"Troy Aikman's overrated"... my response...

[LittleBoyBlue]

I love Terry Bradshaw's answer when asked what his QB Rating was?


Terry: "Four Super Bowl Victories"

PRICELESS!!!

 

[Doomsday101]

Troy and the Cowboys were more interested in winning SB than stats. What made the Cowboys so great is they forced teams to choose the way they wanted to get beat. Stack the line and Troy would kill you, back off and Emmitt would eat you alive. If people want to think Troy is over rated fine but that team achived greatness that few other team have had.

 

[vlad]

I don't know where you find the statistics but I'm willing to bet that if you look at Aikman's attempts and completions in the 1st half of games vs the second half of games you would see a dramatic fall off. This is because we would get a big lead and start handing the ball off to Emmitt to close the game out.

If Troy had needed to keep passing the entire game throughout his career there is not a doubt in my mind that he would have the "statistics" that his detractors like to point out are missing. He was so good we could have played the 4th quarter of a majority of our games with his backup.

i was about to mention this. some local writer, maybe Goose wrote up a few years ago a breakdown of his 1st half vs his 2nd half and showed that he barely ever passed in the 2nd half, but his first half stats were out of control. We would use the pass to set up the run. The article focused on the fact that by the time the 2nd half came around, we had such a large lead most of the time, we'd just pound people into submission. Somewhat like we've been doing in the 4th quarter this year, but they were able to do it for the entire 2nd half.

On a side note, all these comparisons of the current teams to those back then are a joke. Of course these Pats could beat those Cowboys, anyone can win on a given day. But play that game 100 times over and the Cowboys probably win like 90 of them.

 

[chinch]

these debates are so silly, since they always come down to superbowls, disregarding TEAM and situation these guys are in.

to use a baseball analogy Donnie Mattingly had several "better than Troy" seasons and isn't in the HOF because he didn't do it long enough (serious back injury) and his teams STUNK (no playoffs). hmmmm....

we should grade Troy on three levels... how did he perform on a dynasty (A+), how did he perform when things weren't perfect (C-) and how would he have performed on poorly run teams like the Browns or Jets of the 90s. (INC)

Aikman was arguably the most clutch ever in the post season. We only lost in 1996 because Irvin was hurt and in 2007 because the defence couldn't stop Jake the Fake.

Lots of hype here. Most clutch ever in postseason implies most superbowls which wasn't Troy.

Troy was cool in the clutch during our dynasty run (92-95) but what about 1994? Was it "clutch" the early turnovers that spotted the 49ers a few TDs? the 1996+ seasons?

He QBd one of the best/short dynasties in NFL history but...

We had another QB play for us who was more clutch (#12)

Now, lets remove superbowls & clutch...

A really, really great QB should be able to make lesser WRs perform better with regularity, year after year? Even with Irvin, once Troy lost Jay his game was almost neutered (in comparison to his 92-96 peak) in short order.

He was a great QB for only a few years. So either he burned bright and burnt out quiclky (short, great prime career 92-96) or he was in fact somewhat overrated if you take his entire body of work.... in fact he could have been both.

that's not to say he wasn't a legit first ballot HOF'er, but fans can easily "overrate" them as your post shows.

 

[rcaldw]

these debates are so silly, since they always come down to superbowls, disregarding TEAM and situation these guys are in.

to use a baseball analogy Donnie Mattingly had several "better than Troy" seasons and isn't in the HOF because he didn't do it long enough (serious back injury) and his teams STUNK (no playoffs). hmmmm....

we should grade Troy on three levels... how did he perform on a dynasty (A+), how did he perform when things weren't perfect (C-) and how would he have performed on poorly run teams like the Browns or Jets of the 90s. (INC)



Lots of hype here. Most clutch ever in postseason implies most superbowls which wasn't Troy.

Troy was cool in the clutch during our dynasty run (92-95) but what about 1994? Was it "clutch" the early turnovers that spotted the 49ers a few TDs? the 1996+ seasons?

He QBd one of the best/short dynasties in NFL history but...

We had another QB play for us who was more clutch (#12)

Now, lets remove superbowls & clutch...

A really, really great QB should be able to make lesser WRs perform better with regularity, year after year? Even with Irvin, once Troy lost Jay his game was almost neutered (in comparison to his 92-96 peak) in short order.

He was a great QB for only a few years. So either he burned bright and burnt out quiclky (short, great prime career 92-96) or he was in fact somewhat overrated if you take his entire body of work.... in fact he could have been both.

that's not to say he wasn't a legit first ballot HOF'er, but fans can easily "overrate" them as your post shows.

If you actually watched the 1994 Championship game you would know that that game actually cemented, in most people's minds, that Aikman was somewhat UNDER RATED. That is, he played like a champion after going down 21-0 and they saw things in him that he rarely had NEED to show.

Stop hating on an all-time great who happens to be one of our own.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Aikman was not flashy.
He was underrated in the media and by other teams and fans.
All he ever did for Dallas was win, win, win.

HOFer