October 17, 2006
Peppers' legend continues to grow
The legend of Julius Peppers is growing fast. On Sirius NFL Radio this morning, Tim Ryan, who also works as a television broadcaster, told a story about a recent television production meeting with offensive coordinator Dan Henning.
As often happens with Henning, the conversation went way beyond the offense and, somehow, turned to Peppers. Ryan said Henning told him Peppers is the fastest player on the Panthers.
While Peppers is outrageously quick for a defensive lineman, we seriously doubt he could beat Steve Smith, Drew Carter, DeAngelo Williams and DeShaun Foster in the 40-yard dash. Keyshawn Johnson and Drew Carter are probably even a bit faster than Peppers. But the point is the guy’s a rare athlete.
Ryan said Henning then went on to tell a story about how he once asked all the offensive players what position Peppers should play if he were on the offense. Tailback was the overwhelming response. The one notable exception was quarterback Jake Delhomme, who nominated Peppers for duty at left tackle.
NOT QUITE RECORD PACE: Peppers is off to a huge start with eight sacks in his first six games. That’s remarkable, but he’s not on the kind of pace Michael Strahan was when he set the NFL record (22.5 sacks) in the 2001 season. Through the first six games that season, Strahan had 10.5 sacks. Strahan was held without a sack in the first two games, but had 15 in the next seven.
Posted by Observer Sports on October 17, 2006 at 02:21 PM | Permalink
Maybe my math is off, but if Strahan's record is 22.5, and he had 10.5 sacks in his first six games, then 15 sacks in his last seven games, wouldn't that add up to 25.5 sacks? Seems like simple math to me.
Posted by: Janitor Dan | Oct 17, 2006 9:32:22 PM
Your math is off; he didn't say he had 15 in his last 7 games. Seems like simple reading comprehension to me.
Posted by: Seth | Oct 17, 2006 11:23:13 PM
Exactly. Take your time and read slow if you don't understand before making yourself looking dumber.
Posted by: BOND | Oct 18, 2006 7:16:35 AM
That's look dumber not looking dumber.
Posted by: Nathan | Oct 20, 2006 6:49:25 PM
Post a comment