If we go back to the original question of the first post, which is, how good would have Cunningham and Aikman been if the two had been swapped, I tend to think that Cunningham would have been a very good fit within the Dallas system, and that Aikman may have struggled in Philadelphia. But IMO, the difference maker for Aikman was Norv Turner. The Q would be, had the two been switched, would there have been a Norv Turner in Philadelphia for Aikman? Aikman looked awful his first year in the league. He needed to grow into the role, and he needed appropriate mentorship.
The difference between the two is that Cunningham had enough raw athletic ability to keep things moving and to allow Buddy to survive as a coach. But I really don't know if Buddy then gave Cunningham the kinds of coaching tools necessary to improve to a Super Bowl level. That question was answered pretty straightforwardly in Dallas.
So, assuming Cunningham had been in Dallas, would exposure to a Norv Turner early in his career, when he still had a ton of raw talent, have turned Cunningham into a Super Bowl caliber quarterback? We'll never have an answer to that. He obviously didn't run into his difference maker as a coach and so has to be considered a terrific talent who never went all the way.
The best of the Cunningham-Philadelphia teams was the one that ended up losing in Chicago in the fog. Thing about those teams is the lack of a power running game. They relied on their receivers (and Mike Quick was damned good; too bad he lost it to injury) and Cunningham's elusiveness to solve their problems, and in a fog it's hard to throw. Take home lesson? You can't build a team for 90% of all situations, it will turn around and bite you 10% of the time.
In summary, I agree mostly with Brainpaint.
David.
