[Hostile]

jay cee, Dargon, and JD, this is my final word on this unless you want to continue it.

40% winning percentage is Aikman's number for the 4 worst years of his career. I think we all agree on that. That 40% is what I would call an inflated number. It is NOT easy to beat a team that wins 11 games or more in a season. I think you'd have a near impossible time finding another QB in NFL History that won 40% of their games in their worst statistical years against elite competition.

40% winning percentage against winning teams is pretty amazing for any QB. That includes 9-7 teams as well as 10-6 teams.

I'll give you Bledsoe's entire career and any win over a 9-7 team or better and I will be shocked if the winning percentage for his career comes close to Aikman's final 4, worst years and 40% against 11 win or more elite teams..

That is how out of balance your argument really is. By trying to make it seem that with a bad team Aikman was just as pedestrian as Bledsoe you completely destroyed your own arguments.

Aikman, Montana, Brady, and Starr are poor test cases to use as an example of comparable failure. I tried my best to get that through to you.

The only way left that I can make you see it is to take Aikman's final 4 years and the 11 wins or better criteria and give you a much looser criteria to try and equal that 40%.

Good luck.