What if Aikman was never released? - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Galian Beast · 08-31-2005

What would have happened if Troy Aikman wasn't released in 2000?

Perhaps we could have focused on repairing that offensive line?

Assuming that we still got Parcells. Perhaps there wouldn't have been such a huge need to release Smith, and forge a completely new team? I don't know. Is that possible?

I would like to imagine what 2003 would have been like replacing Carter with Aikman, and Hambrick with Smith.

How would Galloway and Bryant have done with Troy instead of Carter or Hutchinson?

I think there would have been less of a need to get Keyshawn. We would have probably had more success with Bryant, Galloway, and Glenn, that we probably wouldn't have need Johnson.

And Emmitt ran for 937 yards with Arizona last year... that in only 15 games... and the most touchdowns he has had since 2000.

I don't know, I was just thinking about these things. It's all what ifs and all that. What if jimmy johnson never stopped coaching the cowboys (definitely would have won 4 straight super bowls) imagine how far we could have kept going salary cap and all. Jimmy definitely would have maintained that offensive line. And probably would have drafted better.

Eddie · 08-31-2005

Not for nothing, but Troy Aikman is ancient history now.

He was terrible with a terrible team around him.

We would have done NO better than the three consecutive 5-11 seasons we endured. He was great when he had the players around him, but he wasn't able to raise the play of lesser players.

Sorry. Troy is gone.

Galian Beast · 08-31-2005

So basically you're saying that Troy Aikman is the equivalent of Carter or Hutchinson... that's interesting... Because only in 2000 where he only played 11 games, and had no offensive line help did we suffer so badly.

Before 2000 the only post super bowl aikman record was 6-10, and we bounced back to 10-6 the next year.Then lost Michael Irvin. His QB rating was barely ever below 80 in a season.

dbair1967 · 08-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie

Not for nothing, but Troy Aikman is ancient history now.

He was terrible with a terrible team around him.

We would have done NO better than the three consecutive 5-11 seasons we endured. He was great when he had the players around him, but he wasn't able to raise the play of lesser players.

Sorry. Troy is gone.

he's gone, but to discount what Aikman is pretty lame

the guy was one of the best players in football when he was here, supporting cast or no supporting cast...at one point any GM in football would have cut off their own arm or leg to have this guy

I'd take Aikman in his prime anyday over anyone playing right now

David

Badattitude · 08-31-2005

He was released for his own health - he'd be drinking his steak thru a straw with Torrin Tucker blocking for him...

Galian Beast · 08-31-2005

dbair, you do the name David great honor =)

My point was that Aikman was much better even when he was released than Carter and Hutchinson. And instead of going after Carter maybe we could have gotten some offensive line help, veteran or otherwise.

I also think things would have worked out differently for Joey Galloway once he was healthy again, same with Antonio Bryant if we still drafted him.

dbair1967 · 08-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

dbair, you do the name David great honor =)

My point was that Aikman was much better even when he was released than Carter and Hutchinson. And instead of going after Carter maybe we could have gotten some offensive line help, veteran or otherwise.

I also think things would have worked out differently for Joey Galloway once he was healthy again, same with Antonio Bryant if we still drafted him.

I am continually amazed at people who discount how good Aikman really was...

probably 95% of the people who do that only saw him play in 2000, or never saw him play at all...

his average years were FAR better than anything we've had here since he left...FAR better

David

**BrAinPaiNt** · 08-31-2005

He had too many concussions and not only that his back was getting bad.

It does not discount his abilities or his leadership but his health was a serious question mark through a rebuilding time and it was best for Troy and his family to walk away from the game.

I honestly do not think he would have lasted long and would have been forced to leave the game due to injury similar to the play maker.

Not only did the weak team around him hurt his last few years in the league I think his health condition did as well....once again that does not say anything bad about Troy but I just think it was wise for him to move on while he could still move well.

Besides he has landed a great gig since being out and he is doing fine.

gbrittain · 08-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbair1967

I am continually amazed at people who discount how good Aikman really was...

probably 95% of the people who do that only saw him play in 2000, or never saw him play at all...

his average years were FAR better than anything we've had here since he left...FAR better

David

It makes me wonder about the people who knock Aikman.

Did they ever really watch him play?

I am sorry but I get really tired of hearing he did not raise the level of play of the players around him.

How lame is that.

We know Troy Aikman benefited from having E. Smith in the backfield, but do you think E. Smith benefited ohh...just a tad from having Aikman as the QB?

Perhaps just maybe, opposing Defenses had to respect the arm and accuracy of Troy?

Nice WR in Irvin, but who else was there? Alvin Harper? What did he ever accomplish without Troy and Irvin to take the heat off him.

If memory serves me correct Alvin was pretty good though while Troy was throwing the ball to him.

Jay Novacek the Plan B guy from Arizona? Yeah, I like Jay and Jay was an awesome TE for Dallas. Not like he is a HOF TE, as much as we would like him to be.

Jay's catches and yards 5 years before Troy. 83 catches, 1054 yards, 8 TDs.
Jay's catches and yards first 5 years with Troy. 277 catches, 2871 yards, 16 TDs.

Coincidence he becomes a big star when Troy starts throwing the ball to him?

Troy did elevate the play of others around him.

Verdict · 08-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

So basically you're saying that Troy Aikman is the equivalent of Carter or Hutchinson... that's interesting... Because only in 2000 where he only played 11 games, and had no offensive line help did we suffer so badly.

Before 2000 the only post super bowl aikman record was 6-10, and we bounced back to 10-6 the next year.Then lost Michael Irvin. His QB rating was barely ever below 80 in a season.

I dont think Eddie actually said that. You did. But now that you mention it I will say that Troy Aikman, at the end, was not much better, if any, than Carter or Hutchinson, and both of them were bad. He was damaged goods. It was time for him to go. No one picked up Aikman when we cut him. Keep that in perspective. We did not cut him because he was a great player. We cut him because he was DONE.

Verdict · 08-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galian Beast

dbair, you do the name David great honor =)

My point was that Aikman was much better even when he was released than Carter and Hutchinson. And instead of going after Carter maybe we could have gotten some offensive line help, veteran or otherwise.

I also think things would have worked out differently for Joey Galloway once he was healthy again, same with Antonio Bryant if we still drafted him.

If he was as good at that point in time as you say he was we would have brought him back. He was done. Let him go. Maybe we should exhume Coach Landry's body and put him on the sidelines when Parcells retires. LOL.

GTaylor · 08-31-2005

To me our greatest downfall was denying that Aikman couldn't last much longer in the game, it was painfully obvious after the 98 season when he would get concussions left and right. I'm a diehard Cowboys fan but I was stressing rebuilding and more importantly grooming a QB for the future, and I went nuts when the Galloway trade was announced (Not that I'm a swambi, I had no idea he would fail this badly - I was mad because I knew we were more than a receiver away from the SB).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Aikman's final undoing a roster clause that paid him around $8 million around March 2001? And if Aikman was still a strong QB option, why didn't anyone else, including his mentor Norv Turner offer him a contract?

Again, not slamming Aikman - very happy he landed on our team, but we all know athletes are the worst guys at admitting when it's time to move on...

jem88 · 08-31-2005

Anybody who doesn't appreciate how good Aikman was is an idiot. Just watch the 1994-5 NFC Championship when we lost to the 49ers and you'll see everything you'd ever want in a QB (not least the ability to rack up the yards when necessar.) That being said, it was really time for him to pack it in after the shot Arrington laid on him. The writing was already on the wall and that final blow confirmed that he needed to step down. What's more, by stepping out when he did, Aikman avoided tarnishing a great career, like so many others before and after him. There is no QB I would rather have had on our teams during the '90s (and I'm including Montana on that list.) I'm not going to say he was the best ever but he was absolutely perfect for our system.

Billy Bullocks · 08-31-2005

Aikman doesn't evne play the same sport as Hutch or Carter. Aikman is far more accurate, much better at reads, and one of the top 10 QB's in NFL History. He played well when he and the rest of the team got old. By the end of his career the guy didn't even know who he was anymore, he'd gotten knocked around so much

czmtzc · 08-31-2005

Every time I get to listen to Troy announce a game I am glad he retired before he got one concussion too many.

Yes, he could have played another year or two, and he probably would have been better than Quincy, but he still wouldn't have been in his prime, and I wouldn't trade two sub par seasons for the posibility that he would have ended his career on a strecher.