If Aikman were the QB

[ABQCOWBOY]

Say, that reminds me. Does anyone think Roger Staubach could run a no huddle offense?

The no huddle was made for Roger. Are you kidding me right now?!!!

lol.....

 

[cern]

Aikman played for a better head coach and o-coordinator.

 

[Big_D]

Not even Troy gets it done with these coaches and this defense. But he might actually run the ball and not audible out. That would be a nice change of pace. He would certainly be much better at reading defenses and making quality throws.. still comes down to a smart front office, scheme, game management, clock management, adjustments, etc..

 

[Dre11]

Yeah, those players were shipped off. Make no mistake, Troy had the most influence of any player on that team, in terms of personnel decisions.

He had some, David Lafluer comes to mind and Novacek retired.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I watched pretty much all of Aikmans games and whenever he threw for 300+ yards the Cowboys lost. I like Aikman but he was never the kind of QB that could carry a team. Just like Romo couldn't. The big difference between them is Aikman could hand the ball off 6 times in row to emmitt and then turn around and throw skinny post route perfect. Romo is a rhythm passer and needs to throw to be accurate.

I don't know that this is really a statement on Aikman. I believe that it's more of a statement on the way the team was built. If Troy was throwing for 300, that means the defense was getting beat the hell up. That means we weren't controlling either side of the SL. It means we werent controlling clock with the running game, more then likely. We weren't built to be a come from behind team then. We were built to ground and pound, play pressure D and get off the field in order to give our OL another shot and wearing down the opposing Defense. I think that those kinds of numbers are more indicative of this, rather then Aikman's abilities. You put him in a different Offense and those kinds of numbers might mean more but honestly, you probably don't win 3 championships either.

JMO

 

[JDSmith]

I don't know that this is really a statement on Aikman. I believe that it's more of a statement on the way the team was built. If Troy was throwing for 300, that means the defense was getting beat the hell up. That means we weren't controlling either side of the SL. It means we werent controlling clock with the running game, more then likely. We weren't built to be a come from behind team then. We were built to ground and pound, play pressure D and get off the field in order to give our OL another shot and wearing down the opposing Defense. I think that those kinds of numbers are more indicative of this, rather then Aikman's abilities. You put him in a different Offense and those kinds of numbers might mean more but honestly, you probably don't win 3 championships either.

JMO

But if that's the case, how do you judge QBs based on wins? A different offense, same QB, different results. Or a lesser defense, same offense and QB, different results. If Troy being forced to throw led to losses does that mean he was a worse QB when the defense didn't play as well and he was forced to throw?

Put Tom Brady on the Browns right now and they're not a Super Bowl contender. He might help them to 4 or 5 wins, but there is no way they'd be a serious threat. So given that, and the fact that most people would consider Brady among the best QBs to ever play, does that mean that simply moving to Cleveland would make him a bad QB? It would certainly mean he wasn't winning nearly as many games.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

But if that's the case, how do you judge QBs based on wins? A different offense, same QB, different results. Or a lesser defense, same offense and QB, different results. If Troy being forced to throw led to losses does that mean he was a worse QB when the defense didn't play as well and he was forced to throw?

Put Tom Brady on the Browns right now and they're not a Super Bowl contender. He might help them to 4 or 5 wins, but there is no way they'd be a serious threat. So given that, and the fact that most people would consider Brady among the best QBs to ever play, does that mean that simply moving to Cleveland would make him a bad QB? It would certainly mean he wasn't winning nearly as many games.

Put any QB on the Browns, ever, and that's the case. That is why I believe judging QBs on Super Bowls is the best way, the fairest way. I don't dispute the idea that QBs are only as good as the personnel around them but, there are some QBs who can elevate a teams talent, simply through play, leadership and how they actually go about the game. We've seen it before.

We judge QBs on how many yards, how many TDs, how many completions, how many TDs. We don't judge them on how well the Defense plays, even though, they have a really large role in that. The way a QB plays often determines how long a Defense is on the field. QBs aren't judged on that but good QBs understand that and help that side of the ball. That translates into team success and that's a big part of the game. Those are the intangibles you can't see on paper.

 

[JDSmith]

Put any QB on the Browns, ever, and that's the case. That is why I believe judging QBs on Super Bowls is the best way, the fairest way. I don't dispute the idea that QBs are only as good as the personnel around them but, there are some QBs who can elevate a teams talent, simply through play, leadership and how they actually go about the game. We've seen it before.

We judge QBs on how many yards, how many TDs, how many completions, how many TDs. We don't judge them on how well the Defense plays, even though, they have a really large role in that. The way a QB plays often determines how long a Defense is on the field. QBs aren't judged on that but good QBs understand that and help that side of the ball. That translates into team success and that's a big part of the game. Those are the intangibles you can't see on paper.

How many Super Bowl would Brady win on the Browns? I'm going with zero. So that, to me, invalidates that method of judging a QB. Maybe I'm wrong, and Brady would somehow elevate the rest of that team to a Super Bowl win. But I might also win the lottery, and I think the odds of either of those things are about the same.

Big Ben's first Super Bowl win included a 22 passer rating. He still got a Lombardi, and if people judge a QB by Super Bowl wins, instant validation. To me that's a silly idea. If a QB plays an absolutely horrible game and it somehow makes him better than his peers simply because his defense was good and his running game was good, then I'd say that's an extremely weak way to judge performance. That would be like putting me on a 400 meter relay team and having it win because the rest of the guys were the 3 fastest people in the world. Doing that would make me a champion, but it wouldn't make me fast. It wouldn't make me a good runner. It would simply mean that the guys who ran with me were so much better than the opposition that we won in spite of me.

 

[sean10mm]

I mean, if we're ONLY counting rings, then Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton and Warren Moon and Eli Manning is equal to Roger Staubach and John Elway which uh lol nope.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How many Super Bowl would Brady win on the Browns? I'm going with zero. So that, to me, invalidates that method of judging a QB. Maybe I'm wrong, and Brady would somehow elevate the rest of that team to a Super Bowl win. But I might also win the lottery, and I think the odds of either of those things are about the same.

Big Ben's first Super Bowl win included a 22 passer rating. He still got a Lombardi, and if people judge a QB by Super Bowl wins, instant validation. To me that's a silly idea. If a QB plays an absolutely horrible game and it somehow makes him better than his peers simply because his defense was good and his running game was good, then I'd say that's an extremely weak way to judge performance. That would be like putting me on a 400 meter relay team and having it win because the rest of the guys were the 3 fastest people in the world. Doing that would make me a champion, but it wouldn't make me fast. It wouldn't make me a good runner. It would simply mean that the guys who ran with me were so much better than the opposition that we won in spite of me.

How many Super Bowls would any QB, ever, win with the Browns? I'm going with zero as well. That's why, IMO, that is not a good way to qualify either position on the question of how best to judge QBs. Silly or not, that's how most judge QBs and I don't really have a problem with it. You can't compare QBs from different eras because of how the game has changed. I understand that some may not agree with this method but to me, it's just the fairest way to judge them.

 

[Captain43Crash]

He probably would have chew the coaches out with the bs play calling. With this o-line I'm not sure if he would have fair any better. Look how they left a mobile qb out there to die in the Atlanta game.

Look how they left a mobile QB out there to die in the Atlanta game. So True. Garrett and Linehan should have been fired on the spot. Troy probably would have been sacked 11-15 times. If he wasn’t in an ambulance in the 4th qt., he would have walked up to Garrett then Linehan and punched them both in the nose.

 

[punchnjudy]

If anyone wants to see Troy, Emmitt, and "The Great Wall" in action, the 92 Championship is on youtube for the moment. They never stay up very long.

Not having seen the game in a long time, I thought the great wall looked surprisingly vulnerable. Several sacks, lots of quick passes, and a key stuff on 4th and one that I had completely forgotten about.

 

[mahoneybill]

You watched that team and your focus is the TE? Dude........That is just sad.

No just pointing out the extra weapon he had

 

[Hadenough]

I don't know that this is really a statement on Aikman. I believe that it's more of a statement on the way the team was built. If Troy was throwing for 300, that means the defense was getting beat the hell up. That means we weren't controlling either side of the SL. It means we werent controlling clock with the running game, more then likely. We weren't built to be a come from behind team then. We were built to ground and pound, play pressure D and get off the field in order to give our OL another shot and wearing down the opposing Defense. I think that those kinds of numbers are more indicative of this, rather then Aikman's abilities. You put him in a different Offense and those kinds of numbers might mean more but honestly, you probably don't win 3 championships either.

JMO

Im not saying its bad thing or that Troy wasnt that good he was the perfect fit for a running offense. He was very unique because a lot of guys that pass for many more yards than he did like Favre or Marino are just like Romo. They need to throw a lot or they get cold. Troy could hand off all day but when one pass was needed he would throw a strike. But your right about not being able to compare eras. The rules of changed and the coaching has changed with the treatment of players because the union being involved.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Im not saying its bad thing or that Troy wasnt that good he was the perfect fit for a running offense. He was very unique because a lot of guys that pass for many more yards than he did like Favre or Marino are just like Romo. They need to throw a lot or they get cold. Troy could hand off all day but when one pass was needed he would throw a strike. But your right about not being able to compare eras. The rules of changed and the coaching has changed with the treatment of players because the union being involved.

He was a very unique player, for sure. He was much more like QBs who proceeded him, in that, he was capable of playing the game, as you outline above. He was also very, very talented. While Marino may have been a better pure passer, he was not as gifted a pinpoint passer who could literally thread the needle. Troy was also much more mobile then Marino was, and people forget what Troy was like when he came out of UCLA. Had you put him in a different Offense then, he could have been one of those guys who threw for 4 thousand yards and 30 TDs IMO.

Troy was not typical in that he was a strong armed guy who could really bring it and simply entered the NFL and tried to use that to force the ball, which usually result in INTs. Now, a lot of that is due to Norv's Offense and the ability of our receivers to execute it, as designed. Either way, the ball still had to be delivered accurately, on time and with enough velocity to allow for completions before DBs even had a chance to react. It was almost unfair.

To me, his biggest asset was the fact that he could have blown it up but he didn't. When a lot of QBs around him were demanding to throw more, he valued balance. We all know Jerry and now, we understand exactly how much power players actually have, where Jerry is concerned. Had Troy wanted to force the Offense, he easily could have. He could have demanded that we go towards more of a pass oriented scheme. He never did that and that's a big reason, as to why we were able to be so dominate, for as long as we were.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Troy was accurate in his passing, and threw a catchable ball, and was a smart player. You have those 3 things, and you could throw for a lot of yards and tds, if that was what was required. Drew Brees has thrown for over 70,000 yards and over 300 tds, and he's neither very mobile nor tall nor has an overly strong arm. But he's chunked the ball much more than Troy ever did due to Payton's offensive scheme for most of his career, hence the stats.

Troy could have had much higher passing stats had he been in a passing offense...

 

[dfense]

Aikman has more super bowl rings than Romo has playoff wins, and he's a HOFer. You can't even compare their careers.

Aikman had a lot more support than Romo. Emmitt, Irvin, #1 defense, depth, yup, you can't compare.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Aikman had a lot more support than Romo. Emmitt, Irvin, #1 defense, depth, yup, you can't compare.

You could make the same silly argument about Montana, Young, Farvre.........oh heck, just fill in the HOF QB and make your Romo argument.

 

[kskboys]

But if that's the case, how do you judge QBs based on wins? A different offense, same QB, different results. Or a lesser defense, same offense and QB, different results. If Troy being forced to throw led to losses does that mean he was a worse QB when the defense didn't play as well and he was forced to throw?

Put Tom Brady on the Browns right now and they're not a Super Bowl contender. He might help them to 4 or 5 wins, but there is no way they'd be a serious threat. So given that, and the fact that most people would consider Brady among the best QBs to ever play, does that mean that simply moving to Cleveland would make him a bad QB? It would certainly mean he wasn't winning nearly as many games.

You don't. That's a lazy way too judge.

 

[the_h0wey]

Romo>aikman

That's just silly