The "relevant questions"

[tyke1doe]

I never understood these "if you stuck so and so on another team" arguments.

How the HEX do you know what so and so would have done in another scenario?

No one knows that so offering that theoretical is disingenous, IMO.

Having said that, I agree that Troy Aikman was a very good quarterback who was GREAT for the Cowboys. I would not put him on par with Brett Favre, John Elway, Dan Marino or Joe Montana talent and passing wise, but he would be in the next tier.

What makes/made Aikman great was he was a consummate professional and he was a leader. A leader understands the strengthens and weaknesses of a team and relegates his personal accomplishments for the good of the team.

I'd say that Aikman was more of a leader than Elway, Marino and Steve Young because the first two (Elway and Marino) had difficulties relegating their desire to pass the ball for the greater good of the team, IMO. Elway's clash with Dan Reeves illustrated this. While Elway elevated his team (which is why I would consider him better than Aikman), he didn't fully appreciate Reeves' coaching abilities to get a vastly underachieving team to three Super Bowls - along with Elway's help of course.

Aikman didn't care if Emmitt Smith stole the glory, he just wanted to win. I consider Aikman, Montana and Brady among the greatest quarterback leaders of the 80s, 90s and 00s.

Young may have been more talented than Aikman and had a better offense, which allowed him to rack up tremendous passing numbers, but to this day, I don't think Young was a great leader because he didn't do more with a great team than what Aikman did with the Cowboys.

At any rate, these arguments are moot. Aikman led the Cowboys to three Super Bowl victories. And he will be in the Hall of Fame. So that's good enough for me. I don't care what history calls him - a great quarterback or a very good quarterback.

But you can't help but call him a winner.

 

[Verdict]

dont you mean SIMPLE minds?

David

I will not resort to calling you names, or insulting your intellect. I respect your right to disagree, but I cannot support the method in which you advocate your position.

 

[Verdict]

I never understood these "if you stuck so and so on another team" arguments.

How the HEX do you know what so and so would have done in another scenario?

No one knows that so offering that theoretical is disingenous, IMO.

Having said that, I agree that Troy Aikman was a very good quarterback who was GREAT for the Cowboys. I would not put him on par with Brett Favre, John Elway, Dan Marino or Joe Montana talent and passing wise, but he would be in the next tier.

What makes/made Aikman great was he was a consummate professional and he was a leader. A leader understands the strengthens and weaknesses of a team and relegates his personal accomplishments for the good of the team.

I'd say that Aikman was more of a leader than Elway, Marino and Steve Young because the first two (Elway and Marino) had difficulties relegating their desire to pass the ball for the greater good of the team, IMO. Elway's clash with Dan Reeves illustrated this. While Elway elevated his team (which is why I would consider him better than Aikman), he didn't fully appreciate Reeves' coaching abilities to get a vastly underachieving team to three Super Bowls - along with Elway's help of course.

Aikman didn't care if Emmitt Smith stole the glory, he just wanted to win. I consider Aikman, Montana and Brady among the greatest quarterback leaders of the 80s, 90s and 00s.

Young may have been more talented than Aikman and had a better offense, which allowed him to rack up tremendous passing numbers, but to this day, I don't think Young was a great leader because he didn't do more with a great team than what Aikman did with the Cowboys.

At any rate, these arguments are moot. Aikman led the Cowboys to three Super Bowl victories. And he will be in the Hall of Fame. So that's good enough for me. I don't care what history calls him - a great quarterback or a very good quarterback.

But you can't help but call him a winner.

I will readily admit that during the Super Bowl contending years Aikman seemed to perform really well as a leader. Then as the team seemed to start losing ground each year in overall talent he did not perform as well in his leadership role. I perceived of him as a dividing force in the organization and a whiner in his later years. Just my opinion.

 

[DallasEast]

Young may have been more talented than Aikman and had a better offense, which allowed him to rack up tremendous passing numbers, but to this day, I don't think Young was a great leader because he didn't do more with a great team than what Aikman did with the Cowboys.

Aikman was the quarterback in a timing based offense. Young was the quarterback in a West Coast Offense.

In a timing based offense, the run sets up the pass. If the rushing attack is successful, it lowers the number of passing attempts, completions and yardage. In the West Coast Offense, the short passing attack primarily drives the offense, decreases the emphasis on running the ball and increases the number of passing attempts, completions and yardage.

Aikman had a healthy Emmitt Smith throughout his prime years. His numbers are deflated because of Smith's success for running the ball. Young did not have Smith nor needed him in his offensive scheme to be successful. He had very good receivers and reliable pass-catching running backs in the short passing attack dictated by his offensive scheme to help inflate his numbers.

This is, essentially, forgotten when people attempt to objectively critique Aikman's numbers.

 

[Banned_n_austin]

There are various threads/posts here which ask if Bledsoe can be a pro bowl quarterback, or can he be good enough to carry us, etc. These are valid questions, but I think what may be more relevant is "who was available" and how good is our "team" going to be. I'm not saying that I would not love to have a perennial pro bowler at every position, including QB, but that just isn't realistic. Bledsoe was about as good as anyone else who was available, except for possibly Jake Delhomme.

But before jumping on the Delhomme bandwagon, remember Delhomme did not carry the Panthers....but what he did do was make a few important plays when he needed to make them, and didn't lose games for the team. That is really all we really NEED from Bledsoe. Anything else is icing on the cake.

If you really analyze Troy Aikman, his numbers were pretty pedestrian, but he is considered a great QB, because his TEAM won and he made plays when he needed to. Jerry Jones was not "that" far off when he said that anyone could have coached those teams to the Super Bowl. The TEAM was loaded with talent.

Fast forward to present day. Parcells has put many of the pieces in place for this team to be GREAT. Some of the new players may not pan out (even though this is considered to be a great draft class) but it is just as likely Parcells will mine a nugget of gold from an unlikely player, possibly like a Keith Davis.

I am really pumped on this TEAM's progress and I am not going to get hung up on a perceived defieciency at a given position just yet. In hindsight it is REMARKABLE how many games we won the first two years with Parcells at the helm given so little to work with.

I like the verdict. Nice perspective. I agree that all Bledsoe has to do is put his teammates in a position to make plays. He has to be consistant and reliable to make the right read. In my view, it all boils down to the play of the offensive line. I don't think I am being a homer when I say they are really going to dominate up on the offensive line.