Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
-
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:30 pm
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
In '87, the 49ers had plenty of prominent scabs (Montana, Craig, Clark, Board, Francis) which meant they went 3-0. Still two of their games were relatively close, including their game in Atlanta (25-17) where they were favored by 23 points ON THE ROAD because of the perception of a huge disparity in the respective rosters. That game was originally scheduled for Candlestick, but switched because the Giants and Cardinals were playing in the NLCS.
I've often wondered if the scab factor might have been a factor come playoff time, since they were huge favorites and managed to blow it. They presumably could have won the SB, which would have meant the first of three SB titles.
I've often wondered if the scab factor might have been a factor come playoff time, since they were huge favorites and managed to blow it. They presumably could have won the SB, which would have meant the first of three SB titles.
- Todd Pence
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:07 am
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
In '82, with the kind of year he was having, Fouts might have broken the 5,000 yard barrier two years before Marino did.74_75_78_79_ wrote:
Though not as many as '82, many games were missed out that very season as well. Whether it's scab games that you wish would have not been scab games, or whether it's the very original Wk #3 matchups that were outright cancelled - Broncos@Browns MNF being the main one coming to mind! As for notable individual "could have been" seasons that were all in vain due to just 12 games? None come to mind without looking up the stats, but I'm sure there were some.
In '87, Jerry Rice probably would have shattered the receiving TD record.
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
He did, with an incredible 22 in 12 games. Mark Clayton had the existing record with 18 in 1984. Of course, Randy Moss set the new standard with 23 in 2007 but it took a full 16 games.Todd Pence wrote: In '87, Jerry Rice probably would have shattered the receiving TD record.
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:28 pm
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
And let's remember that in 1987 Reggie White had 21 sacks in 12 games!Todd Pence wrote:In '82, with the kind of year he was having, Fouts might have broken the 5,000 yard barrier two years before Marino did.74_75_78_79_ wrote:
Though not as many as '82, many games were missed out that very season as well. Whether it's scab games that you wish would have not been scab games, or whether it's the very original Wk #3 matchups that were outright cancelled - Broncos@Browns MNF being the main one coming to mind! As for notable individual "could have been" seasons that were all in vain due to just 12 games? None come to mind without looking up the stats, but I'm sure there were some.
In '87, Jerry Rice probably would have shattered the receiving TD record.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reggie-w ... _n_2345103
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
Wes Chandler had 1,032 receiving yards in 8 games. Chandler still technically holds the record for receiving yards per game.nicefellow31 wrote:And let's remember that in 1987 Reggie White had 21 sacks in 12 games!Todd Pence wrote:In '82, with the kind of year he was having, Fouts might have broken the 5,000 yard barrier two years before Marino did.74_75_78_79_ wrote:
Though not as many as '82, many games were missed out that very season as well. Whether it's scab games that you wish would have not been scab games, or whether it's the very original Wk #3 matchups that were outright cancelled - Broncos@Browns MNF being the main one coming to mind! As for notable individual "could have been" seasons that were all in vain due to just 12 games? None come to mind without looking up the stats, but I'm sure there were some.
In '87, Jerry Rice probably would have shattered the receiving TD record.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/reggie-w ... _n_2345103
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
I think 87 was worse, because the scab games themselves and the fact that everything counted in the standings/record books. I think the strike in 82 produced something interesting...the NFL Postseason Tournament!Citizen wrote:Both were pretty dismal. I'm frankly surprised that nobody thought to hire scabs in 1982. Fifty-seven days in the heart of the season was a long time for fans to be without NFL football.
Did anyone else think that having them occur during strike seasons took a little of the shine off of Washington's first two Super Bowl wins?
I do remember the 1982 Skins being 'disrespected' the entire year, with most people pointing to their regular season loss to Dallas, so much so that they were 3 point underdogs in the Super Bowl to a team QB'd by David Woodley. I think the Redskins strong performance in 1983 "validated" their 1982 title, if that makes sense.
Skins in 87 is kind of similar, but I'd point to the fact that they made the NFC title game in 1986.
- Rupert Patrick
- Posts: 1746
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:53 pm
- Location: Upstate SC
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
While the 1982 postseason was unique, it was bad for fans in that one could not possibly watch all of the games as you had four postseason games on Saturday and Sunday. It would have worked better, I think, if the NFL would have scheduled one of the playoff games as a Friday Night game, had 1PM, 4PM and 8PM games Saturday and Sunday, and a Monday Night game; this way, none of the games would have competed with one another. I'm sure the networks would have bought in on the idea.Bryan wrote:I think 87 was worse, because the scab games themselves and the fact that everything counted in the standings/record books. I think the strike in 82 produced something interesting...the NFL Postseason Tournament!Citizen wrote:Both were pretty dismal. I'm frankly surprised that nobody thought to hire scabs in 1982. Fifty-seven days in the heart of the season was a long time for fans to be without NFL football.
Did anyone else think that having them occur during strike seasons took a little of the shine off of Washington's first two Super Bowl wins?
I do remember the 1982 Skins being 'disrespected' the entire year, with most people pointing to their regular season loss to Dallas, so much so that they were 3 point underdogs in the Super Bowl to a team QB'd by David Woodley. I think the Redskins strong performance in 1983 "validated" their 1982 title, if that makes sense.
Skins in 87 is kind of similar, but I'd point to the fact that they made the NFC title game in 1986.
The big thing that worried me going into the 1982 playoffs was that a fluky team that had no business being in the playoffs (like Detroit or Cleveland) would somehow pull it together and wind up in the Super Bowl. The number six seed Jets did upset the Bengals and Raiders to get to the AFC Championship game, but I think they were a legitimately strong team, who if it hadn't been for the poor field conditions in Miami could very well have beaten the Dolphins, and would have given the Redskins at least as good a game as the Dolphins did in the Super Bowl. Despite the Raiders 8-1 record, I think the Jets and Dolphins were probably the two best teams in the AFC in 1982, and deserved to be in the AFC Championship game.
"Every time you lose, you die a little bit. You die inside. Not all your organs, maybe just your liver." - George Allen
Re: Which was worse, 1982 or 1987?
I don't remember much about the '82 season, other than begging the football gods to end the strike, but I do remember the '87 strike.
The Cowboys had many frontline players cross the picket line (Texas is not a union state) and Tex is said to have strong-armed guys like Tony Dorsett into playing by threatening to withhold his annuity or something like that.
But the fans absolutely adored the strike team. QB Kevin Sweeney was a fan favorite ("Danny's [White] a weenie, we want Sweeney"). I think fans took to the replacements because (1) many regular season ticket holders boycotted the games and left prime seats open for more blue-collar (and thus more rowdy and vocal) fans, and (2) the replacement players were far more emotional than the stoic business-like regular Cowboys.
I attended the second of the strike games and was interviewed by an out-of-town TV station who asked me why I came to the game? My answer was it was obvious these guys were having fun and that excitement rubbed off on the fans.
The Cowboys had many frontline players cross the picket line (Texas is not a union state) and Tex is said to have strong-armed guys like Tony Dorsett into playing by threatening to withhold his annuity or something like that.
But the fans absolutely adored the strike team. QB Kevin Sweeney was a fan favorite ("Danny's [White] a weenie, we want Sweeney"). I think fans took to the replacements because (1) many regular season ticket holders boycotted the games and left prime seats open for more blue-collar (and thus more rowdy and vocal) fans, and (2) the replacement players were far more emotional than the stoic business-like regular Cowboys.
I attended the second of the strike games and was interviewed by an out-of-town TV station who asked me why I came to the game? My answer was it was obvious these guys were having fun and that excitement rubbed off on the fans.