Should the Washington Redskins really be honoring scabs? | The Tylt

Should the Washington Redskins really be honoring scabs?

The replacement players from the 1987 Super Bowl-winning Washington Redskins will be receiving their Super Bowl rings after being ignored by the team for over three decades. The replacement players stepped in after the NFL athletes went on strike. Many still have a lot of animosity toward them and feel they shouldn't be honored. Still, those players went 3-0, giving the team a great start that set the Redskins up for a championship run. What do you think? 🏈

FINAL RESULTS
Sports
Should the Washington Redskins really be honoring scabs?
A festive crown for the winner
#NoScabsAllowed
#HonorAllPlayers
Dataviz
Real-time Voting
Should the Washington Redskins really be honoring scabs?
#NoScabsAllowed
#HonorAllPlayers
#NoScabsAllowed

Super Bowl rings are reserved for athletes who didn't cross a picket line to screw over the players. The NFL is supposed to be a brotherhood. Any player who threatens to dishonor that brotherhood doesn't deserve the privilege of wearing a Super Bowl ring—a prize that real players bleed for. These scabs shouldn't be getting any recognition, let alone a championship ring.

#NoScabsAllowed
#HonorAllPlayers

It's never too late to right a wrong. These replacement players contributed just as much as the players did when the strike ended. They were undefeated and put the Redskins in a great position for a deep playoff run. Those players were just following their dreams and played football. They shouldn't be banished because they seized an opportunity. They earned that Super Bowl ring, just like every other player on the roster.

#HonorAllPlayers
FINAL RESULTS
Sports
Should the Washington Redskins really be honoring scabs?
A festive crown for the winner
#NoScabsAllowed
#HonorAllPlayers