

And yet.... there was something about that year that just made you wonder. Seeing a meh Vikings team basically catch fire for two playoff games- against two teams in the Saints/49ers that looked the part all season- ONLY because the Cardinals lost at Dallas (Wade Wilson made a deal with the Devil, I'm convinced. He looked like 1998 Randall Cunningham those two games at Candlestick/New Orleans) and we ended up with one of the least imposing Redskins teams ever basically stealing a SB bid with, on paper, not exactly Gibbs' finest squad.

Looking back on how lame the 1987 NFC Championship Game played out- not exactly a barn-burner- somehow Doug Williams went from winning against Minnesota in spite of his play that day to THAT quarter against Denver.

I'll add more to what I said about Dallas end of OP. Yes, Dallas the most notorious story of that season. You had them playing their starters during the scab games, but can you blame Landry? Had I been lucky enough to have my starters cross the picket line, WHY NOT pile up the wins if you could? And it's not as if ALL 11 staters on each side of ball crossed the line anyway. For Buddy Ryan to take offense and drag an old Legend into a dramatic, silly rivalry with him on the 11th hour of his career...

Yes, losing that very MNF to Washington (and inspiring a future-Gene Hackman/Keanu Reeves flick in the process) and that horrific home loss to AtL a definite low-point, but end of day (FWIW, yes we're going by high historic standards) Dallas was not...'BAD' in '87 as especially was the case a year prior (beating Giants in opener, starting 6-2). As much as many see Landry's career ending badly, his only real...BAD year since the early-'60s was...his FINAL year in '88. Not counting Joe Gibbs' first year in '81, and not counting '88 (both actually split that year anyway), Landry's record against Gibbs was 5-7. Not counting Parcells' first year in '83, and not counting '88, Landry's record vs the Tuna was...5-3. Not bad at all against two of the '80's best at the peak of their powers.

As for another team coached by a Legend that very year, some say (including the link that Chris showed us) that the Steelers were a playoff team. Yes, there was the opener of course. There was that down-the-stretch win over playoff-bound Seattle. A week prior they gave NO all they could handle (Malone succumbing to a Saints goal-line stand late in game), and they did give Houston then Cleveland each a game to close things out - but not before losing lopsided to each earlier on (each of those non-scab games). This, to me, prevents me to subscribing to that point of view. Decent? Almost a playoff team that year? Sure, but just not good enough.

The REAL commentary about this squad was the ample amount of players on the roster who were there in the '70s. Stallworth, Shell, Cole, Dunn and Pinney (back again since '85) were all still onboard for one final year while WEBBIE was still in Pro Bowl form and would play in the 'Burgh for another year (Woodruff through '90). And who were your rookies? Woodson, Lloyd (albeit IR the whole year), Nickerson, Hoge, future-Cowboy Everett and hard-hitting secondary stud...Delton Hall! A shame he didn't last into the Cowher Era. Talk about a year of transition, past and present! Not to mention the big '80s vets like Tunch, Lipps, Merriweather, Hinkle, Little and Gary A along with Moore, Greene, and some DC named Dungy as your assistants! Definitely an interesting, special Steelers squad to look back upon.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:Dallas was not...'BAD' in '87 as especially was the case a year prior (beating Giants in opener, starting 6-2). As much as many see Landry's career ending badly, his only real...BAD year since the early-'60s was...his FINAL year in '88. Not counting Joe Gibbs' first year in '81, and not counting '88 (both actually split that year anyway), Landry's record against Gibbs was 5-7. Not counting Parcells' first year in '83, and not counting '88, Landry's record vs the Tuna was...5-3. Not bad at all against two of the '80's best at the peak of their powers.

Dallas would have actually made the ''87 playoffs if they had the 90s playoff format (Cowboys would have been the #6 seed had there been 6 playoff teams per conference.) and would have played..... Washington(!) had there been a second NFC Wild Card Game.

Seeing a meh Vikings team basically catch fire for two playoff games- against two teams in the Saints/49ers that looked the part all season- ONLY because the Cardinals lost at Dallas (Wade Wilson made a deal with the Devil, I'm convinced. He looked like 1998 Randall Cunningham those two games at Candlestick/New Orleans) and we ended up with one of the least imposing Redskins teams ever basically stealing a SB bid with, on paper, not exactly Gibbs' finest squad.

That Cowboy win over St. Louis at the end of 87 may have led to their 90's success. If the Vikes don't have that run in 1987, do they still feel like giving up what they did to get Walker two years later? Probably not. Dallas probably ends up accepting a lot less for him in a trade.