If someone said he ain't belong in the HOF and Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson were better...oh well.

And I'm talking reg and post season stats. He woulda been Heath Shuler without that line and Mike Dogg.

adding more sports just gives you more Ls to take...

oh..and you mean that o-line with not 1 hall of famer on it....

It can't be winning, because you'd have to concede Brady is GOAT and you don't wanna do that.

Just asking. You don't have to be mad. We don't have to do the whole spiel. I wanna know what was so great about Aikman. He wasn't that good.

>
>It can't be winning, because you'd have to concede Brady is
>GOAT and you don't wanna do that.
>
>Just asking. You don't have to be mad. We don't have to do the
>whole spiel. I wanna know what was so great about Aikman. He
>wasn't that good.

Nobody in the hall of fame has been caught cheating.....twice...

so miss me about Tom Brady...


Aikman needs to be compared to other QBs who were in Run-first offenses.... His cumulative numbers compared to other QBs who carried their teams with passing games don't match up...but the super bowl rings...leading a dynasty team...and being consistent..he most definitely deserved to be in the hall....

he's got much better numbers than say Ken Stabler, who honestly probably made it in this last time because he had passed away.... look at the number of years Snake threw more picks than TDs....Troy has some of those....but he also has 6 consecutive pro bowls...

Aikman deserved to go in...

Tom Brady is obviously a Hall of Famer, but he will always have an * next to his name because of the cheating scandals he was a part of in a playoff and a super bowl... No other great QB has anything close to that on their record...

Professional football enough to be able to place people's stats into the context of the era...or their individual team circumstance they played in...

comparing numbers to numbers without that context is honestly the sign of someone really not knowing what they're talking about...

someone mentioned Bomani comparing Romo with Aikman stats..

but Romo's legacy is that of postseason failures, and choking...and now getting hurt... compare all the numbers you want...but that and no rings is large part of Romo's legacy..

Aikman's legacy is leading a dynasty..... and 6 straight pro bowls.. with solid numbers...

ain't no footage anywhere of Michael Irvin crying saying that's my Quarterback...because Troy Aikman never put his team in that type of situation..he won super bowls with them...


plus...

lets look at the all-time leading rushers in nfl history

1. Emmitt
2. Walter
3. Barry
4. Curtis martin
5. LaDanian
6. Jerome Bettis
7. Eric Dickerson
8. Tony Dorsett
9. Frank Gore
10. Jim Brown
11. Marshall Faulk
12. Edgrin James
13. Marcus Allen
14. Franco Harris
15. Thurman Thomas

of all the guys on that list....let's list the HALL OF FAME WORTHY(or could be) QBs that played multiple years with any of them..

Troy Aikman
Roger Staubach
Kurt Warner
Peyton Manning
Terry Bradshaw
Jim Kelly

ok... Warner....Kelly....and Manning all played with RBs on that list who were also prolific pass catchers in Marshall, Edge and Thurman... Those guys obviously passed a lot more than the other on that list..and their hall of fame RBs were a part of that passing game...

so...that leaves the 3 of Aikman....Staubach....and Bradshaw..

Bradshaw's stats are obviously better than Aikmans because eventually the Steelers because a pass first team..moving away from running Franco and Blier first.... and he had 2 Hall of Fame WRs....and called his own plays...

Staubauch's numbers are better than Aikmans.... but again....his offense eventually evolved into a more pass oriented...shotgun offense..

Aikman's offense NEVER evolved into a pass first offense....sure he had a hall of fame WR...but none of those QBs I listed here had a Running back that ran for more yards than Emmitt....and played with him for as long as any of those other guys had their RB... Emmitt never slowed down during Aikman's reign...the Cowboys never added more weapons beyond Irving really..in fact..they seemed to have worse WRs lined up opposite Mike as the years progressed....they went from having Alvin Harper to Stepfret Williams........smh...

For Aikman to put up the numbers he put up...to lead his team to the success he led them...while being the Qb for the all time leading rusher ...all that is pretty impressive..

him getting in the hall of fame was a no brainer

>adding more sports just gives you more Ls to take...
>
>oh..and you mean that o-line with not 1 hall of famer on
>it....
>
>

Nate Newtown would have had a debate or vote if not for his questionable retirement plans. And Mark Tuinei, in hindsight, was crucial to Aikman and Smith. Novacek even fucked around and picked up a block every now and then.

Aikman wasn't the dog shit Basa is trying to make him out to be, but he wasn't a god either. He was maybe the best game-management, don't-get-in-your-teammate's-way QB ever. Growing up in a Cowboys household, I had to watch all those god damn games and I can seriously never remember an epic, Aikman-led signature win or loss. He was just sort of there and didn't get hit much.

>didn't get hit much.

I'm talking about the OG Cowboys D-line with Nate, E Williams and them....before Larry Allen

last time was a few weeks ago. Dude broke his stats down to the very last compound. As a Cowboy fan, I couldn't even argue with him. Dude presented Troy's numbers vs. Romo...and it was something I had dug into before...but it ain't what most would think it is.

is probably going to keep your numbers from being prolific...

particularly in that era of football...


arguing Romo against Aikman would seem to be a pretty easy argument to fill with holes

Aikman averaged slightly more passes per game over his career than Romo...WITH Emmitt Smith in the backfield. Romo's best RB was Marion Barber.

.

but I tend to defend him because the current era of stats are so inflated. hell, Matt Schaub and Andy Dalton have better career passer ratings than Dan Marino and Jim Kelly.

it's like comparing receiver's numbers to today.

i dunno why everyone actin like elite QBs weren't putting up numbers in the 90s.

he's basically Tom Brady 2001 over the course of three Super Bowls. then again, nobody really considers Aikman the GOAT or even the best of his era.

another really bad one is Bradshaw, though. his career completion percentage is 51%. he threw at least 20 interceptions in a season *five* times. he completed a total of *nine* passes in two different Super Bowl wins. hell, in the back-to-back Super Bowl-winning seasons of '74 and '75, Bradshaw averaged 10 completions over six games! with a 6:6 TD:INT ratio.

i saw them numbers and acted so stupid

the Cowboys could have damn near any QB back then and done what they did. Hell, they already proved it with coaches (Switzer was some bullshit)

a focal point on his team. He's had a some nice weapons to work with, but has never had a consistently dominant OL, RB, and WRs like Aikman had. He had some great RBs/WRs for a moment like Tiki and WRs like Plaxico, Victor Cruz, and now ODB, but not the same level of consistent support.

Manning put his teams on his back (with the help of good defense) whereas Troy just kept things moving in a positive direction and limited his mistakes.

This isn't to say one is better than the other. It's just highlighting that their roles were vastly different.

Also, gotta disagree about the Cowboys should have won more. They won 3 SBs which is a lot. I'd argue that's more impressive than Bron with the Heat (comparatively speaking). Also, they had to run the gauntlet of the NFC that featured some great Green Bay and San Francisco teams.

it wasn't like he was some overrated scrub. He did have a very nice run from like 91-96. His peak was short-lived and his production did tail off as the talent around him either declined or left in free agency.

His numbers don't look good and will look terrible in comparison to future HOF QBs. He got in primarily because he was a very solid QB on one of the most dominant teams in NFL history. But again, let's not rewrite history here. Those teams were extremely well balanced and he simply wasn't asked to put the team on his shoulders constantly. He had a brilliant post-season run during their 1st SB. He outplayed Cunningham, Steve Young, and Reich/Kelly by a wide margin during that 3 game stretch. He played well for the most part during their next 2 SB winning teams.

Aikman wasn't the killer like Emmett, Irvin, and Deion were, but he was decisively effective and consistently good. It wasn't like he just threw the ball up in the air let Irvin, Harper, and Novacek just go from there. He was accurate and could find the open WR.

Are these same people criticizing Aikman also equally as critical of Dak? Bc to me, it sure looks like Dak is benefiting from those same luxurious gifts of a dominant OL, RB, and Wr.

I think B9 aptly described him above. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

i see as many rangs as the skins have period...nigga talkin bout some heath shuler....fuck outtahere..

first SB run and he kinda ate off that the rest of his career.

you're consistently inconsistent on that front.

i didn't think he should get in first ballot based on raw numbers as a passer, but a high tide of team talent lifts all boats.

i mean hell, even bernie kosar played the second half of the '93 nfc chip game for him and put it out of reach.

nevertheless it was a source of great pain watching aikman complete third and long after third and long to novacek and the GOAT king of push-offs, early on in the SF/dallas rivalry.

made the big throws when he needed too