ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football Sapp is in the HOF and Strahan isn't? (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269632)

R8RFAN 02-03-2013 07:01 AM

Sapp is in the HOF and Strahan isn't?
 
I don't see it

CoMoChief 02-03-2013 07:13 AM

Neither does anyone else.

CoMoChief 02-03-2013 07:14 AM

But you have idiots like Peter King making these decisions so........????

R8RFAN 02-03-2013 07:16 AM

Strahan, one of the best personalities to ever play the game vs Sapp, a blowhard

R8RFAN 02-03-2013 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoMoChief (Post 9373961)
But you have idiots like Peter King making these decisions so........????

You have a point

Pasta Little Brioni 02-03-2013 07:17 AM

Selections are made by hacks posing as "talented sportswriters"

TribalElder 02-03-2013 07:19 AM

Bob Gretz voted for what now ?

Ace Gunner 02-03-2013 07:24 AM

Warren Sapp revolutionized the 3 tech and has better teeth. Strahan will have his day. after he gets braces.

BlackHelicopters 02-03-2013 07:57 AM

Peter King, journalist.

BoneKrusher 02-03-2013 07:59 AM

i would have voted for Strahan, just sayin'.

chiefzilla1501 02-03-2013 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R8ers (Post 9373963)
Strahan, one of the best personalities to ever play the game vs Sapp, a blowhard

Personality should have little bearing on a hall of fame berth. Sapp was the best Defensive Tackle of our generation and it wasn't even close. Strahan had a few dominating seasons, but he also had plenty of good not dominant seasons. Sapp was consistently dominant.

I don't really understand the debate.

Lex Luthor 02-03-2013 08:32 AM

I can't help but wonder if Strahan lost some votes because Brett Favre is a ****ing idiot. The record-breaking sack was bullshit. I always thought the NFL should have fined Favre for laying down like that, and they should have removed that sack from Strahan's statistics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2W62HNNsc

The headline from this article may have been prophetic.

Quote:

ON PRO FOOTBALL; Cheap Sack Will Cost Favre and Strahan
By Mike Freeman
Published: January 07, 2002

When Giants defensive end Michael Strahan broke the N.F.L. sack record yesterday, there was not a player who deserved it more. That is what Green Bay quarterback Brett Favre, the man Strahan sacked to bring his total to 22 1/2, said after the Packers' 34-25 victory.

And Favre, a close friend of Strahan's, is right. Strahan is one of the hardest-working, classiest people the sport has seen in some time. But the next time Strahan sees Favre at a golf tournament, or they're having a beer, Strahan should slap his good friend silly.

Yes, Mr. Favre, Strahan deserves the record, but please, handing it to him the way you did, as if you were throwing change into a Salvation Army bucket, is the kind of mistake Favre may never live down.

It is not the Chicago Black Sox, or Nancy-Tonya, but it is u-g-l-y.

What the heck was Favre thinking?

Strahan broke the record set by Mark Gastineau, the former Jet, because of a gift from Favre with less than three minutes remaining in the game. Green Bay Coach Mike Sherman, with his team comfortably ahead, called for a running play to Ahman Green. Favre changed it, without telling his offensive line, to something called a key play, meaning Favre is to fake a handoff to a back and then run the opposite way, in this instance, toward Strahan's left defensive end spot.

Since the linemen thought Favre was handing off, they did not pass protect, and Strahan was free. He steamrolled right into Favre for a 7-yard sack. It went just as Favre had planned it.


Until that point, Strahan had no sacks, three quarterback hurries and two quarterback hits. He was not going to get the record.

There is no question that Favre knew this, so he changed the play so Strahan could get the sack. ''Strahan can get sacks on his own,'' Sherman said, stressing that the original call was for a handoff. ''We don't have to give it to him.''

Sherman was clearly irritated. Favre had committed a basic sin in football: nothing is free. When Lawrence Taylor was in the same position in 1986 -- facing Green Bay, just a sack and a half behind Gastineau -- did the Packers' quarterback then do a little fixer-upper so Taylor could get it? No. Taylor was shut out.

When asked about the sack, Packers center Mike Flanagan, also irritated about Strahan's gift, said: ''That's not something I'm talking about. Go ask Brett.'' Other offensive linemen were equally bothered.

Favre denied he gave his friend the sack, but he could barely do it with a straight face.

''We wanted to win the football game,'' Favre said. ''If a sack happens, great. But when we leave today, we wanted to leave here as a winner.''

Favre is missing the moon-sized point. By tanking it, he hurt his friend Strahan more than he helped him, because now, that is what the talk is about, not what Strahan did. It cheapens the record -- not a lot, but enough.

It would have been better for Strahan not to get the record than to get it the way he did.

Sport is a place for answers. You may not like them, but they are usually concrete. And records are part of that. They are supposed to be blemish free, honest and clear, everything that life is not. We may not know if our plane will land at its destination or if the economy will sour like a rotten apple, but we do know what we see on the field is real.

Strahan is happy to hold the sack record, and that is understandable. It has stood for 17 years, and he has worked extremely hard to get to this point. If he continues on this path, he will sack his way into the Hall of Fame.

And Strahan plays the most brutal position in a brutal game, where players are routinely kicked in the groin, gouged in the face, punched in the stomach, spat on and bitten. Things have been done to Strahan that dogs don't do to each other.

Some will maintain, who cares if Favre gave him the record? Just by virtue of playing nine rough years in the league, for him to get that close, he deserves it anyway.

And this is not to blame Strahan. He simply took advantage of what Favre did. Strahan said that if Favre did throw him the high, slow curveball: ''I was not in the huddle calling the plays. I can just react to what happened.''

Favre hugged Strahan after the sack, and even some Packers players -- not on offense, mind you -- applauded Strahan. There isn't a player in football who dislikes the defensive star. He's that good a guy.

But Favre, in the end, didn't do Strahan, or himself, any favors.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

chiefzilla1501 02-03-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler (Post 9374041)
I can't help but wonder if Strahan lost some votes because Brett Favre is a ****ing idiot. The record-breaking sack was bullshit. I always thought the NFL should have fined Favre for laying down like that, and they should have removed that sack from Strahan's statistics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2W62HNNsc

The headline from this article may have been prophetic.



http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

There's truth to this. Not that he would be blackballed for it, but let's face it, the only reason people are talking about him being in the hall of fame at the first crack is because of this record-breaking season. The NFL hall of fame is incredibly difficult to get into. I'm just saying... for defensive ends, 10 sacks is pretty much a standard. Do people realize that Strahan had less than 10 sacks in 9 out of 15 seasons? He'll get in eventually, but the idea that he got snubbed... I don't buy that.

mikey23545 02-03-2013 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoneKrusher (Post 9374004)
i would have voted for Strahan, just sayin'.

Nice rhymin', Simon...

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 09:50 AM

R8tard and Trollmo agreeing.. now I KNOW I am right in believing Sapp deserved to get in. Best player at his position by a long ways for about a 6 year stretch.

chiefzilla1501 02-03-2013 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374139)
R8tard and Trollmo agreeing.. now I KNOW I am right in believing Sapp deserved to get in. Best player at his position by a long ways for about a 6 year stretch.

Agreed.

I don't understand the debate. Just because I don't like Sapp doesn't mean I don't recognize he was a no-brainer to be a first ballot HOFer.

R8RFAN 02-03-2013 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374139)
R8tard and Trollmo agreeing.. now I KNOW I am right in believing Sapp deserved to get in. Best player at his position by a long ways for about a 6 year stretch.

Eat an extra large bag o dicks

Demonpenz 02-03-2013 10:23 AM

Sapp scored on offense as well. He truely was a game..changer.

houstonwhodat 02-03-2013 11:01 AM

You think JJ Watt will get in someday even if he stays with the Texans???

OrtonsPiercedTaint 02-03-2013 11:31 AM

He will make blow up balloon animals from his ass. At your next fantasy football meeting for only $19.95.

cdcox 02-03-2013 11:33 AM

John Randle was a better DT than Sapp and didn't make it into the HOF until his second year.

I'm pretty meh with Sapp going in first ballot. I'm fine with it and would have been fine with him waiting a couple of years. Same feelings about Strahan. I think they were pretty comparable at their positions. For example, they are both 7-time ProBowlers and 4 time All Pro. To talk that Sapp was more dominant for a longer period of time just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374339)
John Randle was a better DT than Sapp and didn't make it into the HOF until his second year.

I'm pretty meh with Sapp going in first ballot. I'm fine with it and would have been fine with him waiting a couple of years. Same feelings about Strahan. I think they were pretty comparable at their positions. For example, they are both 7-time ProBowlers and 4 time All Pro. To talk that Sapp was more dominant for a longer period of time just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You left out that pesky superbowl win.

tony77 02-03-2013 11:49 AM

Thats messed up.

stevenidol 02-03-2013 11:56 AM

Both will be in at some point, most likely soon, so I don't care. Does this really help you validate whether a player was great or not?

tk13 02-03-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374345)
You left out that pesky superbowl win.

Strahan won a Super Bowl too.

cdcox 02-03-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9374421)
Strahan won a Super Bowl too.

I assumed he was referring to the comparison to John Randle.

HotCarl 02-03-2013 12:07 PM

There is definitely a component to this, these days, that incorporates whether someone was a media star, a "colorful figure"

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 9374421)
Strahan won a Super Bowl too.

I was referring to Randle.

Pasta Little Brioni 02-03-2013 12:12 PM

Al, I have a question in the SuperBowl Q and A thread that needs answered. Reighters won't do it.

cdcox 02-03-2013 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374446)
I was referring to Randle.

Regardless, the SB win doesn't make Sapp a better DT than John Randle.

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374457)
Regardless, the SB win doesn't make Sapp a better DT than John Randle.

He was a better DT, that is what makes him the better DT.

cdcox 02-03-2013 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374466)
He was a better DT, that is what makes him the better DT.

50% more times being named first-team All-Pro and 42% more sacks says Randle was better.

Pasta Little Brioni 02-03-2013 12:34 PM

But, but, but he wasn't a loudmouth asshole

ImAWalkingCorpse 02-03-2013 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374513)
50% more times being named first-team All-Pro and 42% more sacks says Randle was better.

In that defense Sapp's first duty was to take on double teams, and shut the door on the QB stepping up into the pocket. He got a lot of other guys plenty of sacks. Sapp was also a member of a superbowl defense AND in 1999 one of the best defenses of all time.

HotCarl 02-03-2013 12:39 PM

No question Randle was better than Sapp.

lcarus 02-03-2013 12:41 PM

Yeah I can see Sapp getting in over him for now. They're both great players. Strahan will get in eventually. Same with Shields and Ogden. Both great players. Shields will get in someday. Still though....14 seasons and never missing a game? Dude was a monster.

ImAWalkingCorpse 02-03-2013 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotCarl (Post 9374528)
No question Randle was better than Sapp.

Well.. you never watched either play. So, I guess your opinion counts.

cdcox 02-03-2013 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImAWalkingCorpse (Post 9374524)
In that defense Sapp's first duty was to take on double teams, and shut the door on the QB stepping up into the pocket. He got a lot of other guys plenty of sacks. Sapp was also a member of a superbowl defense AND in 1999 one of the best defenses of all time.

The role of Sapp in the Tampa 2 as the under tackle was to shoot the gap between the LG and LT penetrate and disrupt. He's an attacker, not a target. Yes, he'll be double teamed on many plays, but his job isn't to just tie up those blockers, it is to penetrate and disrupt the play. It's as much his job to put pressure on the QB as any other DL. He is second all time in sacks among DTs since those records have been collected. He was a great DT. But John Randle was even more disruptive.

Team achievements shouldn't enter into this argument.

ImAWalkingCorpse 02-03-2013 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374587)
The role of Sapp in the Tampa 2 as the under tackle was to shoot the gap between the LG and LT penetrate and disrupt. He's an attacker, not a target. Yes, he'll be double teamed on many plays, but his job isn't to just tie up those blockers, it is to penetrate and disrupt the play. It's as much his job to put pressure on the QB as any other DL. He is second all time in sacks among DTs since those records have been collected. He was a great DT. But John Randle was even more disruptive.

Team achievements shouldn't enter into this argument.

I know what his role was on the defense. He played his role just as effective as Randle played his role. I am saying they are equal.

ImAWalkingCorpse 02-03-2013 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374587)
The role of Sapp in the Tampa 2 as the under tackle was to shoot the gap between the LG and LT penetrate and disrupt. He's an attacker, not a target. Yes, he'll be double teamed on many plays, but his job isn't to just tie up those blockers, it is to penetrate and disrupt the play. It's as much his job to put pressure on the QB as any other DL. He is second all time in sacks among DTs since those records have been collected. He was a great DT. But John Randle was even more disruptive.

Team achievements shouldn't enter into this argument.

I disagree, Sapp made the plays when his team needed them in an NFC Championship game, Sure Randle had a kicker miss a FG, but he still didn't make those plays in that game.

R8RFAN 02-03-2013 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374345)
You left out that pesky superbowl win.

*** Tampon Bay Super Bowl Win



***Pretty easy to win a Superbowl when the opposing team knows all your plays

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R8ers (Post 9374612)
*** Tampon Bay Super Bowl Win



***Pretty easy to win a Superbowl when the opposing team knows all your plays

Still bitter that the better team won eh ****stick? **** Time Brown, **** Jerry Rice and **** every pussy Raitards fans that doesn't believe the better team won. Bunch of chickenshit pussies, Tim Brown will never accept he just didn't have what it took to win that game.

chiefzilla1501 02-03-2013 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374513)
50% more times being named first-team All-Pro and 42% more sacks says Randle was better.

There's more to the game than sacks. Randle was moved around the line based on matchup, which made it easier to pile up sack numbers. And he was an okay run defender whereas Sapp was outstanding.

In the prime of their careers, Sapp was probably a better player than Randle. The only reason you can say Randle was better was that his peak lasted longer (Sapp's career would have been a lot better if he stuck with Tampa instead of wasting away in Oakland to end his career)

Bump 02-03-2013 02:37 PM

Sapp was a beast, he's deserving. But probably not over Strahan. I don't get it either.

Bump 02-03-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 9374457)
Regardless, the SB win doesn't make Sapp a better DT than John Randle.

I loved John Randle. That's the kind of guy you did NOT want to play against.

Gadzooks 02-03-2013 02:44 PM

Sapp works for the NFL.
Strahan works for Kelly Ripa.
It all makes sense.

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-03-2013 03:29 PM

Randle was unquestionably the better player, but you have to remember that HOF voters don't actually use things like logic when making the majority of their decisions. Is Lynn Swann a HOF player? **** no. It's far more about creating compelling narratives than actually judging the merits of the player.

Sapp was better in the minds of writers, voters, and the lay fan because he was a cornerstone player on a Super Bowl winning defense.

Furthermore, Randle was every bit as colorful as Sapp, but he never cultivated the relationship with the media in the same way that Sapp did.

It's a sad but true commentary that the people whose jobs require them to inform us about sports figures are often the most deluded and ignorant. Given that, you can't help but have situations like this.

Lex Luthor 02-03-2013 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R8ers (Post 9374612)
*** Tampon Bay Super Bowl Win



***Pretty easy to win a Superbowl when the opposing team knows all your plays

You want to know what's awesome?

It's awesome that Tim Brown blew whatever miniscule chance he had of getting into the Hall of Fame with his idiotic claim that his head coach threw the Super Bowl.

Awesome.

Schottenheimer 02-03-2013 04:01 PM

They will all get in in time

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9374855)
Randle was unquestionably the better player, but you have to remember that HOF voters don't actually use things like logic when making the majority of their decisions. Is Lynn Swann a HOF player? **** no. It's far more about creating compelling narratives than actually judging the merits of the player.

Sapp was better in the minds of writers, voters, and the lay fan because he was a cornerstone player on a Super Bowl winning defense.

Furthermore, Randle was every bit as colorful as Sapp, but he never cultivated the relationship with the media in the same way that Sapp did.

It's a sad but true commentary that the people whose jobs require them to inform us about sports figures are often the most deluded and ignorant. Given that, you can't help but have situations like this.

This is where we will completely disagree.

Deberg_1990 02-03-2013 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9374855)
Randle was unquestionably the better player, but you have to remember that HOF voters don't actually use things like logic when making the majority of their decisions. Is Lynn Swann a HOF player? **** no. It's far more about creating compelling narratives than actually judging the merits of the player.

Sapp was better in the minds of writers, voters, and the lay fan because he was a cornerstone player on a Super Bowl winning defense.

Furthermore, Randle was every bit as colorful as Sapp, but he never cultivated the relationship with the media in the same way that Sapp did.

It's a sad but true commentary that the people whose jobs require them to inform us about sports figures are often the most deluded and ignorant. Given that, you can't help but have situations like this.

Great post. Lynn Swann being in is one of the biggest jokes of all time.

His regular season stats are not impressive at all. He basically got in because of a few highlight reel catches in Super bowls.

Easy 6 02-03-2013 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9374855)
Randle was unquestionably the better player, but you have to remember that HOF voters don't actually use things like logic when making the majority of their decisions. Is Lynn Swann a HOF player? **** no. It's far more about creating compelling narratives than actually judging the merits of the player.

Sapp was better in the minds of writers, voters, and the lay fan because he was a cornerstone player on a Super Bowl winning defense.

Furthermore, Randle was every bit as colorful as Sapp, but he never cultivated the relationship with the media in the same way that Sapp did.

It's a sad but true commentary that the people whose jobs require them to inform us about sports figures are often the most deluded and ignorant. Given that, you can't help but have situations like this.

Everything here.

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-03-2013 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Bundy (Post 9374920)
This is where we will completely disagree.

I understand, but you also have to consider where you exist in space. You're a Bucs fan. Similarly, it is hard for a lot of Chiefs fans, myself included, to look at a lot of our great players honestly.

For the vast majority of his career Sapp had great players around him on every level of the defense. Randle was a part of some talented Vikings defenses, but none of those units had anywhere near the help that Sapp did, and he still put up otherworldly numbers.

Al Bundy 02-03-2013 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9374933)
I understand, but you also have to consider where you exist in space. You're a Bucs fan. Similarly, it is hard for a lot of Chiefs fans, myself included, to look at a lot of our great players honestly.

For the vast majority of his career Sapp had great players around him on every level of the defense. Randle was a part of some talented Vikings defenses, but none of those units had anywhere near the help that Sapp did, and he still put up otherworldly numbers.

Sapp didn't have good fellow players on the D line until Simeon Rice came along. Sapp made Chidi Ahanotu, Brad Cullpepper, Marcus Jones, Reagan Upshaw, Anthony McFarland and others look like good players. Sapp was the reason that interior lineman never made it to the second level to hit Derrick Brooks, Hardy Nickerson, Sheldon Quarles, Jamie Duncan.... Sapp was the driving force of that great defense.

chiefzilla1501 02-03-2013 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 9374933)
I understand, but you also have to consider where you exist in space. You're a Bucs fan. Similarly, it is hard for a lot of Chiefs fans, myself included, to look at a lot of our great players honestly.

For the vast majority of his career Sapp had great players around him on every level of the defense. Randle was a part of some talented Vikings defenses, but none of those units had anywhere near the help that Sapp did, and he still put up otherworldly numbers.

Sapp made players around him better. He took away the middle of the field. I remember watching him push a pile of 3 guys, he was that good. Let's also not forget the defense Sapp played in. It's a D where your D-linemen are the only real pass rushers. Sapp had to beat blockers who knew what was coming.

Both terrific players. But the edge has to go to Sapp because he was a far more complete player than Randle was. It says a lot when opposing offenses would sometimes game plan to expose Randle's over-aggressiveness in rushing the passer. With Sapp, there was no solution -- he was going to beat your run defense or he was an elite pass rusher.

jspchief 02-03-2013 10:47 PM

Sapp is the 2nd best pass rushing DT of all time, behind Randle. Randle getting hosed doesn't change the fact that Sapp is a first ballot player before Strahan is.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.