NYT: How to Come Out of Labor Strife as a Super Bowl Champ (All Redskins Related)

[tr1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/sports/football/29redskins.html?hpw

[Also posted by Hap in Bubba News]

By GREG BISHOP

Shortly before N.F.L. players traded playbooks for picket signs in 1982, Joe Gibbs, coach of the Washington Redskins, called right tackle George Starke at home. According to Starke, Gibbs urged him to reconsider. If captains like Starke went on strike, Gibbs reasoned, so would teammates.

“That’s right, Joe,” Starke said he replied. “We’re all going out together. And we’ll all come back in together, too.”

Thus was born the Redskins’ work-stoppage strategy, a model, perhaps, for current players adrift in labor strife. Locked out of team facilities, they must train for the foreseeable future without any team-related supervision. Teams that stick together, the retired Redskins say, will gain an advantage come next season, if there is one.

In the two previous N.F.L. work stoppages, those Redskins remained unified, held their own practices and stuck to blueprints provided by their coaches before each strike. Strengthened by that solidarity, the Redskins won the Super Bowl after the 1982 and 1987 seasons, and not, they believe, by accident.

“Football players, even though they’re unionized, they’re also independent contractors,” Starke said. “You have to hold all those agendas together for a single agenda. I’m proud the Redskins always hung tough. It’s difficult.”

Two decades later, the modern-day N.F.L. consumes far more of the calendar. Under normal circumstances, some teams would already have started their conditioning programs. Minicamps would begin in May.

Players must complete such team activities on their own, but most, if not all teams, prepared them ahead of time for what to do during the lockout, said Charley Casserly, a former Redskins general manager and current television analyst. Compared with previous work stoppages, a firm lockout date loomed over last season, giving teams ample time to plan.

“In talking to teams, and I couldn’t give you which, it’s clear that some are following the Redskins’ strategy,” he said. “Before the deadline, you could do anything you wanted with the players. You could meet with them. You could give them playbooks, give them outlines for the off-season. It’s the same stuff we could do back then.”

The Redskins held two common denominators during the strikes in 1982 and 1987: a strong core of veterans and Gibbs as the coach. Casserly said Gibbs preached the same theme in both instances: forget the rhetoric, and concentrate on football and preparation.

The seeds for the Redskins’ strategy were sown during the 1974 work stoppage. Starke said players worked out together in Georgetown then, where Coach George Allen would sneak over to supervise, or to hand out workout schedules.

With that in mind, the Redskins were built to withstand the 1982 strike. They played in a strong, pro-union area, and thus became a strong, pro-union team. They leaned on veterans like Starke, quarterback Joe Theismann and linebacker Monte Coleman, who said: “We weren’t all marquee players. So we had to band together.”

The ’82 strike lasted 57 days, from Sept. 21 to Nov. 16. The Redskins gathered in local parks, at high schools, anywhere with a grass field. They lacked helmets and pads, but they performed drills, like 7-on-7s, ran through plays and conducted workouts, basically the strike equivalent of normal. Coleman said they emerged from the strike rusty, but not as rusty as opponents.

As they captured Super Bowl XVII, the Redskins often looked back on these practices as the impetus.

When players went on strike for 24 days in ’87, Coleman said Redskins veterans knew “what worked before would work again.” Again, they were prepared.

The former offensive tackle and current ESPN analyst Mark May said recently on “NFL Live” that the Redskins moved their training room, everything from hot tubs to treadmills to weights, into a warehouse so players had equipment if not supervision. May said there was a place to watch game tape and added, while showing off his championship ring: “We just would find any way we could to win. It’s not the Golden Rule. It’s the man with the gold that makes the rules.”

Not a single Redskin crossed the picket lines. Todd Bowles, a safety then and now an assistant with Miami, listened daily to impassioned arguments, but never considered crossing. No one did.

The N.F.L. used replacement players that season.

“It was tough seeing people practice in your jersey,” Bowles said. “I was picketing, getting donuts. There was arguing, a lot of bickering. It wasn’t smooth. But we stayed together.”

While stars on other teams like Dallas crossed the picket lines, the Redskins watched their stand-ins from local bars. In the final game with the replacements, the Redskins played the Cowboys on Monday night.

More than 20 Cowboys had crossed by then, and yet the Redskins ragtag collection of nobodies beat them anyway to improve to 4-1. Because no Redskins crossed, they trusted each other more upon return, and there were no “scabs” or “traitors” in the locker room.

“Watching the Cowboys game, inside a little bit, you’re saying, that’s what they deserve,” said Coleman, now the coach at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. “The nation watched the Cowboys get embarrassed by a bunch of no-names.”

The Redskins seized Super Bowl XXII at the conclusion of that season. “Did our approach have some bearing on us winning?” Bowles said. “Yes. I believe it did.”

Starke said most N.F.L. teams would enact, or had enacted, a similar strategy during the current labor strife. He said players from that era now worked as assistants across the league. They saw how the Redskins’ approach worked.

The Redskins’ strike rosters were filled with veterans, including Mark Murphy, whom Cooke once called a communist but who later became the president of the Green Bay Packers. Teams with similar leadership could thrive amid labor uncertainty, Casserly said, like New Orleans, or New England. Teams with new coaches, new coordinators or young quarterbacks, or those installing new systems, will be hurt most by the lockout.

Then there is history, which lends optimism to one particular team.

“Maybe this work stoppage will benefit the Redskins,” Starke said, laughing.

Fullback Tony Richardson labeled the Redskins’ earlier strategy “smart,” but said he was not aware of anything similar with the Jets, his employer last season. As an executive committee member of the dissolved players’ union, Richardson said he attempted to keep teammates informed of bargaining issues.

Some Jets, like quarterback Mark Sanchez and cornerback Darrelle Revis, have talked about hosting teammates in informal workout settings. But those have not been set up yet. One potential pitfall, Richardson said, is liability for organizers because of insurance issues. The goal will remain the same, though: stay together, Richardson said.

“We have preliminary off-season schedules to follow,” he added. “Those are more important for younger players, or teams with new systems. As many games as we’ve played the last two years, rest might not be a bad thing.”

The basic principles have not changed: stay together, either by position group, or at outside training facilities; maintain conditioning and contact. But current players also face challenges those Redskins did not, like how dispersed they are each off-season. They also cannot share the Redskins’ urgency, at least not yet, because the strikes occurred during the season.

Bowles said he left his players alone during their off-season, and thus gave them no instructions for the lockout. He “hopes” they work out together on their own.

Casserly said: “You’re at a disadvantage if you didn’t do anything when you could to prepare players for the period you can’t be with them. I’d be surprised if there are teams that didn’t do that.”

[tr1]

I'm sure Fat Albert will hold team workouts during the break...

Core players with deep friendship and team loyalty can't be overlooked when it comes to championships.

[The Full Monty]

Maybe Orakpo will have time when not training with Ware to organize some informal practices with his um, teammates.

[sideshow24]

maybe orakpo will have time when not training with ware to organize some informal practices with his um, teammates.

stop that.

[JeffSchmeff]

I wonder if we draft a skill position player, or any player for that matter, whether the veterans will start to teach them the playbook.

[MattFancy]

I'm hoping McNabb will step up. I know he's not in great standing with the team, but 1) it would up his trade value and 2) it would definitely gain hime some respect with his teammates and coaches.

[Hitman21ST]

Maybe Orakpo will have time when not training with Ware to organize some informal practices with his um, teammates.

Maybe you will have time when not trolling to organize some informed posts with your um, threadmates.

[The Full Monty]

Hitman you're one of my favorites of the past year or so. relax I'm just having fun. But still, Rak shouldn't train with a Cowboy.

[Annonymous Source]

Hitman you're one of my favorites of the past year or so. relax I'm just having fun. But still, Rak shouldn't train with a Cowboy.

If Ware wants to teach him how to be a dominant player then by all means Rak should learn from it.

[PortisBetts]

I agree with Monty. NO COWBOYS! Learn from someone else. Haha not that i really care, but it still sucks when redskins and cowboys are friendly at any point. I want them to hate eachother at all times just like i do. Oh well, thats obviosuly unrealistic nowadays when all the athletes are friends.

[The Full Monty]

You know what I shouldn't be surprised. Our friggin owner does commercials with their owner, so whatever. Sure it's a free country and more power to Rak if he explodes next year and says it was all due to Ware...

But I'm not gonna lie, it rubs me the wrong way: there are many OLBs besides Ware to learn from. Clay Matthews, Woodley, Harrison, Suggs (who is somewhat in the area). I just despise the Cowboys and that includes Ware.

[Arsenic]

wait, im confused.. someone help me out.

Ive heard the story, etc, but the wording of this article has me perplexed..

It states that none of the Redskins crossed the picket line. and that the Scabskins beat the Starboys (which is what i knew..)

However, it also states that "The Redskins’ strike rosters were filled with veterans" and indicates that the Skins won because they stuck together? ha..

my apologies if my vision is blurred.. i barely slept a wink last night.. bleh.. think twice, post once, Josh. think twice, post once..

[The Full Monty]

I think the strike rosters had "vets" in the sense that they were guys who had played in the league before, but were not Redskins players prior to the strikes...

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I think the strike rosters had "vets" in the sense that they were guys who had played in the league before, but were not Redskins players prior to the strikes...

Pretty much. We were the ONLY team to have NO players cross the picket line who were on the roster prior to the strike.

Oh, and I share your sentiments totally on Orakpo and the Cowboy thang BTW. But I went into all that in the thread about it over the ATN, so no need to again.

Hail.

[The Full Monty]

Pretty much. We were the ONLY team to have NO players cross the picket line who were on the roster prior to the strike.

Oh, and I share your sentiments totally on Orakpo and the Cowboy thang BTW. But I went into all that in the thread about it over the ATN, so no need to again.

Hail.

Yeah, thanks for verifying, I was just kinda inferring my answer based on what they said on 1987 America's Game.

Anyways, I can definitely see Fletcher rallying some guys to work out together, at least the D.

[Darth Tater]

I think the strike rosters had "vets" in the sense that they were guys who had played in the league before, but were not Redskins players prior to the strikes...

Actually the line referring to vets on the strike roster was talking about our regular roster in strike years, not the replacement players. In fact, the player they mentioned played on the Redskins from 1977 through 1983. I suspect Mark Murphy would make a good NFL commissioner because he's been a player (SB and pro bowl), the athletic director at two colleges and is the current CEO and president of the Packers. He suspected that the Redskins' decision to release him after the 1983 season and the reluctance of any other team to sign him was retribution for his union activity. He has now been on both sides in labor actions.

[The Full Monty]

I suspect Mark Murphy would make a good NFL commissioner because he's been a player (SB and pro bowl), the athletic director at two colleges and is the current CEO and president of the Packers. He suspected that the Redskins' decision to release him after the 1983 season and the reluctance of any other team to sign him was retribution for his union activity. He has now been on both sides in labor actions.

I think Goodell has been mediocre at best and I would love to see him go. I'd love to have a Redskin as Commissioner. Goodell, in my view, came into the league with all this talk about being into discipline and nobody being above the conduct code but that has been unevenly applied, to put it mildly. There's a few things I could cite but the most recent one was Big Ben getting time off of his suspension. I thought, if it was a lesser known player who'd been warned ample times and had been into trouble before, that guy would get the whole punishment.

Anyways, interesting suggestion with Mark Murphy. The man has a law degree too, if memory serves.

[Crazy Levi]

To me this article is just depressing. Today's Redskins team has almost NOTHING in common with those 82 and 87 squads.

Once again, other teams will benefit from the Skins' current ineptitude. The Skins have laid the groundwork, and it's up to teams - GOOD teams - to capitalize it.

The Skins will once again be left behind. I have absolutely no faith in this team - the players or management - to be able to hold it together, much less benefit, from the lockout.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Shows you how much things change. There are no leaders on offense that can really rally the troops this time. McNabb? Doesn't even know if he'll be here. Portis? Gone. Moss? FA. Even Grossman is a FA. The best OL is a second year guy. I guess people listen to Rabach, but he might be on the way out. There's nobody on offense that has the standing to pull folks together and organize stuff. So where's the leadership come from?

On the defensive side of the ball, there are actually leaders who could do this. Everybody would listen to Fletch. Orakpo, even in year 3, would command respect, and Hall is out there also. So I would have more confidence that the defense could get organized. But the D can't do any drilling without the O. And the O is in shambles.

This was just a bad year for the team not to be able to go through a regular off season. When you're trying to replace 90% of your roster in 2 years, and you're in year 2 of it, it's tough to not have an off season.