No and the reason I say that is because it's not Randy's fault the players went on strike when he was in elementary school. Who knows what Rice would have done with the last 12 games - he could have gotten injured and not caught another pass all season. Either way, I don't think you should punish a player by giving them an asterisk for something they had no control over.
2007-12-10 17:00:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by DoReidos 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think of there no longer in elementary terms might desire to be yet there'll I mean Rice performed in a Strike 3 hundred and sixty 5 days and Moss isn't. although if Moss in simple terms ties Rice's checklist that's plausible i think of an asterisk might desire to be there noting that there became a 4 pastime difference. I pretty doubt even Moss might argue. Rice is and could constantly be interior the proper 5 receivers checklist a minimum of in my lifetime.the two way after this ordinary season Moss and rice would be extensive type one million and a couple of on the checklist and in elementary terms people who hate Rice will choose Moss to be on my own on the proper. Now if we could say a season or 2 from now Moss places up a similar extensive type as Rice in a 12 pastime or much less span(plausible yet no longer likely) then beats that checklist, consistent with danger you may desire to no longer positioned an asterisk there for the 2nd one reason it became in 12 or much less video games. I admit however i come across it quite thrilling Rice is against the full asterisk element from a quick interview ahead of final weeks pastime.
2016-11-14 09:43:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by dhrampla 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, but an asterisk should be left in a second line next to Jerry Rices name if it's TIED, showing that Rice did it in fewer games. If he ends up with more, there's no reason for there to be any notation about it. He has 19 now, he'll likely beat this record by 4 or 5 TDs. In that case, there's no need for comparison. If he TIES it, then I could see cause for notation.
2007-12-10 15:49:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by joecon113 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Then they should also put an * next to the dolphins undefeated season because they did it in 17 games and if the patriots do it it would be 19 games right.
2007-12-10 14:27:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
no trigger what he saying is it took Moss longer to break the record than Rice because when he did it it was the year of the strike
2007-12-10 14:29:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes and while your at it but an * on shula's perfect season seeing as they played less games in 72 then they do today. If there is no * on shula then there is no * on Moss.
2007-12-10 14:44:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by wondermom 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
* lets just put these on every stat and record
it seems like behind every record and stat there seems to be a story behind it
2007-12-10 14:41:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Kevin 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well he's a jerk but the record's the record.
2007-12-10 14:27:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Spearfish 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
No Mr Shula, they won't.
2007-12-10 14:27:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by Darth Brady 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
This is another don shula stupid statement. get real!
2007-12-10 14:25:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Trigger 2
·
1⤊
1⤋