Bruce Smiths 200 Career Sacks, will it be beat?

[Mikie2times]

Sometimes you don't know how rare something is before some time elapses. With the additional game, it's only a matter of time before nearly every record based on a total falls. One record that I think is different is the 200 sacks in a career by Bruce. After Reggie, the next closest player to Bruce is 40 sacks behind or the equivalent of 3 exceptional seasons.  Consider the only active NFL player who is even a threat is Aaron Donald at 7 1/2 seasons and 30 years old. For him to eclipse Bruce, he would essentially have to duplicate his success for the same amount of time he has been in the league until he is 38 years old. Maybe in 4-5 years we can discuss if TJ Watt is a threat or not. That's what makes this record so ridiculous. You could average 10 sacks a year for 10 years and still only be half way. It's a record of consistency, stamina, and talent and even with the additional game I think it stands as long as any of them. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by KzooMike

[Doc]

No.

[NoSaint]

It’s 15 years of 13+ sacks. It’s essentially a full career in the top 10 annually. 
 

impossible? No. But will take a lot of luck as only so many guys have that skill and almost any injuries would wreck the consistency required and the duration is rare too.

[Real McClappy]

Good luck with that. 

[QCity]

Players are just too big now, it's too much abuse on the body to have that longevity in the trenches. What makes it even crazier is he spent his first 7-8 years playing on that ridiculous Rich Stadium turf, which was essentially just outdoor carpet over asphalt. Players rated it the 2nd harshest stadium surface at the time after Veteran's Stadium in Philly.

[Bookie Man]

Is Bruce the GOAT or Reggie? 

[LeGOATski]

Amazing

[Augie]

15 hours ago, ßookie_tech said:

Is Bruce the GOAT or Reggie? 

 

No offense to anyone, but Reggie was better. New rules make it a different game.

 

EDIT to clarify: Bruce wouldn’t hurt you against the run, but his game was more speed and quickness. Reggie was more power, which translated well to the game back then. Bruce would be more valuable in todays game as it’s more pass oriented than even just a few years ago. To say I think Reggie was better in his time is not a shot at Bruce. They are to top two DE’s in the modern game, with different strengths and weaknesses. For what it’s worth, I think Bruce was the best player the Bills have ever had by a good margin. 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Augie

[DallasMac]

10 sacks a game for 10 years.  If someone gets 10 sacks a game for 1 season I think it's safe to say it's over.  

[Doc Brown]

I expect Rousseau to pass him in 2037.

[Bookie Man]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

No offense to anyone, but Reggie was better. New rules make it a different game. 

What made Reggie better? Of course I've seen a whole lot of 78, but I've never really seen that much of RW. I remember him being more of a power rusher.  Was he that much more dominant that Bruce? 

[Buffalo716]

Records are made to be broken ... 

 

But no 

 

200 sacks 

 

56 game hit streak 

 

2857 points 

 

Some records will stand the test of time ... Truly remarkable lines

 

 

[MJS]

Offenses mitigate pass rushers better these days too. QB's get the ball out quicker and don't drop back so deep. Plus, things that used to be sacks are now penalties, so getting a clean sack is much more difficult.

 

Maybe one day, but that record is going to be there for a long, long time.

[TuelTime]

2 minutes ago, MJS said:

Offenses mitigate pass rushers better these days too. QB's get the ball out quicker and don't drop back so deep. Plus, things that used to be sacks are now penalties, so getting a clean sack is much more difficult.

 

Maybe one day, but that record is going to be there for a long, long time.

One of my biggest pet peeves about these new protecting the passer penalties. Defenders can't even go full speed at the QB anymore or they land on them too hard and get a flag, negating the sack..

[MJS]

21 minutes ago, ßookie_tech said:

What made Reggie better? Of course I've seen a whole lot of 78, but I've never really seen that much of RW. I remember him being more of a power rusher.  Was he that much more dominant that Bruce? 

To each his own. White had 2 less sacks than Smith but played in 47 fewer games. So he was more productive in the games he played as far as sacks. Smith had a lot more tackles for loss, though, so maybe that means that Smith was better at playing the run and was a more well rounded defender?

 

Both players are before my time, really, so I only have highlights and old games to go off of.

[Utah John]

White had more power, Smith had more speed.  At the same time, White had good speed and Smith had power moves too, so the edge goes to whoever you want.  They were both devastating.  

[NewEra]

Never

[Mikie2times]

47 minutes ago, DallasMac said:

10 sacks a game for 10 years.  If someone gets 10 sacks a game for 1 season I think it's safe to say it's over.  

Ya I corrected that

[Mikie2times]

58 minutes ago, ßookie_tech said:

Is Bruce the GOAT or Reggie? 

I think it's lazy to default to Reggie as so many do based on so many less games to get to his 198. Being a 3-4 DE vs a 4-3 DE matters ALOT. Plenty of reasons you can make an argument for either but a lot of people stop comparing after that one fact and I don't feel it tells the whole story. 

[Freddie's Dead]

It is doubtful that 200 sacks will ever be broken.  You need 10 sacks a season over 20 years, or 13+ over 15 years.  Hard to see anyone with that longevity right now, but never say never.  

 

Bruce is the GOAT, he was a better man on the field, and a better man off the field, than Reggie White.