Are records in a 17-game season really the "record" ?

Art Barr

INVADING SOHH CHAMPION
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
72,551
Reputation
15,398
Daps
100,970
Reppin
CHICAGO
They usually have an asterik distinction. When it is listed officially through the nfl most times in legacy. Yet the pr for these accolades usually never cite the variable distinction tho. As the pr is made to generate a current draw.

So i understand.
your thread and its premise and is a honorable dialogue .
to ask or inquire about.


Art Barr
 

Art Barr

INVADING SOHH CHAMPION
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
72,551
Reputation
15,398
Daps
100,970
Reppin
CHICAGO
I don't really understand your issue with this. I understand being partial to the 16-game season, because I think in a game like football, anything more than 16 in a league where careers are short, most contracts aren't fully guaranteed, and health insurance ends 5 years after retirement, I think going over 16 is overkill.

So I'm also partial to 16 games, but it isn't about the records, that's why I don't get your issue with 17.

You also know it's gonna eventually get to 18.

So the records of old are exactly that---->the records that were set in 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 game seasons. They are the old records. The records set during 17 and eventually 18-game years, why would you need to mention every time, "well this wouldn't be the record in a 16-game season", when records broken in 16-game seasons, were not qualified with, "well you know if it was a 14-game season, it wouldn't be the record?"

I just don't understand your problem. But look, you already have your standard whichever way you wanna view it. OJ put up 2000 in a 14-game season, it can always be viewed as the most prolific season ever, if one chooses to view it that way. But the record is ED's in a 16-game season, even if that season isn't quite as impressive as OJ's in 14 games.


Actually the pr will fix and address. any of these variables with a simple phrase of.

The modern record holder.

So publically they do acknowledge the change. While using certain verbiage to acknowledge. While not lessening rhe impact of the event via change as well.


You guys are really mature and excellent.
in response in this thread btw.


Art Barr
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
18,262
Reputation
5,412
Daps
72,690
It's tricky.

Saccs weren't officially counted until 1982.

If we go by "unofficial" based on watching old tapes, Al Baker had 23 (I think) in 1978.

Deacon Jones had over 20 sacks, THREE different times in a 14-game season, prior to the merger.

Reggie White had like 20 or 21 sacks in the strike shortened season of '87.

Personally think anyone that gets 20 or more in a season is impressive. I give more weight to the ol skool cats because the league was more run heavy back then. Less substitutions and rotations...you played more snaps but had fewer pass rush opportunities.
 

broller

Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
30,286
Reputation
3,575
Daps
85,164
For context the NFL season was 12 games for 14 years. Before that is like pre-historic times that nobody can talk about. WWII and everything else getting in the way.

The 14-game season lasted 18 years.

The 16-game season lasted 43 years. There's more history of 16-game season that the 12 and 14 combined..

So in 40 years Garrett will get his props?

Also, Eric seemed to get his props for 2105 in 16 games fairly soon after.
 

Supa

Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
22,257
Reputation
8,116
Daps
119,994
Reppin
NULL
For the people criticizing Myles Garrett's sack record in 17 games, I saw a post earlier that he got the record in significantly fewer snaps than Watt or Strahan.

fN48hzB.png


Myles would've have 32 sacks if he played as many snaps as TJ Watt and 30 with the Strahan's snaps.

Teams the the ball less vs the Browns defense than the Steelers and the Giants when they set the record.

By the numbers Myles was far more dominant than they were.
 

FTBS

Superstar
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
22,118
Reputation
4,264
Daps
61,558
Reppin
NULL
He had 21.5 in 14 games so this discussion rings especially hollow with him.
 
Top