The 14-win club

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Why asterisk statistics? Why is 16 games considered the standard for statistics?

The 43 years of football based on a 16 game season?

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

The 43 years of football based on a 16 game season?

Ok. Now when do we start acknowledging 17 game stats? 17 game seasons are not going away. When is the cutoff? Also the rules have been skewed to favor offenses, do we now asterisk any records created during that time?

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Ok. Now when do we start acknowledging 17 game stats? 17 game seasons are not going away. When is the cutoff? Also the rules have been skewed to favor offenses, do we now asterisk any records created during that time?

Everyone with half a moving brain cell, knowing football history mentally asterisks a lot of this shit.

This ain't the same league in which every Chiefs fan was holding their breath as a 36 year old Joe Montana was knocked to the turf wondering if he was gonna get up.

You got a 45 year old qb playing now, that it's virtually illegal to touch him.

Sending a receiver over the middle might as well have been a death sentence against some secondaries.

So yes, everyone that knows anything about football as it was, and how it is now, knows why these insane numbers are being put up.

For Christ's sake, the Chiefs turned the football over 5 times in a playoff game and held the Colts to 10 points for the game.

Turn the football over 5 times today. Best defense in the league ain't holding them to 10.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

Everyone with half a moving brain cell, knowing football history mentally asterisks a lot of this shit.

This ain't the same league in which every Chiefs fan was holding their breath as a 36 year old Joe Montana was knocked to the turf wondering if he was gonna get up.

You got a 45 year old qb playing now, that it's virtually illegal to touch him.

Sending a receiver over the middle might as well have been a death sentence against some secondaries.

So yes, everyone that knows anything about football as it was, and how it is now, knows why these insane numbers are being put up.

For Christ's sake, the Chiefs turned the football over 5 times in a playoff game and held the Colts to 10 points for the game.

Turn the football over 5 times today. Best defense in the league ain't holding them to 10.

Don’t disagree with anything you said which is why I think saying stats now should have an asterisk because of a 17th game are silly.

[Wallcrawler]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Don’t disagree with anything you said which is why I think saying stats now should have an asterisk because of a 17th game are silly.

Because an extra game of super easy offensive stats means quite a bit.

If Mahomes breaks Mannings yards in a season in 17 games, when Manning did it in 16, it matters. It doesn't mean as much if he needed an extra game to do it.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Wallcrawler

Because an extra game of super easy offensive stats means quite a bit.

If Mahomes breaks Mannings yards in a season in 17 games, when Manning did it in 16, it matters. It doesn't mean as much if he needed an extra game to do it.

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.

[KCUnited]

Misread as the 14-inch club and wondered why it needed its own thread

[Wallcrawler]

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.