The ONE reason i'm not a fan of 17 games...

[Rams since '66]

I disagree. Else you need *s for 10/11/12/13 and fourteen game seasons as well. Also for reflecting various rule changes.
The NFL has never been a great league for using stats to compare players of different eras. I just say records are made to be broken and leave it that way.

[sanbagger]

I'm kinda liking the new format....how many years did the league go into the last game of the season and almost everybody has spots locked up and rest all their stars?

This year all I know is Rodgers is resting for GB.....allows for finishing as the 1 seed to get a reward and likewise for the 2 seed

[Rams since '66]

I'm kinda liking the new format....how many years did the league go into the last game of the season and almost everybody has spots locked up and rest all their stars?

This year all I know is Rodgers is resting for GB.....allows for finishing as the 1 seed to get a reward and likewise for the 2 seed

Speaking of Rodgers, apparently he's leading MVP voting. Two years in row if he wins it. Crazy.

This means the world get ready for another drama filled off season.

He'll go to Cabo or Hawaii again w the mrs, sport his man bun, do a bunch of self meditation and talk like a stoner.... while everyone is trying to sign him.

The one winner in all this you ask (besides Rodgers himself) State Farm. LOL, keep on keep'n on w that discount double check. Here we go again... Actually I wonder if Farmers is trying to sign him away from State Farm... LOL.

on below....

He won't win if Hub Arkush has anything to say about it.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/01/05 ... cs-n502400

[Rampager66]

The guy has only 2 picks in the last 15 games after throwing 2 on opening day... The Pack have only 2 losses since then as well...

[Rams since '66]

The guy has only 2 picks in the last 15 games after throwing 2 on opening day... The Pack have only 2 losses since then as well...

Yep. And I think one of those losses was with Jordan Love playing in his place.

[TXRamFan]

They should change the stats records to "per game" instead of "cumulative".
For example:
If T.J. Watt gets 2 sacks this week to get his sack number to 23.5 then, for 17 games, that would be an average of 1.38 sacks per game. Strahan got 22.5 sacks in 16 games which is an average of 1.41 sacks per game.

[Rampager66]

They should change the stats records to "per game" instead of "cumulative".
For example:
If T.J. Watt gets 2 sacks this week to get his sack number to 23.5 then, for 17 games, that would be an average of 1.38 sacks per game. Strahan got 22.5 sacks in 16 games which is an average of 1.41 sacks per game.

You may be on to something there TXRF...
Would definitely be a fairer way of ranking things.
Use it for everything ..

[Rams since '66]

They should change the stats records to "per game" instead of "cumulative".
For example:
If T.J. Watt gets 2 sacks this week to get his sack number to 23.5 then, for 17 games, that would be an average of 1.38 sacks per game. Strahan got 22.5 sacks in 16 games which is an average of 1.41 sacks per game.

You may be on to something there TXRF...
Would definitely be a fairer way of ranking things.
Use it for everything ..

Then the question becomes whether you also use that for career marks as well. Going to an 18 game season (where this will end up) will probably cause all cumulative career marks to fall. But if you go to per season avg, it will impact players with longevity whose productivity drops at their career end or who had injuries.
Games/season change. Rules change. The physical field changes (goal post placement). I'm just in favor of saying records are made to be broken and leave it.

[Yorkshire Ram]

They should change the stats records to "per game" instead of "cumulative".
For example:
If T.J. Watt gets 2 sacks this week to get his sack number to 23.5 then, for 17 games, that would be an average of 1.38 sacks per game. Strahan got 22.5 sacks in 16 games which is an average of 1.41 sacks per game.

Tricky one that though. Kupp broke the Rams receiving record in 16 games, but if he were to have a poor final game and register very few yards, based on averages he could lose out on the historic record due to the 17th game, despite beating it in 16?

I think.

Ultimately it is what it is. The season will be expanded further in the future and all the old records will probably go.

[UtahRam]

There definitely has to be an asterisk on any record broken in a 17 game season. Dickerson's record should have one too. It's common sense.

[Commish]

There definitely has to be an asterisk on any record broken in a 17 game season. Dickerson's record should have one too. It's common sense.

Well, I'm originally from western New York, where back in 1984 all the Buffalo Bills fans were insistent that there be an 'asterisk' next to Eric Dickerson's then-new single-season rushing record, which had surpassed O.J. Simpson's from the 14-game 1973 season.

However, it simply doesn't operate that way regarding NFL records.

The Rams hold one major single-season record from only a 12-game season--Richard "Night Train" Lane's interception record (14) from '52, his rookie year... 8-) :idea:

ram pathos...

--The Commish

[Rampager66]

You may be on to something there TXRF...
Would definitely be a fairer way of ranking things.
Use it for everything ..

Then the question becomes whether you also use that for career marks as well. Going to an 18 game season (where this will end up) will probably cause all cumulative career marks to fall. But if you go to per season avg, it will impact players with longevity whose productivity drops at their career end or who had injuries.
Games/season change. Rules change. The physical field changes (goal post placement). I'm just in favor of saying records are made to be broken and leave it.

That's a good argument too... now I'm back on the fence... :?
I will say, I'm not one to mess with tradition....