Who is the better... Brady or Aikman?

[COWBOYSNUM1]

I would chose Aikman. And if there were only 2 or three minutes left in the game, I would still chose Aikman-- or Elway.

 

[Concord]

Aikman...Without a Doubt.

To me it's simply amazing how Aikman is taken for granted

 

[John813]

Troy Aikman.


Brady is a great quarterback, just not as great as Aikman was.


JMO

 

[jackrussell]

Aikman...Without a Doubt.

To me it's simply amazing how Aikman is taken for granted

What he said.

(Sorry I couldn't be more detailed, just had to get off that 666th post)

 

[big dog cowboy]

And if it wasn't for some bizarre, non-existent "tuck" rule, the Patriots might not even have a single SB to speak of. See how easy that was?

Nice.

 

[mperfection]

That's your selective biased opinion. It was Brady's offensive line that gave him time to throw, it was his receivers who got open, it was his running back who picked up a blitzing linebacker, or it was a poor defensive play by the defending team. You, see I can do exactly the same thing.



And if it wasn't for some bizarre, non-existent "tuck" rule, the Patriots might not even have a single SB to speak of. See how easy that was?

Lame. Your responses only STRENGTHEN my argument. :bang2:

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'm not having it both ways. It was not solely Aikman's arm that allowed the Cowboys to put teams away early...they had a powerful offensive line, perennial probowl RB, and stout defense. Aikman was a very good QB, but he rarely had to put his team on his shoulders and win. It was Brady's arm that put the Pats within a field goal of winning two Super Bowls.

And as much as I am delighted about the '96 SB win against the Steelers, let's face it: if it had not have been for two boneheaded mistakes by O'Donnell, Pittsburgh could have very well have won that SB. And if that had been the case, there would be even less of an argument as to who is the better QB.

I gotta say you bring up good points about SBXXX... Its like the clock struck midnight at halftime... we came out and were in trouble... thanks Neil, thanks Larry!

 

[Cowchips]

Troy Aikman.


Brady is a great quarterback, just not as great as Aikman was.


JMO

Homers are funny

 

[Cowchips]

Aikman is a lot better, Brady had a better kicker that gave him to rings. Without Adam Vinatieri, the Pats, would have to less rings then they do right know.

Aikman better than Brady..this is funny

 

[SultanOfSix]

Lame. Your responses only STRENGTHEN my argument. :bang2:

So, showing how fallacious your argument is strengthens it? I only used your argument against you. I didn't really believe anything that I said.

I noticed that you also stated that Brady put his team on his shoulders to win the game. So what was he doing the rest of the game then? Waiting for the right moment?

This is another fallacious argument that people tend to use to somehow minimize Aikman's accomplishments because his teams were almost always leading throughout the whole game.

Coming back and winning games isn't a greater accomplishment than leading your team to never to have to be in that position in the first place.

 

[mperfection]

So, showing how fallacious your argument is strengthens it? I only used your argument against you. I didn't really believe anything that I said.

I noticed that you also stated that Brady put his team on his shoulders to win the game. So what was he doing the rest of the game then? Waiting for the right moment?

This is another fallacious argument that people tend to use to somehow minimize Aikman's accomplishments because his teams were almost always leading throughout the whole game.

Coming back and winning games isn't a greater accomplishment than leading your team to never to have to be in that position in the first place.

No, I just think you lost your main point in all of your useless verbiage...Your point was that Aikman was PRIMARILY responsible for the Cowboys being so far out in front of other teams so as to allow the Cowboys to coast to a lot of wins. Now, when you take a step back and really look at this point, HOPEFULLY you will recognize how ridiculous it really is.

As good as Aikman was, he benefited greatly from the cast around him. On several big occasions (Thanksgiving '94, the '93 NFC Championship game with Kosar taking over for Aikman), the Cowboys proved they could win without Aikman. It was much more difficult, however, when Irvin or Smith was gone. One could very well make the argument that the '99 season was lost on the turf of the Vet in Philadelphia in October '99 when Irvin went down.

 

[dbair1967]

As good as Aikman was, he benefited greatly from the cast around him. On several big occasions (Thanksgiving '94, the '93 NFC Championship game with Kosar taking over for Aikman), the Cowboys proved they could win without Aikman. .

the 1993 NFC Championship game was over at halftime...we were up 28-7 and Aikman was 14/18, 177 yds and 3tds...Kosar threw 9 passes in that game

also, I was at the 1993 Dallas/Atlanta game that Bernie Kosar started in place of Aikman...he was horrendous..Emmitt did get hurt and left early, but Kosar was one of the main reasons we lost to the team that at that time was one of the worst in football...Jason Garrett played a miracle game on Turkey Day in 1994, but we'd have never won a playoff game with him at QB, and definitely wouldnt have beaten the Bills or Steelers with him starting

this argument you have made about Aikman only winning because of the supporting cast around him is pretty old and tired...Tom Brady wouldnt win jack QB'ing the Buffalo Bills or Arizona Cardinals of the past few seasons...Terry Bradshaw wouldnt have won 4 super bowls if he were playing in Tamapa in the 70's...Joe Montana certainly wouldnt have won 4 super bowls playing for the Falcons or Packers of the 80's either

Brady plays on a superbly coached team who's defense has totally stoned some of the best offensive teams in football consistently since he's been there...he has always had good receivers and TE's to work with, and his OL consistently provides him with excellent pass protection....you also can not downplay the difference in the league today as opposed to the 80's and early to mid 90's...it IS watered down, there are NOT as many good (especially great)...the Bills teams that Dallas and Washington destroyed would win championships easily today...hell alot of teams that simply made the playoffs would be real tough for anyone to beat now...the league was LOADED then, it is NOT loaded today

David

 

[SultanOfSix]

No, I just think you lost your main point in all of your useless verbiage...Your point was that Aikman was PRIMARILY responsible for the Cowboys being so far out in front of other teams so as to allow the Cowboys to coast to a lot of wins. Now, when you take a step back and really look at this point, HOPEFULLY you will recognize how ridiculous it really is.

I made no such claim. Unlike you, I accept the fact that football is a team game, and don't minimize the accomplishments of one QB because of selective memory and elevation of other components of the team at the expense of the other. Everyone who tries to minimize Aikman's accomplishments says that he had such a fantastic team around him. All he had to do was complete a pass. This is such stupidity. What great QB hasn't had a great team around him? Even John Elway required a great team around him before he could win the big one.

As good as Aikman was, he benefited greatly from the cast around him.

What QB doesn't except one who is average or terrible?

On several big occasions (Thanksgiving '94, the '93 NFC Championship game with Kosar taking over for Aikman), the Cowboys proved they could win without Aikman. It was much more difficult, however, when Irvin or Smith was gone. One could very well make the argument that the '99 season was lost on the turf of the Vet in Philadelphia in October '99 when Irvin went down.

Wouldn't you think losing one of the best receivers of all time would have such an impact? Pointing out this fact does nothing to diminish Aikman's greatness.

How would Montana have fared without Rice or Roger Craig? How did Elway do without Terell Davis? How would have Bradshaw have done without Franco Harris?

As dbair1967 pointed out, this argument is just plain stupid.

 

[DWelch1775]

I'm gonna have to go with Brady

 

[kartr]

It's hard to judge the two but since Aikman played against real competition and Brady has played against a watered down parity league, then Aikman should be considered above Brady.

I disagree, Brady can carry an offense, Aikman, as good as he was, was a complementary player.

 

[Hostile]

I disagree, Brady can carry an offense, Aikman, as good as he was, was a complementary player.

I didn't know you were a comedian.

Troy Aikman was a difference maker. Complimentary or fringe players do not make the Hall of Fame.

 

[kartr]

So, you are going to hold that against Brady...

But neglect the fact that Aikman had a better WR (Irvin) than anything Brady has had, a better RB (Smith) than anything Brady has had, a better TE than anything Brady has had (Novacek vs Furia/Graham/Watson).....?

Edit: And a better OL...

Exactly. I'm not bashing Aikman, but a lot of qbs(Young,Montana,Farve,Marino,etc.) could have produced more with that supporting cast.

 

[kartr]

I spoke to this in the McNabb thread just a bit. It's difficult to compare either because of the circumstances. Brady could never play in a timing offense. He doesn't have the arm. We all know that Aikman never really threw a great deep ball so any downfield offense is not going to be a match for Aikman. Both QBs are among the very best IMO but Brady's story is not finished yet. If he wins another championship, I think you gotta give the nod to Brady. After all, that's what it's about I'm told.

I agree with of all of this, and I believe that with the additions the Pats have made, that Brady will get one more ring, especially in today's Nfl.

 

[kartr]

I really cant pick one... I am somewhat bias to Aikman but...

think about it like this...

Put Aikman on those Patriots teams... I dont think he gets to and/or wins all 3 SB's

Put Brady on those Cowboys teams... I think Brady comes away with all 3 SB's maybe, just maybe he wins that 3rd NFC title game that we lost to 9ers...

I did say maybe... LOL

I think you're on point here, cause I give the leadership edge to Brady. Chad Jackson is already saying that he's by the leadership personna of Brady. Brady did have some very good football players around him, but not the hall of fame caliber that Troy did.

 

[kartr]

I think thats where underestimation of Aikman comes. Aikman I believe would have won three SBs with NE team and probably Brady with Cowboys team.

No way, Aikman needs a strong running game and to me, it was Michael Irvin who was the true leader of that team. Everybody fed off of his enthusiam and passion. Emmitt and Troy were quiet leaders, whereas Irvin was the catalyst. To me, it was Irvin on offense and Haley on defense, they were the game changers that made the big plays that got everybody going.