Quote:
Originally Posted by tredadda
But the point is that even if Manning did it in 16 games when it was easy to play offense, shouldn’t that have an asterisk? I mean it would have been easier to move the ball vs say when Marino played even though both played 16 games? The point is that times change and to discredit an achievement or put an asterisk next to it because it doesn’t line up with a preconceived definition of what is an acceptable criteria is silly.
|
If it needs an asterisk, then Mahomes gets 2 asterisks, because it will have taken him 17 games to break a record set in 16 games.
It's like TJ Watt tying the sack record in the 17th game.
For a long time, all of these records are going to gave the spectre of a 16 game benchmark looming over it.
Oh you got 23 sacks in 17 games? Do it in 16.
You beat Mannings passing yards in 17 games? He set the record in 16 games.
The extra game is a massive advantage that will lead to record books being rewritten.
The record will become a statistic that's meaning is found in the eye of the beholder.
Some will chest pound and cheer the record holder, and others will be unimpressed if it took the extra game to do it.
It'll just be numbers that nobody really gives a shit about anymore.