EL DANDY~! 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2003 How about Tom Chambers back in 1988? 98.6% from the Free Throw line (min. 75 attempts). That's an INSANE number... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted June 18, 2003 Eh...How about something of Signifiance? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted June 18, 2003 I do think an NFL team can go through a season undefeated, but winning it? I dunno. I don't think that one should be here, because in my eyes, it's much more possible than many of the other ones here. Hell, I think we'll see within the next ten years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted June 18, 2003 Yeah...It's evitable to occur at some point or another... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted June 18, 2003 After watching the Finals, I think 55 rebounds may not be out of the question! And after hearing about the Chambers record, I'm rockin the Jazz jersey tomorrow! I also really believe we will not see an NCAA men's basketball team win back-to-back championships. Not with teams playing 40 games a year, plus the addition to 64 teams. Was Duke the only team to do it in the 64 team format? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted June 18, 2003 Kentucky WAS closests with 3 finals in 3 years...Won 96 and 98 but lost in ot to Zona... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted June 18, 2003 Chief Wilson's 36 triples in a season. Hack Wilson's 191 rbi's. That's such an incredible pace to keep a full season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest gthureson Report post Posted June 20, 2003 The only real All-Time that is in jeopardy in hockey depends on how much longer Brett Hull plays. He's at 716 goals now. I wouldn't really call it jeopardy. He's what, 180 goals behind? If it was 1992 and Hull was still around 31 or 32 years old, then he'd have a shot. But Brett Hull is going to be 39 before next season starts, and who knows if there will be a lockout or not. If there is, he might be 41 before the league starts up again. While Brett's game doesn't depend on his speed (he's never been especially quick), and he could conceivably play unti what, maybe 42, that would give him 3, maybe 4 seasons to score 180 times. Meaning around 45-60 goals a season, depending on whether there is a lockout or not. Brett Hull has not scored 40 goals since 1997. He has not scored 60 since 1992. You can pencil him in for 25 - 30 for next season, and then that might be it. If there is a lockout, I'll put money on Brett being one of the guys that retires. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MaxPower27 Report post Posted June 20, 2003 Sure, he may retire, but Hull seems like the type that would stick around if he's given a half-way decent contract. Sure he's 180 goals behind, but given a small multi-year contract, he could draw even closer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest nl5xsk1 Report post Posted June 20, 2003 Hull's only averaged about 32 goals/year the last 5 years, so for him to catch Gretzky he'd have to maintain that same average number of goals for the next 6 years ... and I can't see a player that's in his early-to-mid 40s averaging 30+ goals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
