Great question
Yes SBs should absolutely be weighted heavily in determining a player’s greatness. Especially in a league with so many variations in team philosophies over the years. I know this is common knowledge, but Aikman played in a different era than Romo. During Aikman’s time running the ball heavily was seen as the best strategy in winning championships for many teams in league in contrast to Romo’s passing league era where majority of the teams passed heavily. So how do you propose we determine who had the better career? It’s almost implied by the years Romo played he would have better stats than Troy and Roger. What separates Troy and Tony are of course the SB wins (or playoff success).
Some would argue Aikman played on better overall teams. Well let’s see, Aikman played with five HoFs in his day (Emmitt, Micheal, Larry Allen, Deion Sanders, and Charles Haley), while Romo played with the likes of DeMarcus Ware, Jason Witten and Terrell Owens. Romo played with three HOFs (or future HOFs) and Aikman played with five. If someone wants to add Tyron Smith or a Zack Martin to Romo’s guys have at it. My point is, talent wise both QBs played with some pretty good players. Yes Aikman got a chance to play with a great coach in Jimmy Johnson but Romo got a chance to play with HOF coach Bill Parcells. I understand there are many who going to bash this assemesment. I get majority of Romo’s career he had to deal with the incompetence of Garrett, but remeber Aikman lead a team to a SB win with the likes of Switzer on the sidelines. What I’m saying is, grading Aikman and Romo’s playoff success should be a major factor in determining who was better. Based on what I can see Aikman had better intangibles than Romo. Point blank period. Aikman lead his great players to three SB wins while Romo was unable to lead his great players to anything significant.
