If Aikman were the QB

[ABQCOWBOY]

Romo would have gotten destroyed in Atlanta. Would have been out by the end of the 1st quarter.

I think it depends on what Romo you are talking about. Tony, earlier in his career, could have beaten that team. Later, once the mobility had gone away and the body was more susceptible to injury, I would agree.

Old Father Time is undefeated........

 

[CATCH17]

I don't believe that. I believe that Tom Brady is the best QB I've seen play, in this era of football.

You may think that this is lazy but I've seen them both and I just think Brady is better.

And that is fine. Brady has been a great player.

He's also played for a great coach in the worst division in the NFL for 20 years.

 

[atlantacowboy]

This is the worst argument. "That's just how they're measured." It requires no critical thinking or rational thought. Just because other people measure QBs using an illogical standard, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. Use your noggin.

Since when is "winning" an illogical standard?

Sorry you don't like the argument and the case in support of Troy doesn't require a lot of "critical thinking". He's a first ballot HOFer. Argue with that.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I think it depends on what Romo you are talking about. Tony, earlier in his career, could have beaten that team. Later, once the mobility had gone away and the body was more susceptible to injury, I would agree.

Old Father Time is undefeated........

I'm talking about last year.

 

[CATCH17]

Since when is "winning" an illogical standard?

Sorry you don't like the argument and the case in support of Troy doesn't require a lot of "critical thinking". He's a first ballot HOFer. Argue with that.

Because you're ignoring the supporting cast Troy and Tony had.


Aikman wasn't even Batman. He was Robin. Emmitt was our guy.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Because you're ignoring the supporting cast Troy and Tony had.


Aikman wasn't even Batman. He was Robin. Emmitt was our guy.

That makes no sense. Emmitt wasn't running against loaded boxes b/c the defense respected Troy. Zeke just had a rough year (4.1 ypc) b/c we don't have a QB at the moment that defenses respect. The 90's cowboys were a pick your poison offense. If you stopped Emmitt, Troy would get you. Some of you young guys have no idea what your talking about.

FYI: the HOF disagrees with you.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

And that is fine. Brady has been a great player.

He's also played for a great coach in the worst division in the NFL for 10 years.

The coaching part, I'd agree with. He does have a benefit of playing for a great Coach but then again, Rodgers hasn't really had it horribly, in that department either. I think that the the Division record thing is a bit self prophetic. I mean, when you have a really dominant team in a Division, other teams in the Division are going to look worse. I don't know if that's something that I would say is a true indicator or not. I do agree it does have impact, I just don't know how your quantify that measurement. that said, Rodgers has been the benefactor of playing in a crappy Division his entire career. Bears, Vikings and Lions have all been pretty bad over the last 10 years IMO.

Over the last 10 years, here are the Records of the other teams in the NFC North.

Vikings have been 80-79-1 .
Chicago Bears have been 74-86
Detroit Lions have been 63-97

Neither Division has a lot to brag about, in recent history so I am not sure that this is anything that really separates the two.

 

[CATCH17]

That makes no sense. Emmitt wasn't running against loaded boxes b/c the defense respected Troy. Zeke just had a rough year (4.1 ypc) b/c we don't have a QB at the moment that defenses respect. The 90's cowboys were a pick your poison offense. If you stopped Emmitt, Troy would get you. Some of you young guys have no idea what your talking about.

FYI: the HOF disagrees with you.

Emmitt wasn't running against loaded boxes?



You went off on a totally different thing btw. Emmitt was the reason we had success. We won without Troy. Emmitt was our MVP by a mile.

 

[noshame]

Romo>aikman

At golf never at qb

 

[noshame]

I

He was good but not near romo.

Oh my God
The Romo legend grows

Truth: Romo could not have run Troy's offense

 

[Einstein]

Aikman was very accurate, and would have done better than Dak on pure passing, but didn't have the mobility of Dak (not that Troy couldn't move). As for how would he like this set of WR... he would have worked well with Dez, but would have asked for more precise route running from him, and TWill would have worked well with Troy, but we all know TWill is more of a body catcher and that could have frustrated Troy. Troy would have loved Beaz and Witten because they get open on time.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Aikman was very accurate, and would have done better than Dak on pure passing, but didn't have the mobility of Dak (not that Troy couldn't move). As for how would he like this set of WR... he would have worked well with Dez, but would have asked for more precise route running from him, and TWill would have worked well with Troy, but we all know TWill is more of a body catcher and that could have frustrated Troy. Troy would have loved Beaz and Witten because they get open on time.

When Troy was young, I would venture to say that he had very similar mobility. It's hard to remember Troy, coming out of UCLA but there was a point in time when he actually had some wheels that were actually round and could roll, as opposed to later in his career, where the wheels had been ground down to squares.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I

Oh my God
The Romo legend grows

Truth: Romo could not have run Troy's offense

I agree with this. Tony could not throw the deep out, on a line, like Troy could. He didn't have that velocity, to go with the accuracy that made Norv's Offense work.

 

[Kevinicus]

Since when is "winning" an illogical standard?

Sorry you don't like the argument and the case in support of Troy doesn't require a lot of "critical thinking". He's a first ballot HOFer. Argue with that.

Since football stopped being an individual sport.

Btw, did I say Troy wasn't a HoF caliber QB?

 

[Kevinicus]

For 52 years it's been a great argument. It is what it is. I agree with the the other points, we are not in much disagreement.

No, it's never been a great argument (common is not and indicator of quality), and certainly not for 52 years. That makes no sense, since the first time it could even possibly used as an argument was about 22 years ago.

 

[Kevinicus]

Never the less, I believe the poster is correct. This is who QBs are measured. See it time and time again.

It's true that is how many (not all) measure QBs. It doesn't make it true that it's a good measurement. I think it's a poor one.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Since football stopped being an individual sport.

Btw, did I say Troy wasn't a HoF caliber QB?

I have no idea why you are trying to discredit Aikman and what he accomplished on an individual and team basis. ............and I really don't care. Take your garbage somewhere else.

 

[Kevinicus]

I have no idea why you are trying to discredit Aikman and what he accomplished on an individual and team basis. ............and I really don't care. Take your garbage somewhere else.

I'm not trying to discredit Aikman at all. You're just making things up now.

I am simply separting two distinct things.

Team success and individual performance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's true that is how many (not all) measure QBs. It doesn't make it true that it's a good measurement. I think it's a poor one.

I actually think it's a very good way to measure, myself. Today, everything is driven by Offense. Statistics today dwarf the numbers of QBs from the past. I mean, we all understand this, but Championships are a measure of competition at the time each and every QB was playing. Things that are not reflected in the stat sheet are facilitated by Championships, IMO. As example, lets take Troy Aikman and Dan Marino. You would be hard pressed to find a pure passer that was better then Dan Marino. The guy, as a passer, had it all. Enough arm to make any throw, accurate on the deep ball, lightning quick release, he was really fun to watch play. Troy had more arm and he was more accurate in throwing to a spot, with a lot of velocity but other then that, I'd have to say that Marino was more talented the Troy. However, the intangibles were all Troy, IMO, and that doesn't show up anywhere except Championships. Troy wanted to win more IMO. Troy would not settle for a good game, with his performance or his teammates, for that matter. Troy drove the team. He was the guy who made them go that extra mile. Troy was an unbelievably gifted passer, in his own right. Troy could have played in a lot of schemes and thrown for a lot of yards. He could have put up huge stats, had he wanted to. He could have demanded the ball and seriously diminished the role of Emmitt, had he wanted to. Believe me when I say that if Troy would have made any demand in personnel, he would have gotten it. Troy could have killed the running game and demanded a bigger role in the offense. If he had wanted to post the kinds of Stats that other QBs did, he easily could have done that, but then, the team would not have been as successful. Marino did exactly this and that is why he never won a championship.

That is why I do believe that Championships are the best indicator. There are so many parts of the game that are effected by how the QB plays. Things that never show up in the stat lines. How you manage the game effects the Defense as well but that's not ever going to show up. But without that management and that Defense, you don't win championships.

JMO

 

[DallasDomination]

In his prime with an off season to learn the playbook and chemistry with the players..


He would be great. People always look at stats and assume that's who they are and how they would play in every era.