'Year of the Scab' ESPN 30 for 30 (1987 Redskins)
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:28 am
Watched this recent 30 for 30 installment and was somewhat entertained. It was neat to see guys like Anthony Allen, Ed Rubbert and Craig McEwen being interviewed. My biggest criticism is that not enough time was spent on interesting issues (why TV networks agreed to replacement games, how the NFL teams stocked their rosters differently, what happened to post-strike scabs like McEwen in future years, etc.), and instead the 1987 Redskins were portrayed in overly moralistic terms.
One issue brought up was that the 1987 Redskin players who only played in the 3 replacement games did not receive Super Bowl rings. Even Gibbs couldn't bring himself to say that this was an oversight, yet the film kept hammering away at this. The best part was John Kent Cooke starting off by saying how expensive it is to make the Super Bowl rings, then finishing by saying that it was all handled by the NFL office because the NFL actually paid for the rings. Like father, like son.
The other issue, which was a the driving "good vs. evil" theme, was the comparison of the 1987 Redskins to the 1987 Cowboys. This was convenient, because Tex Schramm was portrayed as the embodiment of OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT, and the climax of the film was the replacement Redskins defeating the 'regular' Cowboys in their last game. Schramm threatening to take away Tony Dorsett's and Randy White's annuity payments was seen as the ultimate act of evil, even though Schramm was within his rights to do so.
The worst parts of the film are when the inane Mike Tanier appears to propel this "Redskins/good vs. Cowboys/evil" narrative. The only reason I can think of for Tanier's commentary is that the film credits Tanier with authoring a book called "Year of the Scab" (which, from what I can tell, has never been published), and his analysis of the situation unsurprisingly falls short in both logic and historical accuracy.
Tanier portrays the 1987 Cowboys as a team at the height of their dynastic powers, and the 1987 Redskins as a scrappy underdog struggling to find their way. Schramm's 'strike-breaking' actions of getting regulars like White and Dorsett to cross the picket line are, according to Tanier, actions motivated by greed and ego. Tanier's concluding analysis is that the Cowboys dynasty ended because Schramm disrupted vital 'team chemistry', and the Cowboys of that era never recovered from their loss to the replacement Redskins.
The Cowboys dynasty had been in decline since 1984, and had gone 2-8 in their last 10 games prior to the 1987 strike (including a 41-14 loss to the Skins). Schramm was still in the business of winning games, and getting guys like Danny White to cross the picket line and perhaps 'steal' a few replacement games seemed like a good way for the Cowboys to remain in the 1987 postseason picture. Tanier's implication that the Cowboys were the only team to have regulars crossing the picket line is the opposite of reality; the Redskins were actually the outlier in NOT having regulars cross the picket line. If Schramm ended a dynasty by disrupting 'team chemistry' (an ironic accusation by Tanier, considering that the great Cowboys teams were never known for great chemistry in the first place), then the majority of NFL teams must have collapsed under the same chemistry issues.
Basically, the 1987 Redskins would have been a good team regardless of the 1987 replacement games. They had gone 12-4 in 1986 and lost in the NFC Championship game. The 1987 Cowboys would have been a bad team regardless of the 1987 replacement games. They had gone 7-9 in 1986 (after starting 6-2) and were an aging team. The Redskins victory over the Cowboys was a big upset and a nice story, but to treat it as some sort of 'watershed' moment is incorrect. The Redskins winning the Super Bowl had more to do with Doug Williams than Ed Rubbert, and the Cowboys going 3-13 in 1988 had more to do with Steve Pelluer than 'disruptive team chemistry'.
One issue brought up was that the 1987 Redskin players who only played in the 3 replacement games did not receive Super Bowl rings. Even Gibbs couldn't bring himself to say that this was an oversight, yet the film kept hammering away at this. The best part was John Kent Cooke starting off by saying how expensive it is to make the Super Bowl rings, then finishing by saying that it was all handled by the NFL office because the NFL actually paid for the rings. Like father, like son.
The other issue, which was a the driving "good vs. evil" theme, was the comparison of the 1987 Redskins to the 1987 Cowboys. This was convenient, because Tex Schramm was portrayed as the embodiment of OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT, and the climax of the film was the replacement Redskins defeating the 'regular' Cowboys in their last game. Schramm threatening to take away Tony Dorsett's and Randy White's annuity payments was seen as the ultimate act of evil, even though Schramm was within his rights to do so.
The worst parts of the film are when the inane Mike Tanier appears to propel this "Redskins/good vs. Cowboys/evil" narrative. The only reason I can think of for Tanier's commentary is that the film credits Tanier with authoring a book called "Year of the Scab" (which, from what I can tell, has never been published), and his analysis of the situation unsurprisingly falls short in both logic and historical accuracy.
Tanier portrays the 1987 Cowboys as a team at the height of their dynastic powers, and the 1987 Redskins as a scrappy underdog struggling to find their way. Schramm's 'strike-breaking' actions of getting regulars like White and Dorsett to cross the picket line are, according to Tanier, actions motivated by greed and ego. Tanier's concluding analysis is that the Cowboys dynasty ended because Schramm disrupted vital 'team chemistry', and the Cowboys of that era never recovered from their loss to the replacement Redskins.
The Cowboys dynasty had been in decline since 1984, and had gone 2-8 in their last 10 games prior to the 1987 strike (including a 41-14 loss to the Skins). Schramm was still in the business of winning games, and getting guys like Danny White to cross the picket line and perhaps 'steal' a few replacement games seemed like a good way for the Cowboys to remain in the 1987 postseason picture. Tanier's implication that the Cowboys were the only team to have regulars crossing the picket line is the opposite of reality; the Redskins were actually the outlier in NOT having regulars cross the picket line. If Schramm ended a dynasty by disrupting 'team chemistry' (an ironic accusation by Tanier, considering that the great Cowboys teams were never known for great chemistry in the first place), then the majority of NFL teams must have collapsed under the same chemistry issues.
Basically, the 1987 Redskins would have been a good team regardless of the 1987 replacement games. They had gone 12-4 in 1986 and lost in the NFC Championship game. The 1987 Cowboys would have been a bad team regardless of the 1987 replacement games. They had gone 7-9 in 1986 (after starting 6-2) and were an aging team. The Redskins victory over the Cowboys was a big upset and a nice story, but to treat it as some sort of 'watershed' moment is incorrect. The Redskins winning the Super Bowl had more to do with Doug Williams than Ed Rubbert, and the Cowboys going 3-13 in 1988 had more to do with Steve Pelluer than 'disruptive team chemistry'.