DipChit;1253886 said:
Well I think much to the chagrin of the folks who really like a guy like Aikman, it's just easier for people to latch on to certain other guys instead.
Guys who even when the cast of characters around them changed quite a bit were still able "lead" their teams to victory. It's too "easy" otherwise to just wonder how much a guys success had to with the particular group he had the one time around. Primarily when it wasnt a case of a knack for last second heroics or magic that gave the guy his good rep in the first place. When a guy has that quality it's more likely a guy will have success no matter who he's playing with.
Then in Aikmans case you thow in an Emmitt Smith, arguably the best RB of all time and it muddies it up even more. Especially when it seemed like instead of the usual case where when an obvious primetime QB couldnt play and most everyone thought that team would have trouble winning, here it was more of a case where when Emmitt didnt play was when we would have the most trouble.
Right or wrong because of the different variables, if the perception is a team thats otherwise playing at a very high level cant win without it's starting RB, it's not saying a whole lot about their QB. It questions who's really making the whole thing tick.
Yes, and all those perceptions have valid answers to them, but a message board doesn't afford the face to face time to answer and refute. Which is why, after stating an opinion, it is just better to let everyone run on about it.
For example, all those times that Emmitt didn't play and when we had trouble. When were those times?
Primarily TWO GAMES. (He didn't miss many games you know) Opening of 93 season. Why did we have so much trouble? It wasn't just football, it was a divided team as well, upset over contracts and money.
I can point you to PLAYOFF games, where Smith left very early in the game, due to injury, and we blew people out. But no one remembers those games and some don't want to. When we won the Super Bowl in 1995, Emmitt scored 2 gimme TD's, both set up by passes down to around the 2 or 1 yard line, but he made a VERY minimal impact in that game.
Nor do they want to remember 1990 when the Cowboys went on a winning streak to climb back into playoff contention with 2 games to go. Aikman went down to an injury at Philly. Babe Laufenburg came in.
EMMITT WAS STILL THERE.
Result? 2 straight losses.
People don't remember that, they remember 1991 when Aikman went down and Dallas went on a win streak with Beureline (sp?)
It is all about people creating the scenarios in their mind that they like.
Same with Roger. I was a HUGE Staubach fan. My favorite player ever. But I can point you to games I have on tape of him playing, at his height, when he stunk it up.
Roger WASN'T a better passer than Aikman. Just wasn't. Didn't win as many games. Didn't win as many SB's. But some will continue to think that Roger did nothing but win.
So, again, we all have our opinions, state them, have fun with them. But they are all (including mine), just that, opinions, and many of them based on superficial standards.
