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.