Video: Troy Aikman admits rival was greatest quarterback of all time

[DenCWBY]

Fine, then forget about his physical gifts. Rodgers is the most efficient and productive QB in NFL history, despite the excuses being trotted out to dismiss that inconvenient little fact.

He's also doing it with a supporting cast that is merely "okay." He's had to run for his life for much of his time with the Packers and their D usually stinks.

Teams win Super Bowls, not individuals.

Montana won 4 rings but did so with the help of the innovative West Coast Offense and some incredible teammates. See, I can make excuses to dismiss someone's accomplishments too.

Do you read? Did I dismiss any of Rodgers accomplishments? Did I say anything negative about him? Rodgers is very good and may be the best when all is said and done however imo the jury's still out and he's not yet tested in the big moments like Montana. Presently Montana is the best. We'll see when the dust settles on Rodgers career. Good night.

 

[rcaldw]

Check Favre's stats from his MVP run:

1994: 33 TDs, 14 INTs
1995: 38 TDs, 13 INTs
1996: 39 TDs, 13 INTs
1997: 35 TDS, 16 INTs

For the 1990s, those were incredible numbers. I'll second Super_Kazuya's comments earlier that in Favre's prime he was a amazing. As a point of comparison, Aikman's INT percentage was higher than Favre's over that same period of time.

I've never denied Favre was great. I stand by what I said though. I would take Aikman in the biggest games.
Aikman: 2.8, 3.0, 1.5, 3.3, 1.6 (1991-95)
Favre: 2.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 4.2 (1994-1998) - if you wanted his 5th season to be 93 instead of 98 it would have been. 4.6

Aikman's playoff record 11-5, QB rating 88.3
Favre 13-11 QB rating 86.3

 

[Nav22]

Nav22, I happen to be a fan of Rodgers. The guy is fun to watch.

The analytic part of me is very much drawn to his stats. They are off the charts. I heard on the radio yesterday that if Aaron Rodger's next 55 passes where all interceptions he' still be the all-time leader in QB rating -- that is how much he has perfected the art of protecting the ball as a QB.

Having said that, there are too many guys going off for 5000 yards, for 40-50 TDs, for 400+ yard games, for 6+ TD games, etc in recent years not to make you think that all the rules changes have basically created the NFL equivalent of the juiced-ball era of baseball.

I have trouble believing guys like Fouts, Marino, Staubach, Otto Graham, Unitas, etc won't be in the 100+ QB rating range on an annual basis if they weren't playing today.

You had me until that last sentence.

http://m.pfref.com/m?p=XXleadersXXpass_rating_career.htm

There is only one QB in NFL history with a career QB rating in the 100's and that's Rodgers. And like you pointed out, he has a HUUUGE lead over 2nd place (Peyton Manning).

So why would you assume all those other guys could do what the likes of Brady and Manning CAN'T do and put up a 100+ rating regularly?

Were all those guys you mentioned MILES ahead of their peers the way Rodgers is MILES ahead of his peers? Doesn't look like they were.

 

[perrykemp]

I've never denied Favre was great. I stand by what I said though. I would take Aikman in the biggest games.
Aikman: 2.8, 3.0, 1.5, 3.3, 1.6 (1991-95)
Favre: 2.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 4.2 (1994-1998) - if you wanted his 5th season to be 93 instead of 98 it would have been. 4.6

Aikman's playoff record 11-5, QB rating 88.3
Favre 13-11 QB rating 86.3

Not to quibble, however, those stats are really really close. Throw in the fact that Aikman had three other HOF players on the offense with him in Emmitt, Irvin, and from 94 on Larry Allen not to mention what is widely considered the greatest OL in the NFL history and compare that to Favre who didn't have a single other HOF player on offense with him and I think at best you can call it a wash.

 

[rcaldw]

Not to quibble, however, those stats are really really close. Throw in the fact that Aikman had three other HOF players on the offense with him in Emmitt, Irvin, and from 94 on Larry Allen not to mention what is widely considered the greatest OL in the NFL history and compare that to Favre who didn't have a single other HOF player on offense with him and I think at best you can call it a wash.

I wouldn't argue with anyone about it, so no worries, but I go by the eye test. I watched them play in all those big games (I'm guessing you did too), and I'll take Aikman. He was a surgeon. In terms of all the HOF stuff, Larry Allen played in 1 of those Super Bowls, the 95 one, and came into the league in 94. Those offensive lines were great, but I'm guessing Aikman, Smith and Irvin made em look pretty good too, since none of the other guys (Tuinei, Newton, Stepnoski, Gogan, Williams, etc.) are in the hall. I personally think Erik Williams, before the wreck, was the best offensive lineman we ever had during that 90's run.

I'm not talking about you when I say this, but I get weary of people using our HOF players to argue against the greatness of each one individually. Favre played with some great one's too. His 1 SB win Desmond Howard was the MVP if I remember correctly. Truthfully, that whole 90's era was magical in terms of great players on MOST of the teams.

When you look back it is crazy to think about the QB's:

Dallas - Aikman - HOF
Philly - Cunningham
Giants - Simms - SB MVP
Broncos - Elway - HOF
Miami - Marino - HOF
49ers - Montana, Young - HOF, HOF
Chiefs - Montana for at least a few seasons, Dave Krieg
Houston - Moon - HOF
Bengals - Esiason - SB appearance
Green Bay - Favre - HOF
Rams - Jim Everrett
Skins - Mark Rypien - SB winner, Doug Williams SB winner
Buffalo - Jim Kelly - HOF
Pitt - Neal O'Donnell - SB appearance
Atl- Chris Miller, Chris Chandler - SB appearance
SD - Stan Humphries - SB appearance
NO - Bobby Hebert

I'm probably forgetting some.

 

[percyhoward]

Why do you think it's no longer shocking to see rookie QBs play well right away? it's because they're entering the league better-prepared than they used to.

But every step of the way, they face defenses made up of players who prepare to face them. It doesn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Luther]

Rice and Taylor made Montana.

I thought Montana won two super bowls before Rice was on the team. Not certain.

Montana is best QB ever in my books. Didn't have the physical tools of some other great ones, but not too far off. Made up for it with more "IT" than any other.

 

[AsthmaField]

I think Starr's greatness was somewhat overshadowed by the 11-12 other HOF guys he played with.

Do you know Starr had 4 seasons where he averaged a 90+ QB rating... and this was the 1960s. He had two seasons where he averaged 100+ QB ratings --> 105.0 in 1966 and later a 104.7 season.

Those are shockingly high QB ratings for a QB in the 1960s.

Disclaimer: I am not saying Starr was a better QB than Rodgers.

One word: Lombardi

Starr was good but Lombardi was an all time great coach.

 

[thechosen1n2]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nbc-y...st-quarterback-of-all-time-152244100-nfl.html

Troy on the Dan Patrick Show

Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman joined The Dan Patrick Show to discuss a handful of football-related topics, one of which was the difference between the current offensive era and the one in which Aikman played. Both he and Patrick agree that the dramatic uptick in passing numbers in recent years has made it nearly impossible to compare current quarterbacks to past greats, at least statistically. Aikman, whose career numbers would look pedestrian next to those of Matthew Stafford or Jay Cutler, relies on more of an eyeball test to evaluate the greatness of a signal-caller.

When asked, in his estimation, who is the greatest quarterback of all time, the three-time Super Bowl winner says it has always been an easy answer for him. (Hear Aikman's pick at the 4:45 mark in the video above.)

"Joe Montana," said Aikman. "And I don't care if we're comparing him against anyone from today's game or not, or what his numbers may or may not look like. I saw him do it on the biggest stage, in the biggest moments and bring his team back and do the things that I think are required of the position."

And Troy is right...Joe was greatness.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

I thought Montana won two super bowls before Rice was on the team. Not certain.

Montana is best QB ever in my books. Didn't have the physical tools of some other great ones, but not too far off. Made up for it with more "IT" than any other.

he did

 

[SportsGuru80]

Not really his rival they played in different era's really...

 

[cowboys2233]

Aaron Rodgers, and that's not recency bias. Nobody's ever done it better.

QBs are simply better now than they were in previous eras. Just like kickers, punters, receivers and tight ends.

Joe Montana, on the biggest stage, the Super Bowl....

11 tds, 0 ints
4 wins, 0 losses

Perfect.

 

[Nav22]

Joe Montana, on the biggest stage, the Super Bowl....

11 tds, 0 ints
4 wins, 0 losses

Perfect.

Rodgers' overall numbers destroy Montana's, and he even has a higher playoff QB rating (103.1 to 95.6).

If you really want to use stats to argue for Montana, I don't like your chances. Rodgers' numbers are simply ridiculous.

(And for the record, Rodgers is 1-0 in the Super Bowl with 3 TDs and 0 Ints. Also perfect.)

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Aaron Rodgers, when he is done, will most likely be in the conversation of greatest of all time. But as of now, I'd still go with Montana.

Receivers are only better because of rule changes. Tight ends I dispute are better. Better as receivers sure - but most T/Es nowadays can't block nearly as well as the old school ones. That is part of being a great T/E as well IMO. Today's "great" T/Es are just big receivers.

No way do I put any of today's QB's with Joe Montana.
Joe is greatest of all time. Not Favre, not Brady, not Marino ... And no, not even Peyton. Peyton is a lot of great things at the QB position but he is not the greatest QB of all time.

Montana and Aikman got it... That's what made them great. Troy got screwed out of matching Joe 4 for 4.