Romo vs Staubach and Aikman

[CowboyRoy]

One could logically turn this around and say Michael Irvin was playing with the perfect QB for his skill-set. Irvin is arguably one of the top possession receivers of all time, but he didn't win with speed.

Irvin didn't have breakaway speed to get scores off the run.

One could definitely argue that and I might do it myself. Irvin lacked speed and separation so he needed perfect routes, an accurate QB with a strong arm and single coverage that Emmitt and the run game provided. And for all his greatness he only averaged like 7 TD's per year. Nothing special. Loved the guy, but like the rest he benefited from the perfect team around him. As Emmitt did.

 

[CowboyRoy]

You are dead wrong. DBs had much more leeway to grab, pull, and be physical due to rules. It's fact. Now they can't touch them. Also, as khiladi pointed out in the Kelly stats guys with much lesser resumes light it up now. Mediocre QBs are 3000-4000 yard passers now. Last yr all but 3 QBs had less than 3000 yds and 11 had over 4000. Everyone else in between 3000-4000 yds. In 1994 12 QBs had under 3000 yards. Only 3 had over 4000...Marino, Moon and Bledsoe. Do you see the massive difference in how the game is played?

I never said it wasnt different, its just overblown. I watch the games and they can press for 5 yards and then they still put hands on them. There is more pass interference calls for smaller infractions, but that hasnt changed things THAT much.

There is certainly a difference these days, but its more about trending then the entire game changing due to a rule change. The game has been trending toward more passing for 50 years.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I don't really agree with this. The Offense was not designed to be a very good come from behind type of Offense. I mean, look at the personnel. You basically had one deep threat on the team and that was not Michael Irvin. That was Harper. The only other deep threat WR we had, at the time, was Jimmy Smith, who we cut. Other then that, Irvin was more of a possession WR. Emmitt was not a breakaway kinda back. Noveck had speed for a TE but not so much for a Deep Threat receiver. All of those guys were designed to move the chains, to power the ball over the line, to get the lead and then just hold your foot on the throat and never let the opposition get back up. It really doesn't matter who you have at QB in that Offense, with that personnel IMO. If you don't have the weapons or the Offense designed to run wide open, your not going to be successful at doing it.

I agree with much of what you said. But Aikman also had a poor deep ball. He even admitted as much. His passing accuracy is based around a laser, low trajectory ball. When he has to wing it high he looses some of his accuracy. I saw it his entire career.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree with much of what you said. But Aikman also had a poor deep ball. He even admitted as much. His passing accuracy is based around a laser, low trajectory ball. When he has to wing it high he looses some of his accuracy. I saw it his entire career.

I posted on this earlier in this thread I believe. I would not say it was poor. I would say that it was not exceptional. I think there is a difference there. That is the one criticism I have with Troy. He didn't throw a great deep ball.

BTW, I like your Avitar Pic. Where is that?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I posted on this earlier in this thread I believe. I would not say it was poor. I would say that it was not exceptional. I think there is a difference there. That is the one criticism I have with Troy. He didn't throw a great deep ball.

BTW, I like your Avitar Pic. Where is that?

Which is funny, i.e. him not throwing a good deep ball, because he threw the best deep in's & out's I've seen.

 

[MichaelValentino]

You are dead wrong. DBs had much more leeway to grab, pull, and be physical due to rules. It's fact. Now they can't touch them. Also, as khiladi pointed out in the Kelly stats guys with much lesser resumes light it up now. Mediocre QBs are 3000-4000 yard passers now. Last yr all but 3 QBs had less than 3000 yds and 11 had over 4000. Everyone else in between 3000-4000 yds. In 1994 12 QBs had under 3000 yards. Only 3 had over 4000...Marino, Moon and Bledsoe. Do you see the massive difference in how the game is played?

The passing game has changed dramatically since 1978 when the NFL Rules Committee made two major changes: (1) DBs could not hit receivers beyond five yards (prior to that, receivers were chucked all the way downfield before the ball was thrown); (2) OL could extend their arms (prior to that linemen could not engage DL with arms extended, giving the advantage to the defense). At some point - I don't recall when - the head slap was also outlawed (again, a big advantage to the DL). The passing game has also gotten more complex over the years, with the chief architects/pioneers being Don Coryell and Bill Walsh (who was an assistant coach with the Bengals). Prior to '78 it was rare to see guys pass for over 3000 yards or complete 60% of their passes. In the '60s-'70s the AFL/AFC was more wide open than the NFL/NFC but eventually with the rule changes everyone threw the ball more and more effectively.

Today's game and the game before '78 is really apples and oranges.

Any hockey fans? Consider the NHL in '83 when Gretzky and Edmonton were an unheard of scoring machine. Back then the league-wide goalie save % was 0.875 and league-wide GAA was 3.76. Today those numbers are 0.915 and 2.55. That means that for the typical team averaging 30 shots on goal per game, it would score, on average, 99 less goals per year today than in '83. In Gretzky's era, teams combined for 7.5 goals per game; today that figure is 5.1 gpg. Games which ended 5-3 back then are ending 3-2 today. If you figure about 75% of those 99 goals would be go to the forwards on the top three lines, that comes to about 8 more goals per man per year. Today, Gretzky would probably top out around 150-160 points, not 200+. Goalie equipment, goalie technique (the butterfly save, which keeps goalies lower in the net), more aggressive neutral zone play and more widespread blue line speed have led to less scoring.

That is why it is hard to compare Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane and Stamkos to the top scorers' stats from 20-25 years ago. Same holds for QB yards and passer ratings.

 

[Sarge]

The passing game has changed dramatically since 1978 when the NFL Rules Committee made two major changes: (1) DBs could not hit receivers beyond five yards (prior to that, receivers were chucked all the way downfield before the ball was thrown); (2) OL could extend their arms (prior to that linemen could not engage DL with arms extended, giving the advantage to the defense). At some point - I don't recall when - the head slap was also outlawed (again, a big advantage to the DL). The passing game has also gotten more complex over the years, with the chief architects/pioneers being Don Coryell and Bill Walsh (who was an assistant coach with the Bengals). Prior to '78 it was rare to see guys pass for over 3000 yards or complete 60% of their passes. In the '60s-'70s the AFL/AFC was more wide open than the NFL/NFC but eventually with the rule changes everyone threw the ball more and more effectively.

Today's game and the game before '78 is really apples and oranges.

Any hockey fans? Consider the NHL in '83 when Gretzky and Edmonton were an unheard of scoring machine. Back then the league-wide goalie save % was 0.875 and league-wide GAA was 3.76. Today those numbers are 0.915 and 2.55. That means that for the typical team averaging 30 shots on goal per game, it would score, on average, 99 less goals per year today than in '83. In Gretzky's era, teams combined for 7.5 goals per game; today that figure is 5.1 gpg. Games which ended 5-3 back then are ending 3-2 today. If you figure about 75% of those 99 goals would be go to the forwards on the top three lines, that comes to about 8 more goals per man per year. Today, Gretzky would probably top out around 150-160 points, not 200+. Goalie equipment, goalie technique (the butterfly save, which keeps goalies lower in the net), more aggressive neutral zone play and more widespread blue line speed have led to less scoring.

That is why it is hard to compare Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane and Stamkos to the top scorers' stats from 20-25 years ago. Same holds for QB yards and passer ratings.

Excellent post. Completely different eras/rules. The QBs of today have GOT IT MADE.

 

[Sarge]

Excellent post. Completely different eras/rules. The QBs of today have GOT IT MADE.

........and by the way, so do the WRs.....

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

........and by the way, so do the WRs.....

This. You only have to look at the gloves players use now. I've never used them (way too old) but from what young players have available to them now, in comparison, it's night and day. When I was young, coaches wouldn't even allow us to use gloves. It's night and day.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

That's why I don't get. Some people think that HOF players from the old days couldn't play today but if you were great then, you'd be great now especially with all the rule changes that help the offense.

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

Romo is a better quarterback than either, but that's not really all that important.

 

[perrykemp]

Look on the bright side. How many forums are arguing about who's the best of their three all-time great QBs?

Cowboys, Packers, that's about it.

You could have a heck of debate on on which is collectively better of:

Staubach, Aikman, Romo
Starr, Favre, Rodgers

 

[JJB500]

Cowboys, Packers, that's about it.

You could have a heck of debate on on which is collectively better of:

Staubach, Aikman, Romo
Starr, Favre, Rodgers

The 49ers & Colts also had a fair trio of QB's

Montana, Young, Brodie
Unitas, Jones, Manning

 

[Risen Star]

If Roger played in an era where DBs werent allowed to breath on receivers downfield he would have much bigger numbers. Watch highlights of Mel Blount in coverage sometime. As it was he still put up HOF numbers and there is no QB you would rather have in tight games or coming from behind.

I can think of several QBs I'd rather have.

But then again, I don't player worship.

 

[Risen Star]

Cowboys, Packers, that's about it.

You could have a heck of debate on on which is collectively better of:

Staubach, Aikman, Romo
Starr, Favre, Rodgers

Probably give the edge to the Packers.

 

[Section446]

Regular season, give me Romo all day... Post-season, give me anybody but Romo.

 

[cowboyblue22]

the difference between tony and roger and troy is they had better teams around them and better coaches between those players they won 5 superbowls and should of been more tony has won two playoff games. he will have to have lots more success in the post season to even be in the same conversation as those two guys. at this late stage in his career I'm not sure that's possible.

 

[jnday]

Romo is a better quarterback than either, but that's not really all that important. I guess that settles the debate and the arguing.

 

[Garrettop]

Patrick Crayton and a fresh slick football are the two reasons this thread exists. Think about that.