If Aikman were the QB

[Aviano90]

You mean that season that he was robbed of the MVP? That season? You seem to be implying that Romo should have been perfect or never had an off game to be considered one of the leagues elite at the position. Beyond stupid.
(and that's saying something).

LOL. Beyond stupid, huh? OK, I see I am dealing with a child here at least someone who acts like it.

I'm not implying Romo should have been perfect. YOU are implying he had the answers suggesting that Romo wouldn't have allowed the Atlanta offensive line collapse occur. I have provided a couple of examples of when he wasn't able to solve the defensive pressure. If he wasn't always able to solve defensive pressure in the past, and has had to run for life as many claim, why be so sure he wouldn't struggle when Chaz was being beaten like a drum. The point is, even he had bad games due to pressure.

Anyway, sorry for engaging in this conversation with you. Rest assured, it will not occur again. Cheers and Go Cowboys!

 

[skinsscalper]

I didn't miss your point. Just because I don't agree entirely with your point, doens't mean I didn't get it. That may be a foreign concept on message boards, but so be it.

I don't disagree that Romo elevated other players performance, but many people talk about it as if it's a bad thing for the others. For example, it is often used as a knock against Jason Garrett. For the record, I can't stand Jason Garrett, but Romo making him look better than he is, is not a knock against Garrett. That's what great players do...they make their coaches look better.

Let me give you another example, the offensive line and Murray made Romo look better in 2014. Does the fact that Romo finally got an offensive line and a running game (best in franchise history) and had his best season somehow diminish what he did? I don't think so. I just wonder why people think it is a knock against Garrett that Romo made him look better.

Romo, with a running game and offensive line, was exactly what he had been for years: an NFL MVP level QB.

It didn't diminish what he did at all. The opposite, in fact. It validated what he could have been all along if the powers that be gave him a legitimate shot.

For the record, It's not a shot at Garrett at all that Romo made him look better. It's a shot at the organization as a whole. He made them ALL look better. As you said, it's what great players do. But, again, name me another player in the history of this franchise that had to do it to that extent. I'll wait.

 

[G2]

Love Aikman, but Aikman is on record saying Romo was better than him as early as 2012.

Aikman was a better QB and he was also a liar.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Correct. The Cowboys had the money and resources to outspend, literally, any team in the league. So did the 49ers, Giants, Commanders, etc. They were large market teams with large market budgets. At the time that the salary cap was being conceived and implemented, Jerry Jones was coming up with a new way to generate revenue for his franchise every 15 minutes (while simultaneously suing the league for trying to stop him). There was no way that the Seahawks or the Saints of the world would have EVER been able to keep pace, financially. It's Jerry's forward thinking (in terms of revenue generation) and balls (he had a big brass set of them when taking on the league) that the old codger is in the HOF. It has NOTHING to do with his success (or lack thereof) on the field.

There's a reason that teams like the Packers and Steelers (teams who were previously powerhouses in the league) suddenly became competitive again in the mid 90s (after decades of futility). Salary cap!

Make no mistake, 90% of the reason that the league even has a salary can be traced straight back to Jerry Jones and Eddie Debartalo (sp?). Hell, the entire AFC couldn't buy a Super Bowl trophy (literally). The Oakland Raiders were the last team from the AFC to win a Lombardi (in 1984) before the Broncos finally broke through (14 Super Bowls later) after the salary cap leveled the playing field.

As to the Romo/ Aikman debate. It's hard to compare the two but in a game where the QB gets too much credit for team accomplishments and too much blame for the entire franchises failures I always go back to the make up of the entire team. How many of Troy's teammates are in the Hall of Fame? How about Tony? From this particular perspective, the overall odds are stacked HEAVILY in Troy's favor.

There's also another thing to consider. Romo is the only player in Cowboys history that made EVERYONE in the organization (from the front office to the 3rd string OT) look better than they actually were. Troy never did that. He rarely had to. When he did have to, he looked as pedestrian as any QB to ever play. Anyone remember Spurgeon Wynn? He had a higher QB rating than Troy Aikman when it was Troy's time to "carry the team". Let that sink in.....................Spurgeon Wynn.

Don't get me wrong, I love both guys, but Aikman doesn't sniff a championship in Green Bay (who would have had the #1 overall pick had they not won a meaningless game the previous season).

One thing that you can't take away from Aikman: That dude was tough as nails. I've never seen a QB stare down the rush, know he was going to get plastered, deliver the pass with laser-guided accuracy, take it right on the chin, and get up to do it again. His backdrop was also the quickest and most efficient I've ever seen. Go back and watch that guy's footwork from the glory days. It's a clinic on footwork efficiency from the quarterback position. Every coach on the planet that teaches his kids to play from under center should have his film queued up for football 101 from day one. That dude in his prime was a thing of beauty from EVERY aspect of the position.

Agree, one thing I found out from one poster who responded to same question. He said the reds get there money from there TV deal and they decide not to participate in FA. Thats because they cant, because they are in the 34th market and there TV deal only nets 30M a year. There payroll is probably under 100M a year with Votto taking up the most. On the other hand the Yankees on there TV deal a year is 1.5B. So that is why once we get a star he leaves, we cannot compete or afford them.

 

[skinsscalper]

LOL. Beyond stupid, huh? OK, I see I am dealing with a child here at least someone who acts like it.

I'm not implying Romo should have been perfect. YOU are implying he had the answers suggesting that Romo wouldn't have allowed the Atlanta offensive line collapse occur. I have provided a couple of examples of when he wasn't able to solve the defensive pressure. If he wasn't always able to solve defensive pressure in the past, and has had to run for life as many claim, why be so sure he wouldn't struggle when Chaz was being beaten like a drum. The point is, even he had bad games due to pressure.

Anyway, sorry for engaging in this conversation with you. Rest assured, it will not occur again. Cheers and Go Cowboys!

Ironic, considering that you seem to conjure the ghost of Captain Obvious. EVERY QB has bad games due to pressure. You know what Romo has NEVER had? A game where he was sacked by the same player 6 times. Would he have solved the Falcons riddle? Tough to say, but I guarantee you that he wouldn't have had Dez running 9 route after 9 route without moving Witten to his left, pre-snap, to help stop the bleeding. That's a lead pipe lock.

 

[G2]

Another brain dead troll who didn’t watch the game, I see. The Cowboys only passed the ball 18 times the entire afternoon. They decided to go with a ground based attack, which mostly worked until Murray fumbled it away. How so many people imagine different realities in their mind and try to pass it off as real life is baffling to me.

You mean the fumbled in the 3rd quarter?

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

That is why I could careless about baseball and by the 3rd week the reds are already double digits games behide the leader.

 

[skinsscalper]

You mean the fumbled in the 3rd quarter?

Fumbled in the 3rd quarter with the entire field wide open in front of him. That was an easy 7 points. It's all moot at this point but an extra 7 points, in a game that tight, is a world's difference, no?

Regardless, it is what it is.

 

[G2]

Fumbled in the 3rd quarter with the entire field wide open in front of him. That was an easy 7 points. It's all moot at this point but an extra 7 points, in a game that tight, is a world's difference, no?

Regardless, it is what it is.

I highly dount that a defender wouldn't have caught him. Murray was notorious for not having a second gear. My point was Murray gets blamed for losing that game and it wasn't even a game changer. It resulted in a FG and we were STILL ahead. Some fans like to use that as an example, but if you break down that play there are at least 3 defenders who could have gotten him.

 

[Ken]

If Aikman was the current QB of the Cowboys this past season in his prime, how do you think he would fare with these receivers and what do you think his opinion would be of them?

He would absolutely hate throwing to Dez because of his terrible routes and making wrong decisions on those routes. Troy was notorious for perfection.

Witten would have been his Novachek and probably Bease would be as well. I think results would have been similar especially after the Falcon game if Troy would have been able to stand up after it.

 

[skinsscalper]

I highly dount that a defender wouldn't have caught him. Murray was notorious for not having a second gear. My point was Murray gets blamed for losing that game and it wasn't even a game changer. It resulted in a FG and we were STILL ahead. Some fans like to use that as an example, but if you break down that play there are at least 3 defenders who could have gotten him.

Possibly but even 4 points is huge in a game like that (had we not scored the TD and walked away with a FG, assuming Bailey didn't miss another one). Even a 6 point swing (which at a minimum, it was) is big in a game like that. Again, it's a moot point but still illustrates that somehow people want to put the loss on Romo (a game in which he had a 140.0 QB rating) rater than leveling the load to other players who failed at a much higher level.

Que Sera Sera.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

You mean the fumbled in the 3rd quarter?

Correct, on the play made by Peppers. According to Expected Points Added, it was the single most damaging negative play of the game by either team.

 

[G2]

Possibly but even 4 points is huge in a game like that (had we not scored the TD and walked away with a FG, assuming Bailey didn't miss another one). Even a 6 point swing (which at a minimum, it was) is big in a game like that. Again, it's a moot point but still illustrates that somehow people want to put the loss on Romo (a game in which he had a 140.0 QB rating) rater than leveling the load to other players who failed at a much higher level.

Que Sera Sera.

There are games I will blame on him for the timing, but you're right. It's unfair some of the nonsense people blame him for.

 

[G2]

Correct, on the play made by Peppers. According to Expected Points Added, it was the single most damaging negative play of the game by either team.

BS. There was plenty of time and opportunities to recover from such a devastating fumble! Lol. It led to a FG. And, defenders would have caught him.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Maybe but he would have made the adjustment at the line (even if his coaches were too stupid to do so) before he took it on the chin 6 times.

Like I said, Romo made EVERYONE look better than they actually were (especially his coaches).

He would have been out of the game before 6 times. If it was young Romo I'd agree with you.

 

[StarBoyz83]

I haven't said anything about Tony at all. If you really believe that Romo was better than Aikman, and you have actually seen Aikman play, then you just don't understand Football.

Ok

 

[cern]

History vs histrionics. Simply horrifying.

 

[G2]

History vs histrionics. Simply horrifying.

Lol

 

[DFWJC]

Fumbled in the 3rd quarter with the entire field wide open in front of him. That was an easy 7 points. It's all moot at this point but an extra 7 points, in a game that tight, is a world's difference, no?

Regardless, it is what it is.

10 points really. After the fumble, GB only needed one first down, then they kicked a FG. possible 10 point swing.
Worst turnover of the year by far.
But looking back, Murray otherwise had a decent game that day.

It's tough to beat Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs, in 20 degree weather, but Dallas should've pulled that one out.

 

[punchnjudy]

10 points really. After the fumble, GB only needed one first down, then they kicked a FG. possible 10 point swing.
Worst turnover of the year by far.
But looking back, Murray otherwise had a decent game that day.

It's tough to beat Green Bay at Lambeau in the playoffs, in 20 degree weather, but Dallas should've pulled that one out.

The key point with that game was Dallas only had 8 possessions, whereas teams usually have 11-12. I assume that was by design, but even 20 points in 8 possessions would have been near tops in the league that season (or most seasons). It also makes the 26 points given up look that much worse. 2.9 points per drive given up (including the last drive that ran out the clock) would have ranked at the bottom of the league that year (Chicago was last with 2.5 allowed). Last time Dallas won a game where the defense gave up almost 3 points per drive? You tell me.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/dal/playoffs.htm