Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2009, 07:08 PM    (permalink
Geo
Neo Geo (Moderator)
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 17,530
Reputation: 121499
Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

I remember charting it like a year ago, and hoping Peyton would win out in most wins in the decade.
__________________
Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.
Geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 07:22 PM    (permalink
E-Man
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,410
Reputation: 201113
E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jth1331 View Post
This is a load of bogus, if you want to talk about media bias in the HoF how about a team that has been to 6 Super Bowls and has exactly 2 people in the HoF. I will say, HoF voters put WAY too much stock into postseason stats and team success, ie all those Steelers in the HoF. I mean, Randy Gradishar from all I've read and heard was one of the best LB's ever, yet he hasn't sniffed the HoF.
And Steve Atwater was better than Darren Woodson. But both those guys should be in, however neither will because they didn't put up the "sexy" stats.
Hey man I posted facts. With the team records that the Cowboys have there should be way more people in the HoF than there is. I was talking about a specific team that gets blasted for having homer fans that get their way. I could easily make a similar argument for the Broncos too. They should have more people too, but I wasn't talking about them because it wasn't about them. Atwater should get in the Hall too, but I'm iffy about him being better than Woodson. I can accept it, but both were beasts in their day that don't get nearly as much love as they should. It's more of a bias against safeties that they won't.
__________________
"If you have one finger pointing at somebody, you have three pointing towards yourself."
~Nigerian Proverb

Da riddum is too much for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKx27QrgO0
E-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 07:36 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abaddon41_80 View Post
That is a joke, right? Kelly put up much better numbers than Aikman with a much worse supporting cast. Heck, if you judge a QB by wins then Kelly is still much better than Aikman as he had more wins in less starts. Kelly was so much better than Aikman that it isn't even funny.

Aikman, imo, was a decent to good QB that guided an all-time great team. Was he as bad as Bradshaw? No, but he certainly wasn't on the level on someone like Jim Kelly or Steve Young.
This is a big disagreement that I have. Jim Kelly's teams were just as loaded as the Cowboys teams were. As were Steve Young's. How anyone can say that one was lacking in more talent than the other is curious to me. All 3 teams were stacked in the 90s.

But the bottom line is was Aikman worthy? Based off stats alone, there is an argument. But should stats be the determining factor? If so, then should there be a magic number? If any player reaches that mark, do they automatically get in the HOF?

Obviously, the answer most would give is that stats alone shouldn't get you in. So if stats are your main issue against him being worthy to get in, then you're only arguing part of the equation. So even if you're right in your basis, then you're only partially right in the end.

I think the way you get into the HOF is based on how highly you were respected as a football player during your generation. There is no statistic that validates respect. It's earned, but unquantifiable.

Last edited by D-Unit : 04-21-2009 at 07:38 PM.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 07:49 PM    (permalink
E-Man
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,410
Reputation: 201113
E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.E-Man is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Unit View Post
This is a big disagreement that I have. Jim Kelly's teams were just as loaded as the Cowboys teams were. As were Steve Young's. How anyone can say that one was lacking in more talent than the other is curious to me. All 3 teams were stacked in the 90s.

But the bottom line is was Aikman worthy? Based off stats alone, there is an argument. But should stats be the determining factor? If so, then should there be a magic number? If any player reaches that mark, do they automatically get in the HOF?

Obviously, the answer most would give is that stats alone shouldn't get you in. So if stats are your main issue against him being worthy to get in, then you're only arguing part of the equation. So even if you're right in your basis, then you're only partially right in the end.

I think the way you get into the HOF is based on how highly you were respected as a football player during your generation. There is no statistic that validates respect. It's earned, but unquantifiable.
Great point about the Bills and 49ers being stacked. Those two teams would dominate the NFL right now if they were still around, and The Cowboys won those rivalries back then. The difference between those QB numbers and Aikman's is how their offenses were run. Everyone knows about the West Coast O, but remember the K-Gun that the Bills ran? Both were pass oriented offenses that didn't have the dominating run game that the Cowboys did. Plus those two guys stats are pretty much the same as Aikman's outside of touchdowns. I wonder why that is......Oh yeah that's right. The have the NFL's all time leader in rushing touchdowns that happens to be the same guy that's number 2 all time in overall touchdowns. Aikman got his when he needed to.
__________________
"If you have one finger pointing at somebody, you have three pointing towards yourself."
~Nigerian Proverb

Da riddum is too much for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKx27QrgO0
E-Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 07:51 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Not a chance. People let SB rings influence a QB's legacy way too much. He doesn't deserve such a high honor. Yeah, he was good, but he was a product of the team. The team didn't win because of him, they won with him.

Yes, I'm biased, but someone like Peyton Manning has exponentially more reason to be in the HOF. SB wins are team efforts. When it comes to the HOF, stats should be 80% of the decision, because that is what the player accomplished. Yes, QBs need someone to catch those passes, linemen to block, blah blah....not the point. Peyton is on pace to break every single QB record there is. I don't care if he has 1 SB ring when he retires or 5, he will, IMO, go down as the best quarterback of all time.

The Aikmans of the world who managed their ways on great teams into SB wins are not even in the same league. I'd almost put Brady in the same category, but it's hard to ignore how well he did with Moss and Welker back in '07. Roethlesberger, however, is similar to Aikman, and though I like the guy, I don't think he would deserve a place in the HOF at this rate.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN

Last edited by 3pac : 04-21-2009 at 08:01 PM.
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:10 PM    (permalink
jth1331
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,705
Reputation: 68586
jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.jth1331 is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Unit View Post
This is a big disagreement that I have. Jim Kelly's teams were just as loaded as the Cowboys teams were. As were Steve Young's. How anyone can say that one was lacking in more talent than the other is curious to me. All 3 teams were stacked in the 90s.

But the bottom line is was Aikman worthy? Based off stats alone, there is an argument. But should stats be the determining factor? If so, then should there be a magic number? If any player reaches that mark, do they automatically get in the HOF?

Obviously, the answer most would give is that stats alone shouldn't get you in. So if stats are your main issue against him being worthy to get in, then you're only arguing part of the equation. So even if you're right in your basis, then you're only partially right in the end.

I think the way you get into the HOF is based on how highly you were respected as a football player during your generation. There is no statistic that validates respect. It's earned, but unquantifiable.
Kelly and Young put up better numbers though than Aikman with just as talented teams on offense.
For the HoF, it SHOULD be just stats compared to others of that player's era.
I think it is silly to say "Well, he played well in the playoffs so that should get him in."
If that is said, should Terrell Davis be in the HoF? He was arguably one of the best postseason RB's and the reason why Denver has 2 Super Bowl trophies.
jth1331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:27 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3pac View Post
Not a chance. People let SB rings influence a QB's legacy way too much. He doesn't deserve such a high honor. Yeah, he was good, but he was a product of the team. The team didn't win because of him, they won with him.

Yes, I'm biased, but someone like Peyton Manning has exponentially more reason to be in the HOF. SB wins are team efforts. When it comes to the HOF, stats should be 80% of the decision, because that is what the player accomplished. Yes, QBs need someone to catch those passes, linemen to block, blah blah....not the point. Peyton is on pace to break every single QB record there is. I don't care if he has 1 SB ring when he retires or 5, he will, IMO, go down as the best quarterback of all time.

The Aikmans of the world who managed their ways on great teams into SB wins are not even in the same league. I'd almost put Brady in the same category, but it's hard to ignore how well he did with Moss and Welker back in '07. Roethlesberger, however, is similar to Aikman, and though I like the guy, I don't think he would deserve a place in the HOF at this rate.
If you break it down by percentages and say stats should count for 80%, then what does the other 20% stand for.

What are the stats for Offensive Linemen?

If you say none, then are we only going to use stats for some positions but not all?

80% is a large chunk to use as a determining factor and then say that's relevant for some positions.

I don't even know how to respond to the statement where you said "the Cowboys won with Aikman and not because of him." That's a very ignorant statement. Aikman was the friggen General of that team. They went to war behind him. Not behind Emmitt. Emmitt was a good soldier who fought valiantly, but Aikman facilitated everything. By your statement Jason Garrett would've been in the HOF if he was the starter for the Cowboys. If you truly believe that, then you're going to be on the losing side of this battle.

People don't overrated QBs because of how many rings they have. It's the most difficult thing to do in this sport as a QB. Getting a ring is the number one goal and many players don't even feel validated in thier careers until they have one. So to toss it out of the equation or think of it as a minor accomplishment is phooey. Especially when you're talking about the QB position where the most important stat is kept track of in the Win/Loss column.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:30 PM    (permalink
yourfavestoner
#1 Vickscuser
All-NFLDC
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LakerLand
Posts: 13,130
Reputation: 628697
yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dam8610 View Post
Until now, anyway. Peyton Manning currently has 101 wins in the 00s with a year left to build upon that total.
Yet, in 15 postseason games he's 7-8 in the postseason (remember, too that you can only lose one game per postseason) with numbers far below his regular season averages.
348 completions
564 attempts
4208 yards
22 touchdowns
17 interceptions
61.7% completion percentage
7.5 YPA
85.0 QB rating

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner
Record: 11-5 in the postseason (3 Superbowl wins)
320 Completions
502 Attempts
3849 Yards
23 Touchdowns
17 Interceptions
63.7%
7.7 YPA
88.3 QB Rating
Troy Aikman is a better and more productive QB in games that actually matter than Peyton Manning. :D
yourfavestoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:34 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jth1331 View Post
Kelly and Young put up better numbers though than Aikman with just as talented teams on offense.
For the HoF, it SHOULD be just stats compared to others of that player's era.
I think it is silly to say "Well, he played well in the playoffs so that should get him in."
If that is said, should Terrell Davis be in the HoF? He was arguably one of the best postseason RB's and the reason why Denver has 2 Super Bowl trophies.
Aikman was more than just a post season QB. Are you serious?

What are stats if they aren't validated by wins? Stats don't indicate how good a QB is. Is the main job of the QB to accummulate stats? No. So why use that as a benchmark? The main job is to win. QBs are always judged by wins. Stats are simply a byproduct.

Is this really what our forum members believe? I thought we were better than that.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:34 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Unit
If you break it down by percentages and say stats should count for 80%, then what does the other 20% stand for.
Playoff performance/wins, most notably SB rings.

Quote:
What are the stats for Offensive Linemen?

If you say none, then are we only going to use stats for some positions but not all?

80% is a large chunk to use as a determining factor and then say that's relevant for some positions.
Sacks allowed, Pro Bowls reached, years played, name-recognition (if a lineman has a household name, he's clearly doing something very right...I admit that's kind of a goofy thing to say, but it's true).

Quote:
I don't even know how to respond to the statement where you said "the Cowboys won with Aikman and not because of him." That's a very ignorant statement. Aikman was the friggen General of that team. They went to war behind him. Not behind Emmitt. Emmitt was a good soldier who fought valiantly, but Aikman facilitated everything. By your statement Jason Garrett would've been in the HOF if he was the starter for the Cowboys. If you truly believe that, then you're going to be on the losing side of this battle.
The Jason Garret thing is an exaggeration. The point is that he managed the amazing talent around him. Emmit Smith is without a doubt one of the best RBs to ever play the game. Michael Irvin is one of the best WRs. I'm not saying Aikman was by any means bad, he was good. But there's a difference between someone who's good and can organize the talent around him and someone who actually IS the talent that echoes throughout the team, ala Peyton or (I say begrudgingly) Brady.

Quote:
People don't overrated QBs because of how many rings they have. It's the most difficult thing to do in this sport as a QB. Getting a ring is the number one goal and many players don't even feel validated in thier careers until they have one. So to toss it out of the equation or think of it as a minor accomplishment is phooey. Especially when you're talking about the QB position where the most important stat is kept track of in the Win/Loss column.
No, there IS way too much weight behind SB rings. Dan Marino never one won, but Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have. SB rings are a sign of a great TEAM, which probably has at least one great LEADER. That leader does NOT have to be the quarterback.

Even if Dilfer had won ANOTHER ring it wouldn't, in my eyes, qualify him for anything. It'd just be yet another reminder of how amazing the team's defense was, and how decently effecient the offense was. SB rings are like icing, stats are the cake.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:37 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
Yet, in 15 postseason games he's 7-8 in the postseason (remember, too that you can only lose one game per postseason) with numbers far below his regular season averages.
348 completions
564 attempts
4208 yards
22 touchdowns
17 interceptions
61.7% completion percentage
7.5 YPA
85.0 QB rating



Troy Aikman is a better and more productive QB in games that actually matter than Peyton Manning. :D

Record: 11-5 in the postseason (3 Superbowl wins)
320 Completions
502 Attempts
3849 Yards
23 Touchdowns
17 Interceptions
63.7%
7.7 YPA
88.3 QB Rating
Look how less often he had to throw it. The Cowboys always had a good defense that gave Aikman good field position, and he had one of the best RBs in Emmit Smith to let the opposing team focus on.

Not to mention that one could easily argue the Colts have simply suffered as being the #2 team for most of the decade, and would have likely won more SBs than in '06 without those pesky Patriots always standing in our way.

EDIT: Also, are you sure about that? I thought he was 7-7...
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN

Last edited by 3pac : 04-21-2009 at 08:40 PM.
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:38 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
Yet, in 15 postseason games he's 7-8 in the postseason (remember, too that you can only lose one game per postseason) with numbers far below his regular season averages.
348 completions
564 attempts
4208 yards
22 touchdowns
17 interceptions
61.7% completion percentage
7.5 YPA
85.0 QB rating



Troy Aikman is a better and more productive QB in games that actually matter than Peyton Manning. :D
Peyton Manning shouldn't be brought into this discussion. He's already gained enough respect to enter the HOF on the first ballot. It's not because of the statistics he's gained, but rather the consistency of his winning seasons that he's put together as the QB of the Colts.

Drew Brees won't be a HOF despite his marvelous stats because he hasn't strung together enough winning seasons as the QB of his team.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:41 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Unit View Post
Peyton Manning shouldn't be brought into this discussion. He's already gained enough respect to enter the HOF on the first ballot. It's not because of the statistics he's gained, but rather the consistency of his winning seasons that he's put together as the QB of the Colts.

Drew Brees won't be a HOF despite his marvelous stats because he hasn't strung together enough winning seasons as the QB of his team.
If Brees found himself leading the Saints to an NFC championship game or two, I'd disagree, but as of now.....I'd say that's somewhat true. Win consistency does matter.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:42 PM    (permalink
yourfavestoner
#1 Vickscuser
All-NFLDC
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LakerLand
Posts: 13,130
Reputation: 628697
yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3pac View Post
Look how less often he had to throw it. The Cowboys always had a good defense that gave Aikman good field position, and he had one of the best RBs in Emmit Smith to let the opposing team focus on.

Not to mention that one could easily argue the Colts have simply suffered as being the #2 team for most of the decade, and would have likely won more SBs than in '06 without those pesky Patriots always standing in our way.

EDIT: Also, are you sure about that? I thought he was 7-7...
He threw it 50 less times and the only category Manning has him beat at is 400 more passing yards. I don't really get how that helps your argument.

And it is 7-8 after the Colts lost in the first round to SD this season.

Last edited by yourfavestoner : 04-21-2009 at 08:45 PM.
yourfavestoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:48 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
He threw it 50 less times and the only category Manning has him beat at is 400 more passing yards. I don't really get how that helps your argument.

And it is 7-8 after the Colts lost in the first round to SD this season.
62 less times. That's like 2 games worth of attempts for a regular passing performance. Also, look at the fact that Peyton was clearly playing in games where he had to throw it and the run game was being stifled, ergo the egregious amount of yards thrown compared to Aikman. They even had nearly the same YPA attempt, though clearly Aikman had more chances for play-action, since the D was focusing more on the run attack.

So with defenses focusing on stopping the pass, Peyton still manged to put near equal stats, in some ways better in some ways worse, than Aikman, who had the luxury of being the defense's second threat.

I'd say it's pretty clear.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:49 PM    (permalink
Geo
Neo Geo (Moderator)
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 17,530
Reputation: 121499
Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yourfavestoner View Post
He threw it 50 less times and the only category Manning has him beat at is 400 more passing yards. I don't really get how that helps your argument.

And it is 7-8 after the Colts lost in the first round to SD this season.
Not going to get into this, but for those curious:

Aikman postseason career

Peyton postseason career

To be fair, Aikman played 16 playoff games to Peyton's current 15. But obviously Troy has a big lead at an 11-5 record.

Ugh, being reminded of the Colts' one-and-dones bums me out. I just wish they would win more playoff games, even if they can't reach the Super Bowl. San Diego might very well be their worst possible match-up in the AFC.
__________________
Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.
Geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:49 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njx9 View Post
do the cowboys win a super bowl without aikman? do they win one without emmitt or irvin? what if you take away any part of the line? or the defensive line or secondary?

"wins" are just another stat, and they're the one the qb may have the LEAST control over. but then, mark rypien was one of the best qbs of all time, right?
Replace Aikman with Ben Roethlesberger, and they probably win 2-3 Super Bowls. Replace Peyton Manning with Ben Roethlesberger, and we might be a Wild Card team a few times.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:50 PM    (permalink
Geo
Neo Geo (Moderator)
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: California
Posts: 17,530
Reputation: 121499
Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Geo is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

But maybe the dynamic of the Cowboys doesn't work with Peyton, etcetera. It's always good for debates, but you never really know.
__________________
Pugnacity, testosterone, truculence, and belligerence.
Geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:52 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3pac View Post
Playoff performance/wins, most notably SB rings.



Sacks allowed, Pro Bowls reached, years played, name-recognition (if a lineman has a household name, he's clearly doing something very right...I admit that's kind of a goofy thing to say, but it's true).



The Jason Garret thing is an exaggeration. The point is that he managed the amazing talent around him. Emmit Smith is without a doubt one of the best RBs to ever play the game. Michael Irvin is one of the best WRs. I'm not saying Aikman was by any means bad, he was good. But there's a difference between someone who's good and can organize the talent around him and someone who actually IS the talent that echoes throughout the team, ala Peyton or (I say begrudgingly) Brady.



No, there IS way too much weight behind SB rings. Dan Marino never one won, but Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have. SB rings are a sign of a great TEAM, which probably has at least one great LEADER. That leader does NOT have to be the quarterback.

Even if Dilfer had won ANOTHER ring it wouldn't, in my eyes, qualify him for anything. It'd just be yet another reminder of how amazing the team's defense was, and how decently effecient the offense was. SB rings are like icing, stats are the cake.
You completely contradict yourself. First you say Aikman is overrated because of his rings. Then you say Dilfer, even if he won another SB wouldn't be deserving. What happened to people giving too much credit to QBs with SB rings? If they get too overhyped then why wouldn't Dilfer get the same credit?

Fact of the matter is that Aikman lead those teams to the SB unlike Dilfer who rode the coattails of the Balitmore Defense. Aikman gets credit for those rings because he was the General of the team and he lead them to victory and earned his respect as one of the great QBs of his era.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:56 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Unit View Post
You completely contradict yourself. First you say Aikman is overrated because of his rings. Then you say Dilfer, even if he won another SB wouldn't be deserving. What happened to people giving too much credit to QBs with SB rings? If they get too overhyped then why wouldn't Dilfer get the same credit?
What? How am I contradicting myself at all. I'm showing how little SB rings matter. Even if Dilfer won another one, no one would be recommending him for the HOF, yet when people like Aikman get brought up, the whole "3 SB RINGS 3 SB RINGS" gets repeated over and over, as if it's why he deserves it so much. And if Dilfer did get nomination, then it shows the stupidity of putting all the weight on winning SBs for QBs.

Quote:
Fact of the matter is that Aikman lead those teams to the SB unlike Dilfer who rode the coattails of the Balitmore Defense. Aikman gets credit for those rings because he was the General of the team and he lead them to victory and earned his respect as one of the great QBs of his era.
One could just as easily argue that Aikman rode the coattails of the HOFers around him. Being a general of a team doesn't mean anything. Gary Brackett is the general of the Colts defense, but that doesn't mean he's a higher caliber player than Bob Sanders of Dwight Freeney.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:56 PM    (permalink
jsagan77
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,405
Reputation: -62345
jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77 jsagan77
Default

3 SB's will do a lot for a decent QB. Big Ben probably won't have great stats compared to Brady and Manning, but he'll probably get in because he won some SB's...
jsagan77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:57 PM    (permalink
3pac
Rookie
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 330
Reputation: 1149
3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.3pac is a cocksman.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsagan77 View Post
3 SB's will do a lot for a decent QB. Big Ben probably won't have great stats compared to Brady and Manning, but he'll probably get in because he won some SB's...
Which is stupid, IMO. But sadly probably true.
__________________
PICTURE ME ROLLIN'
GO COLTS! NAPTOWN
3pac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:57 PM    (permalink
yourfavestoner
#1 Vickscuser
All-NFLDC
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: LakerLand
Posts: 13,130
Reputation: 628697
yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.yourfavestoner is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geo View Post
But maybe the dynamic of the Cowboys doesn't work with Peyton, etcetera. It's always good for debates, but you never really know.
EXACTLY my point! Do I really believe that Troy Aikman is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning? Not necessarily, no. All I'm trying to do is point out that you can find stats to back up any argument. That's why the winning stat and Superbowls are the most important ones. That's the point of playing the game after all, and why they hold so much weight in Hall of Fame voting.
yourfavestoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:58 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njx9 View Post
do the cowboys win a super bowl without aikman? do they win one without emmitt or irvin? what if you take away any part of the line? or the defensive line or secondary?

"wins" are just another stat, and they're the one the qb may have the LEAST control over. but then, mark rypien was one of the best qbs of all time, right?
Those questions cannot be answered. We can talk hypotheticals, but I don't think you're that kind of guy.

I have to disagree with you though about QBs not being able to control whether a team wins or not. That is the one position that can make the biggest difference, all other things being equal.
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2009, 08:58 PM    (permalink
D-Unit
DC Administrator
Legend
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 61,020
Reputation: 2408717
D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.D-Unit is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3pac View Post
What? How am I contradicting myself at all. I'm showing how little SB rings matter. Even if Dilfer won another one, no one would be recommending him for the HOF, yet when people like Aikman get brought up, the whole "3 SB RINGS 3 SB RINGS" gets repeated over and over, as if it's why he deserves it so much. And if Dilfer did get nomination, then it shows the stupidity of putting all the weight on winning SBs for QBs.



One could just as easily argue that Aikman rode the coattails of the HOFers around him. Being a general of a team doesn't mean anything. Gary Brackett is the general of the Colts defense, but that doesn't mean he's a higher caliber player than Bob Sanders of Dwight Freeney.
If SB rings hardly matter, then why say Aikman got in because of his rings?
D-Unit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.