Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sunshynman

Bruce Smith talks to players

Recommended Posts

https://www.buffalobills.com/news/bills-today-bills-hall-of-famer-addresses-team-at-practice

 

My buddy talked to Bruce downtown yesterday. I met Bruce and Kelly in a bar near the airport in the 90's. He was an absolute monster of a man! Nice to see him rally the troops.

 

In regards to the article below the Smith story, Shaq needs to get De on the phone and up to the 716!

Edited by sunshynman
typo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce's 200 sack record is only going to get more untouchable as the years go by. Especially as the passing game changes, that is going to be like Cy Young's 511 wins or Gretzky's 2,857 points as a record that no one will get close to.

 

Terrell Suggs, age 36, would need 7 more 10 sack season to tie Bruce. Current guys like JJ Watt or Von Miller are not even halfway there.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/sacks_career.htm

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad things man.  Bad things. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Flip Johnson said:

Bruce's 200 sack record is only going to get more untouchable as the years go by. Especially as the passing game changes, that is going to be like Cy Young's 511 wins or Gretzky's 2,857 points as a record that no one will get close to.

 

Terrell Suggs, age 36, would need 7 more 10 sack season to tie Bruce. Current guys like JJ Watt or Von Miller are not even halfway there.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/sacks_career.htm

 

It's not the passing game that has changed--it's player longevity.  You have to play 15 years to set these records--and play at the samelevel.  That's what makes these records untouchable.

 

When Brees broke the passing record Monday, another poster was arguing that that record could be broken some day by a guy like Mahomes, who has played lights out for all of 5 games in his career so far.  I argued it will never be broken because Brees has been playing at an insanely high level for a period of time that few in the history of the league have done.  he's a freak.  They are very rare in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would love to see the speech. Love the ending seeing  #49 dapping up Bruucceeee. Kid has Future H.O F written all over him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Flip Johnson said:

Bruce's 200 sack record is only going to get more untouchable as the years go by. Especially as the passing game changes, that is going to be like Cy Young's 511 wins or Gretzky's 2,857 points as a record that no one will get close to.

 

Terrell Suggs, age 36, would need 7 more 10 sack season to tie Bruce. Current guys like JJ Watt or Von Miller are not even halfway there.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/sacks_career.htm

It's never getting broken. Now that the new NFL does not allow you to sack the quarterback, Bruce's record is safe for an eternity.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sunshynman said:

https://www.buffalobills.com/news/bills-today-bills-hall-of-famer-addresses-team-at-practice

 

My buddy talked to Bruce downtown yesterday. I met Bruce and Kelly in a bar near the airport in the 90's. He was an absolute monster of a man! Nice to see him rally the troops.

 

In regards to the article below the Smith story, Shaq needs to get De on the phone and up to the 716!

I attended the CDW event yesterday, got an autographed picture and a photo with Bruce.  Super nice guy, still looks to be in great shape.  Talked to him a bit about the SB years and Fredonia training camp.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerseyBills said:

Would love to see the speech. Love the ending seeing  #49 dapping up Bruucceeee. Kid has Future H.O F written all over him.

 

Well Bruce is already there. If you mean Edmunds, that would be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It's never getting broken. Now that the new NFL does not allow you to sack the quarterback, Bruce's record is safe for an eternity.

 

 

Often repeated, provably false.

 

The QB sack is alive and well--and in numbers as high or higher than in the past.  In 1993, teams averaged 36 sacks.  In 2017 it was 37.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Often repeated, provably false.

 

The QB sack is alive and well--and in numbers as high or higher than in the past.  In 1993, teams averaged 36 sacks.  In 2017 it was 37.

I'm not talking about 1993 or even 2017. Ask Jerry Hughes or Clay Matthews what a sack is in 2018. The NFL is all about protecting their marketing darlings,  the qbs. Starting this year and most likely over the next two to three years you're going to see a gradual decline.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flip Johnson said:

Bruce's 200 sack record is only going to get more untouchable as the years go by. Especially as the passing game changes, that is going to be like Cy Young's 511 wins or Gretzky's 2,857 points as a record that no one will get close to.

 

 

Bruce's sack record, Rice's TD record, Favre's consecutive starts, and Blanda's INT record should all be safe 😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

I'm not talking about 1993 or even 2017. Ask Jerry Hughes or Clay Matthews what a sack is in 2018. The NFL is all about protecting their marketing darlings,  the qbs. Starting this year and most likely over the next two to three years you're going to see a gradual decline.

While the rule is interpretted the way it is now, the gradual decline is likely inevitable without changes by the league. It'll be interesting to watch the numbers this year and those following.

35 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Often repeated, provably false.

 

The QB sack is alive and well--and in numbers as high or higher than in the past.  In 1993, teams averaged 36 sacks.  In 2017 it was 37.

Great dig on the stats - it's crazy how it definitely has felt like there have been less but the numbers paint different pictures. But still likely seeing a greater disparity this year and those following without changes to the rule as it stands. I'm curious what the individual numbers say, and not just team stats either.

Edited by ctk232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It's never getting broken. Now that the new NFL does not allow you to sack the quarterback, Bruce's record is safe for an eternity.

 

stat invented in the early 1980s, ignoring the history of that game to that point, like ignoring shot blocking by Wilt and Bill Russell.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

I'm not talking about 1993 or even 2017. Ask Jerry Hughes or Clay Matthews what a sack is in 2018. The NFL is all about protecting their marketing darlings,  the qbs. Starting this year and most likely over the next two to three years you're going to see a gradual decline.

 

2 hours ago, ctk232 said:

While the rule is interpretted the way it is now, the gradual decline is likely inevitable without changes by the league. It'll be interesting to watch the numbers this year and those following.

Great dig on the stats - it's crazy how it definitely has felt like there have been less but the numbers paint different pictures. But still likely seeing a greater disparity this year and those following without changes to the rule as it stands. I'm curious what the individual numbers say, and not just team stats either.

 

4 teams have 17 or more sacks already 5 games.  Last season 58 was the highest number.  3 teams had more than 50.  This season, so far, 6 teams are on track to have more than 50.

 

Chicago, which  has 18 after 4 games, is on pace to tie it's own league record of 72 in 1984.

 

There are 4 players on pace to get 20 sacks this season.

 

The "new rule" is doing nothing to decrease the sacking of the QB (with the single embarrassing exception of Jerry Hughes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

It's never getting broken. Now that the new NFL does not allow you to sack the quarterback, Bruce's record is safe for an eternity.

 

 

There is some truth to this as the NFL simply does not want QB’s hit.  Many of Bruce’s sacks would be wiped out by penalties today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

4 teams have 17 or more sacks already 5 games.  Last season 58 was the highest number.  3 teams had more than 50.  This season, so far, 6 teams are on track to have more than 50.

 

Chicago, which  has 18 after 4 games, is on pace to tie it's own league record of 72 in 1984.

 

There are 4 players on pace to get 20 sacks this season.

 

The "new rule" is doing nothing to decrease the sacking of the QB (with the single embarrassing exception of Jerry Hughes).

12 teams had sack totals of over 50 in 1984 - comparing that to last season of 3 even before the rule change, which is double what teams are on track for this year then.

 

There's plenty of variables that go into these discrepancies, but those stats alone don't provide nearly the foundation to say the rule isn't impacting anything at all. Nor are mine - but all I'm saying is that it will be interesting to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ctk232 said:

12 teams had sack totals of over 50 in 1984 - comparing that to last season of 3 even before the rule change, which is double what teams are on track for this year then.

 

There's plenty of variables that go into these discrepancies, but those stats alone don't provide nearly the foundation to say the rule isn't impacting anything at all. Nor are mine - but all I'm saying is that it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

None of the top 10 sack leaders of all time were in the NFl in !984.

 

The reason the sack record will never be broken has nothing to do with the new rule (which will likely change an infinite number of times going forward.).  It has everything to do with the combination of insane talent and extremely rare longevity.  Like Brees's record, it will not be broken for those two reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

None of the top 10 sack leaders of all time were in the NFl in !984.

 

The reason the sack record will never be broken has nothing to do with the new rule (which will likely change an infinite number of times going forward.).  It has everything to do with the combination of insane talent and extremely rare longevity.  Like Brees's record, it will not be broken for those two reasons.

Passing records will definitely be broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boca BIlls said:

Passing records will definitely be broken.

 

 

It took one of the most accurate and prolific passers in league history 17 years as starter to set that record--and he's still going.  Only 9 times have NFL QBs thrown for over 5000 yards in a season.  Brees has 5 of those 9. 

 

It's not going to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JerseyBills said:

Would love to see the speech. Love the ending seeing  #49 dapping up Bruucceeee. Kid has Future H.O F written all over him.

 

Saw that too. First player to come over and respect the legend after break down. Luv it 

19 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Often repeated, provably false.

 

The QB sack is alive and well--and in numbers as high or higher than in the past.  In 1993, teams averaged 36 sacks.  In 2017 it was 37.

 

 more drop backs and plays per game today i suspect too. 

 

Bruce would have adapted and succeeded just like any greats today will. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×