Come from behind victories are the most useless stat

[vlad]

With Troy going in there is all this talk of "is her a first time HOF?" One of the things people point to is that he had very few come from behind victories compared to people like Elway and Marino. Hey dip*hit, that's because he was hardly ever behind. He was so good that his team was just always up. No one ever thinks of not only how good he would have been on other teams, but how good other teams would have been with him. Think about Minnesota, you don't think he would have been bombing passes left and right?

It just makes me so mad and points out how ignorant the average fan is. They are too blinded by their ties, and can't remain objective. Look on here, I'm sure I've done it. Sorry, just had to vent after reading the comments on the CNNSI article on Troy.

 

[jimmy40]

With Troy going in there is all this talk of "is her a first time HOF?" One of the things people point to is that he had very few come from behind victories compared to people like Elway and Marino. Hey dip*hit, that's because he was hardly ever behind. He was so good that his team was just always up. No one ever thinks of not only how good he would have been on other teams, but how good other teams would have been with him. Think about Minnesota, you don't think he would have been bombing passes left and right?

It just makes me so mad and points out how ignorant the average fan is. They are too blinded by their ties, and can't remain objective. Look on here, I'm sure I've done it. Sorry, just had to vent after reading the comments on the CNNSI article on Troy.

How in the world could anybody ever figure out what stat is the most useless, there's so damn many useless ones.

 

[Manster68]

With Troy going in there is all this talk of "is her a first time HOF?" One of the things people point to is that he had very few come from behind victories compared to people like Elway and Marino. Hey dip*hit, that's because he was hardly ever behind. He was so good that his team was just always up. No one ever thinks of not only how good he would have been on other teams, but how good other teams would have been with him. Think about Minnesota, you don't think he would have been bombing passes left and right?

It just makes me so mad and points out how ignorant the average fan is. They are too blinded by their ties, and can't remain objective. Look on here, I'm sure I've done it. Sorry, just had to vent after reading the comments on the CNNSI article on Troy.

That is the very reason why I would take Troy over Roger on the all-time Cowboys team.

Troy would have had Dallas out in front in more games if he were to be the quarterback of the 70s. Troy would have connected beautifly with receivers like Drew and Preston Pearson, Tony Hill, Golden Richards, Butch Johnson, and especially tight ends like DuPree, Ditka, and Saldi. Troy would have stretched the field more than Roger would have...and it only would have opened more holes for Dorsett, Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, Robert Newhouse, and Ron Springs.

Dallas probably would not have lost a Super Bowl in the 70s had Troy been quarterbacking...

...and I also would venture to say that Dallas would have been to more Super Bowls also. Dallas would have had the lead more - allowing that Doomsday pass rush to become even that more devestating.

As much as I admire Roger the Dodger, sorry, I have to take Troy.

 

[jimmy40]

That is the very reason why I would take Troy over Roger on the all-time Cowboys team.

Troy would have had Dallas out in front in more games if he were to be the quarterback of the 70s. Troy would have connected beautifly with receivers like Drew and Preston Pearson, Tony Hill, Golden Richards, Butch Johnson, and especially tight ends like DuPree, Ditka, and Saldi. Troy would have stretched the field more than Roger would have...and it only would have opened more holes for Dorsett, Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, Robert Newhouse, and Ron Springs.

Dallas probably would not have lost a Super Bowl in the 70s had Troy been quarterbacking...

...and I also would venture to say that Dallas would have been to more Super Bowls also. Dallas would have had the lead more - allowing that Doomsday pass rush to become even that more devestating.

As much as I admire Roger the Dodger, sorry, I have to take Troy.

Troy could not have made the plays with his feet that Roger had to make and Roger was nowhere near as acurate as Aikman. Neither QB would have been as good on the other's team.

Pittsburg was just better than Dallas in the '70s. Period They played in a hell of alot tougher conference and they beat Dallas 2-0 in Super Bowls and having Troy would not have changed that.

 

[parchy]

That is the very reason why I would take Troy over Roger on the all-time Cowboys team.

Troy would have had Dallas out in front in more games if he were to be the quarterback of the 70s. Troy would have connected beautifly with receivers like Drew and Preston Pearson, Tony Hill, Golden Richards, Butch Johnson, and especially tight ends like DuPree, Ditka, and Saldi. Troy would have stretched the field more than Roger would have...and it only would have opened more holes for Dorsett, Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, Robert Newhouse, and Ron Springs.

Dallas probably would not have lost a Super Bowl in the 70s had Troy been quarterbacking...

...and I also would venture to say that Dallas would have been to more Super Bowls also. Dallas would have had the lead more - allowing that Doomsday pass rush to become even that more devestating.

As much as I admire Roger the Dodger, sorry, I have to take Troy.

Nobody can deny Troy's accuracy, but Roger's arm was stronger, and he threw a prettier deep ball. The only reason you didn't see it as much was because Landry was notoriously reserved on offense and typically wouldn't allow it. And actually, most of the big-time deep balls Roger threw in his earlier days were ad-libbed and didn't come from the sideline.

Troy would have been even more of a system quarterback than Staubach was under Landry, because Roger was so much more of an athlete and was a better field general. By the end of his career, Landry kind of just threw up his arms and said, 'this guy creates beautiful things by drawing plays up in the sand. I'll just quit protesting when he audibles.'

The teams Aikman had in the 90's were arguably just as strong as Staubach's of the 70's, and maybe even stronger. They're certainly not different enough to say the things you're saying.

 

[Established1971]

That is the very reason why I would take Troy over Roger on the all-time Cowboys team.

Troy would have had Dallas out in front in more games if he were to be the quarterback of the 70s. Troy would have connected beautifly with receivers like Drew and Preston Pearson, Tony Hill, Golden Richards, Butch Johnson, and especially tight ends like DuPree, Ditka, and Saldi. Troy would have stretched the field more than Roger would have...and it only would have opened more holes for Dorsett, Calvin Hill, Duane Thomas, Robert Newhouse, and Ron Springs.

Dallas probably would not have lost a Super Bowl in the 70s had Troy been quarterbacking...

...and I also would venture to say that Dallas would have been to more Super Bowls also. Dallas would have had the lead more - allowing that Doomsday pass rush to become even that more devestating.

As much as I admire Roger the Dodger, sorry, I have to take Troy.

wow, I strongly disagree

 

[Established1971]

Nobody can deny Troy's accuracy, but Roger's arm was stronger, and he threw a prettier deep ball. The only reason you didn't see it as much was because Landry was notoriously reserved on offense and typically wouldn't allow it. And actually, most of the big-time deep balls Roger threw in his earlier days were ad-libbed and didn't come from the sideline.

Troy would have been even more of a system quarterback than Staubach was under Landry, because Roger was so much more of an athlete and was a better field general. By the end of his career, Landry kind of just threw up his arms and said, 'this guy creates beautiful things by drawing plays up in the sand. I'll just quit protesting when he audibles.'

The teams Aikman had in the 90's were arguably just as strong as Staubach's of the 70's, and maybe even stronger. They're certainly not different enough to say the things you're saying.

good points, I always contended a strong arm doesnt equate to a good deep thrower. Aikman notoriously had a long ball that was a bit sub par, at least for a hall of famer lets say. Too hard, too fast, not enough arch. In the second half of his career he also developed two other strange habits, one was underthrowing on short passes and another was throwing the ball unecessarily hard over the middle resulting in dropped passes. Staubach lead the entire NFL in passing each of his final two seasons. Aikman finished next to last his last season. Listen I love Aikman, I was at the draft when he got selected. I dont mean to bash him, but I think some Cowboy fans see him with blue & silver colored glasses and I personally dont feel theres a debate in comparing him to Staubach.