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

[Super_Kazuya]

to be fair to rodgers, he still got some years ahead of him...
my problem isn't with his ability..... he's blessed..... I'm just like, "greatest of all-time, already??"

and i still think its farve for now (in GB)... that could change... but that was one bad cat before he became mr. turnover.....

Agreed. Too many people have opinions of Favre based on his old years. Favre could have retired at age 27 and walked straight into the Hall of Fame with his 3 MVPs and 2 Super Bowls (1 win). The fact that he kept going for a dozen more years shows you just how special he was.

 

[Nav22]

the premise is wrong, therefore the conclusion is wrong. Never in the history of football have passers had as much an advantage as they do right now, that is an absolute fact.

Another absolute fact: QBs today are bigger, stronger and more athletic than ever before. They're also FAR more efficient and productive than ever before.

If you choose to believe that the second sentence is ONLY because QBs can't get blasted late anymore and there's more emphasis on illegal contact, that's your prerogative.

QBs haven't gotten better over the last 20-30 years. The position peaked in the '80s-'90s. That's the premise you're going with?

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

Agreed. Too many people have opinions of Favre based on his old years. Favre could have retired at age 27 and walked straight into the Hall of Fame with his 3 MVPs and 2 Super Bowls (1 win). The fact that he kept going for a dozen more years shows you just how special he was.

yeh, that and the cell phone was invented... so he could take a ton of "selfies"

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

some players transcend generations, some don't....
there are great players today, and great players of yesterday...
manning is one of the best that ever do it... as is brady....

they are current? right??

If someone disagrees with you, they have a reason... and its not always your reason.

 

[rcaldw]

Another absolute fact: QBs today are bigger, stronger and more athletic than ever before. They're also FAR more efficient and productive than ever before.

If you choose to believe that the second sentence is ONLY because QBs can't get blasted late anymore and there's more emphasis on illegal contact, that's your prerogative.

QBs haven't gotten better over the last 20-30 years. The position peaked in the '80s-'90s. That's the premise you're going with?

I don't have a premise, I have a judgment. I watched the QB's of the late 80's and 90's and yes QB play was better then. Aikman was like 6'4' or whatever he was. Elway was a physical marvel as well. The whole size thing just isn't true.

In terms of the guys arguing for Favre, I'll just say this. Give me equal teams, I'll take Aikman, you can have Favre, and my opinion is that I'll win 7 of 10. Favre was a turnover machine in big games. Favre rode a lot of popularity (not the least of which was John Madden) to a few more MVP votes. That and the fact that he must own the NFL record for TD passes inside of 3 yards.

 

[Idgit]

Agreed. Too many people have opinions of Favre based on his old years. Favre could have retired at age 27 and walked straight into the Hall of Fame with his 3 MVPs and 2 Super Bowls (1 win). The fact that he kept going for a dozen more years shows you just how special he was.

I actually didn't like him even back then. He's a ton of fun to watch play, and the gunslinger thing makes the games really interesting. But he'd take unnecessary risks, and the whole team would ride on his ability to deliver in crunch time. That hurt him in the playoffs when the teams he was playing against got better and the heroics were harder to come by. Some of those teams he played on were better than his 13-11 overall playoff record would suggest.

 

[Nav22]

I don't have a premise, I have a judgment. I watched the QB's of the late 80's and 90's and yes QB play was better then. Aikman was like 6'4' or whatever he was. Elway was a physical marvel as well. The whole size thing just isn't true.

In terms of the guys arguing for Favre, I'll just say this. Give me equal teams, I'll take Aikman, you can have Favre, and my opinion is that I'll win 7 of 10. Favre was a turnover machine in big games. Favre road a lot of popularity (not the least of which was John Madden) to a few more MVP votes. That and the fact that he must own the NFL record for TD passes inside of 3 yards.

Size thing isn't true? How many QBs back then were as big and strong as Andrew Luck or Big Ben?

I'd bet any amount of money that the average QB today is bigger than the average QB of 20+ years ago. Aikman was one of the biggest QBs in his day and he's a shrimp next to Luck.

 

[rcaldw]

Size thing isn't true? How many QBs back then were as big and strong as Andrew Luck or Big Ben?

I'd bet any amount of money that the average QB today is bigger than the average QB of 20+ years ago. Aikman was one of the biggest QBs in his day and he's a shrimp next to Luck.

Same height 14 pound difference. Luck carries more weight. Aikman would not be a "shrimp" next to him back when Aikman was playing.

 

[rcaldw]

First off, if size made QB's better then we wouldn't see a whole host of them out of football and some of the smaller guys still playing. Freeman, TB, Tebow, JaMarcus Russell and others were all BIG guys, and are all busts.

Russell Wilson - 5'11, 206 - Super Bowl Champion

Offensive player heights:





QB RB FB WR TE T G C

1970-1975 74.2 72.3 - 72.8 75.2 76.7 75.0 75.0

1976-1981 74.5 71.8 75.0 72.0 75.8 77.1 75.5 75.2

1982-1986 74.7 71.3 73.5 71.9 75.6 77.4 75.8 75.5

1988-1993 75.0 71.2 72.0 71.6 75.5 77.6 76.0 75.5

1994-2000 74.7 71.1 72.6 72.2 75.9 77.5 75.9 75.0

2001-2006 75.0 70.5 72.7 72.7 76.1 77.5 75.8 75.3


Quarterbacks haven't gotten much taller as time went on. The average QB has been between 6'2 and 6'3 for all of modern football. This might be less surprising when you consider later that defensive lineman have gotten shorter over the years. Running backs and fullbacks have continued to shrink, as you might expect. A low center of gravity is extremely important for running backs -- the top five rushers of all time are all under six feet tall.

 

[percyhoward]

So how surprising is it that athletics has figured how to be bigger and better? Through the help of diet, exercise, and medicine.

That's why I'm having trouble believing QB's numbers are up because they're better than QB of previous eras -- these bigger, better, healthier, fitter athletes also play defense. QB's numbers are up because the league wants them to be.

 

[perrykemp]

I would put Aaron Rogers at or near the top of any list of great QB's. He is better than Starr and Farve IMO. Montana, Stauback, and um... that's about it ahead of Rogers... and I'm not 100% sure about that.

Who would have thought that as he was sliding in the draft?

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.

 

[DenCWBY]

Montana wasn't half the athlete Rodgers is and didn't have nearly as strong an arm. And I strongly doubt he was half as accurate a passer while scrambling outside the pocket. Rodgers can do things that are almost unfair.

That's the point. Montana didn't carry any of those qualities as the strongest, fastest, smartest, quickest however he was the most effective QB at taking a team on his back and winning. Whether it was regular season or Super Bowls he's in every game. He had all the intangibles to win in any situation which makes him (at this point)the best. I like Rodgers and he's awesome but let's see how he plays out the rest of his career.

 

[perrykemp]

I don't have a premise, I have a judgment. I watched the QB's of the late 80's and 90's and yes QB play was better then. Aikman was like 6'4' or whatever he was. Elway was a physical marvel as well. The whole size thing just isn't true.

In terms of the guys arguing for Favre, I'll just say this. Give me equal teams, I'll take Aikman, you can have Favre, and my opinion is that I'll win 7 of 10. Favre was a turnover machine in big games. Favre rode a lot of popularity (not the least of which was John Madden) to a few more MVP votes. That and the fact that he must own the NFL record for TD passes inside of 3 yards.

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.

 

[perrykemp]

Size thing isn't true? How many QBs back then were as big and strong as Andrew Luck or Big Ben?

I'd bet any amount of money that the average QB today is bigger than the average QB of 20+ years ago. Aikman was one of the biggest QBs in his day and he's a shrimp next to Luck.

On the other hand, Rodgers is a very average (if not slightly below average) 6-2, 223 lbs. In general QB are bigger than previous eras, however, you look at the guy acknowledged as the modern day prototype and he wouldn't look out of place in the 70s, 80s, etc.

 

[Nav22]

That's the point. Montana didn't carry any of those qualities as the strongest, fastest, smartest, quickest however he was the most effective QB at taking a team on his back and winning. Whether it was regular season or Super Bowls he's in every game. He had all the intangibles to win in any situation which makes him (at this point)the best. I like Rodgers and he's awesome but let's see how he plays out the rest of his career.

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.

 

[perrykemp]

That's the point. Montana didn't carry any of those qualities as the strongest, fastest, smartest, quickest however he was the most effective QB at taking a team on his back and winning. Whether it was regular season or Super Bowls he's in every game. He had all the intangibles to win in any situation which makes him (at this point)the best. I like Rodgers and he's awesome but let's see how he plays out the rest of his career.

Montana was blessed with incredible intangibles as well as balls of steel.

They didn't call him Joe Cool for nothing.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Another absolute fact: QBs today are bigger, stronger and more athletic than ever before. They're also FAR more efficient and productive than ever before.

If you choose to believe that the second sentence is ONLY because QBs can't get blasted late anymore and there's more emphasis on illegal contact, that's your prerogative.

QBs haven't gotten better over the last 20-30 years. The position peaked in the '80s-'90s. That's the premise you're going with?

It's not that there's more emphasis on illegal contact. It's that illegal contact used to not even exist. Before 1978 a defender could rough up a receiver as much as he wanted (as long as he did not hold or facemask) until the ball was in the air. IMO the new bump and run rules of 1978 degraded the game, but they didn't ask me for my opinion before doing it. We have the rules that we have and have to live with them. The result is, however, you can get a good idea of who was best per era, but it's pretty much impossible to determine a best of all time. I watched Montana play, and he was great. He was one of the coolest and smartest QBs ever, but I don't know for a fact that he was better than legendary greats from before I was born like Otto Graham or YA Tittle. The ball used to be more rounded than it is now and they used to wear leather helmets. I'd doubt anyone here is qualified to compare the greats from that era to those of the 70s, 80s, 90s, or now. The stats with different rules, different equipment, and a different number of games played just can't be compared. I do think if you took a great player from the past like Staubach, Montana, or Graham through a time machine and played him now, he would do just fine. Great athletes like that would adapt to the different rules and conditions. By contrast if you took today's greats like Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning and sent them back in time, they would also adjust to the difference and play great.

 

[perrykemp]

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.

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.

 

[Nav22]

That's why I'm having trouble believing QB's numbers are up because they're better than QB of previous eras -- these bigger, better, healthier, fitter athletes also play defense. QB's numbers are up because the league wants them to be.

It's a combination of things. Of course the rule changes have helped QBs out, but there's no way that's the only factor

Why do you think it's no longer shocking to see rookie QBs play well right away? Just because they can't get blasted late and illegal contact has been re-emphasized?

No, it's because they're entering the league better-prepared than they used to. Or to phrase it more simply: because they're better.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

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.

Like every other sport the NFL is doing all it can to make it more exciting to watch a game, scoring does that. plus the fact that players are getting bigger and bigger so they need to protect them more with rules.