Shop for New York Giants gear at

Warren Sapp? Or, Warren The Sap?

Warren Sapp? Or Warren, The Sap?
By Martin Alvin

Good Grief, does the mind-bogging bias ever end? First, it was Giants fans bashing Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning — in spite of the objective facts — and now, it’s Warren Sapp bashing Michael Strahan — also, in spite of the objective facts. And just to reiterate, mind-boggling is defined as: Intellectually or emotionally overwhelming. And bias is defined as: That which prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. Combined they form an emotion-based refusal to consider the objective facts.

So, keeping that in mind, let’s unemotionally examine what Hall of Fame, Defensive Tackle, Warrant Sapp had to say about Hall of Fame candidate, Defensive End, Michael Strahan. Sapp vociferously contends Strahan doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame because — according to Sapp — Strahan doesn’t have the objective, factual, credentials to warrant enshrinement. Okay, fair enough. Warren Sapp is entitled to his opinion; but while he’s entitled to his opinion, the question is: is his opinion based on objective fact? Or, is he just behaving like yet another mind-boggling, biased, sap? What credentials is Warren Sapp referring to? Could they be the ones listed below?

Sapp: Thirteen years – 198 games — 573 tackles — 44.5 per year.
Strahan: Fifteen years – 216 games — 854 tackles — 60 per year.
Sapp: 96.5 sacks — 7.5 per year.
Strahan: 141.5 sacks — 9.5 per year
Sapp: Seven Pro Bowls
Strahan: Seven Pro Bowls
Sapp: All Pro four times
Strahan: All Pro four times
Sapp: Four career interceptions
Strahan: Four career interceptions
Sapp: Nineteen forced fumbles.
Strahan: Twenty-four forced fumbles
Sapp: Voted to the 1990s all decade team
Strahan: Voted NFC defensive payer of the year in 2001
Sapp: Voted to the all 2000s all decade team
Strahan: Voted NFL defensive player of the year in 2001
Strahan: NFL record for sacks in a season -22.5
Sapp: No NFL records.

Those are the objective, factual, credentials. Nothing subjective about them. Just the cold, hard, facts. So, based on those objective, factual, credentials, let’s say Mr. Sapp is right and Michael Strahan doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. I don’t agree with him, but hey; I won’t dismiss the contention of a thirteen-year veteran of the pro football trenches. So, assuming I agree with him; where does his “well-thought-out” contention leave us?

Well, if his contention is valid — and I know he believes it is — it leaves him out of the Hall of Fame, too, because his credentials are virtually same as Strahan’s. And in some cases, they’re even slightly little less than Strahan’s credentials. So, if Strahan’s credentials are lacking, aren’t Sapp’s credentials equally lacking? And that being the case, should we expect a formal withdrawal from the Hall of Fame request from Warren Sapp?

Now, just for the record, I’m sure Warren Sapp’s contention regarding Michael Strahan’s lack of credentials, does not – repeat, does not — stem from being petty and jealous of Strahan’s celebrity; which is — and probably always will be — far more impressive than Sapp’s. Hell, if Sapp was doing that, he’d just be another mind-bogglingly biased sap, wouldn’t he?

Enjoyed this post?
Subscribe to Giants Gab via RSS Feed or E-mail and receive daily news updates from us!

Submit to Digg  Stumble This Story  Share on Twitter  Post on Facebook  Post on MySpace  Add to  Bark It Up  Submit to Reddit  Fave on Technorati

4 Responses to “Warren Sapp? Or, Warren The Sap?”

  1. Glenn says:

    Go smoke a blunt Sapp!!!!

  2. Lou says:

    Bravo Martin! Well done!

  3. Dave says:

    Warren Sapp sucked his last few years in the league with the Raiders. Warren Sapp is broke, Warren Sapp is fat, Warren Sapp is a moron! Michael Strahan has the post football career Warren Sapp wishes he could have, that’s what this is all about. Fat jealous cry baby! In ten years Warren Sapp will be working at Foot Locker. What a loser!

  4. Wise Dog says:

    Aw c’mon, Dave. Don’t sugar coat it. Tell us what you really think. 

Leave a Reply