Aikman had a rocket arm and outstanding accuracy. But those were two of his greatest attributes. I don't buy the arguments about how good he could have been if called upon to do more. It doesn't matter. He was as good as he was, no better.
Troy was a very good QB, but there were better players at his position in the league (Montana, Elway). Some of them had less hardware, too. It doesn't matter, though. He was a great player, and good enough to win the big ones.
I don't understand why people think ******** Manning is getting slighted when they say he's not an elite QB. He's played damn good football when it matters, his team was elite (Superbowl victories are the only measure of 'elite' when it comes to teams). He's going to be in the Hall of Fame someday in all likelihood--and will deserve it. All of this can be true, and he can still not be as good a player as Romo. And Romo might not be as good a player as Brees, or Rodgers, or Brady, or P Manning, or Rivers or whoever.
Evaluating QB play properly has nothing to do with being a homer or not being a homer. Some players are just better than other players. And some players aren't necessarily better, but they're just in better situations. There are a dozen guys in the league who'd look a hell of a lot better than they do now if they were playing in San Francisco. Put Jay Cutler or Phillip Rivers in that offense, and we'd be calling those guys elite right now. Stafford, Bradford on the 49ers? They'd be elite. Because they'd have the teams to win the big games on the biggest stage. The reality is, they'd be the same players in a better situation on a better team.
This is the reason why you don't measure players by team accomplishments. There are other important factors significant enough to impact the outcomes of games.