Aikman is a HoFer too
You just post random thoughts.
I don't underestimate great coaching, but there's more to it than that. Aikman is a very intelligent, insightful man (He developed the Efficiency Rating System) with more natural talent to take advantage of the coaching.
the mere fact that people, and by people I mean Fans, media, former players all question Dak's ability should tell you everything. the mere fact hat you have to so hard defend him and pull stats out of your arse to try and prove he is a good QB, just tells you everything. no one has done this for Watson, Luck, Brees, Rivers, Roth, Mahomes (yes in his second year), etc. no one questions their talent. they build teams around those type of players, with them as the center piece. instead we argue over 75% completion rate and 150 yards passer and that he needs a great OL (to give him 10 seconds to throw), a strong RB and a HOF type RB at that, a #1 WR, a #1 TE, another good WR to complement and give him areally got Slot WR and then lets see how he does....what type of freaking argument is that....I can name 134 other QBs that can succeed with that type of talent surrounding them.
I just summarized 90% of the CZ in one post for you
Johnson didn't directly coach Aikman. Norv turner worked with him. Aikman's scouting report read like he will be a future HOF, a can't miss prospect. we saw that with three superbowl wins, and a HOF induction..... Aikman was talented. accurate. great arm. great in reading defenses, anticipating throws. none of which describes Dak. Dak is Quincy Carter with a better character....
Romo also sat for what 3 years? And worked on his accuracy. And this lesser cast thing needs to get put to bed. He had support and teams that we're good enough.
You're a very emotional poster.
do you think aikman would have performed as well his first 5 years with garrett as his hc and linehan as his oc? I don't.
LOL
I agree. Do you think Dak would've taken the team as far as Aikman did, had the roles been reversed?
never underestimate the value of good coaching.
No but he would've had better odds than he does now.
great question. probably not. norv was pretty set in his offensive schemes which relied very heavily on the qb. norv's gone on to be a hc and oc for several teams, but never had the success he had in dallas. he and aikman were made for eachother.
You're right, there was a type of symbiosis between them. It's quite possibly the best situation either of them could've asked for.
good coaches need good players to win. even Bilicheck had Brady. Payton has Brees. or sometimes you need a great great dominant defense and an average offense. its a formula that rarely has won and hard to reproduce (Ravens, Denver).
not as well perhaps, but still be good. this is not about scheme or play calling during the game..... most route trees, schemes, etc. are all about the same. play calling during the game and combination of them matters. that's where Linehan lacks.....Garrett was a better play caller than linehan, but with Aikman, he could execute the plays. execution is half the battle. that's where we struggle.
Romo sat, because he was an UDFA from division III. He had the arm, the accuracy but lacked understanding of the game. he learned to control his gun slinger mentality. with that said, he had good offensive cast and he produced. defenses lacked often. this year, our defense is phenomenal compared to past 8 years. we can attribute multiple victories directly to the defense when offense struggled. Tampa, Saints, Philly come to mind recently. in contrast, when offense lacks to be average, we tend to lose. all this defense needs is an average offense and we have failed in that recently.
