Myles Garrett's incredible feat of achieving a new single-season sack record with a whopping **23.0 quarterback takedowns has sparked a debate: does it deserve an asterisk because it was done in a 17-game season?** Let's dive in!
The simple answer? Absolutely not! The NFL, the very organization that dictates the rules of the game, also determines the season's length. Before 1961, a season comprised 12 games. Then, in 1978, the league increased it to 16. And most recently, in 2021, we saw the expansion to 17 games.
And this is the part most people miss: The season length will likely continue to evolve. We might see 18, 19, or even 20-game seasons in the future. So, any single-season record will inherently be based on the number of games played during that specific season.
Michael Strahan, who previously held the record for a 16-game season, jokingly pointed out the irony of the situation. He still holds the record for the 16-game season, but Garrett now holds the all-time single-season record.
But here's where it gets controversial... Why penalize players for the length of the season? Applying an asterisk to their achievements seems unfair. As the season grows longer, the likelihood of breaking existing records naturally increases. The NFL's primary focus is on generating revenue through more games. However, this also means more physical demands on the players.
Ultimately, if a player can endure 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, or even 20 games and still accumulate more yards, touchdowns, catches, or sacks, then more power to them. The league sets the rules, and the players perform within those boundaries.
What are your thoughts? Do you believe single-season records should be viewed differently based on the season's length? Share your opinion in the comments below!
