PDA

View Full Version : Troy Aikman- HOF worthy?


Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:28 PM
Since I've read "A" player should be in the HOF
I decided to make "B" player should NOT be in the HOF

Troy Aikman

(Career) 32,942 yds- 165 TDs- 141 Int- 61.5%- 81.6 QB Rating
(Season Hi's) 3,445 yds- 23 tds

Other QBs in the same era:

J. Elway--- 51,475 yds- 300 TDs- 226 Int- 56.9%- 79.9 QB Rating
J. Kelly---- 35,467 yds- 237 TDs- 175 Int- 60.1%- 84.4 QB Rating
D. Marino-- 61,361 yds- 420 TDs- 252 Int- 59.4%- 86.4 QB Rating
W. Moon-- 49,325 yds- 291 TDs- 233 Int- 58.4%- 80.9 QB Rating
J. Montana-40,551 yds- 273 TDs- 139 Int- 63.2%- 92.3 QB Rating
S. Young-- 33,124 yds- 232 TDs- 107 Int- 64.3%- 96.8 QB Rating


He played with a Great O-Line, the All Time leading rusher and a HOF WR.
I don't see anything that says HOF to me. Not one bit.
He was the QB of 3 SB teams. Yes. I see him more of a game manager though.
Not a HOF QB that can take over games. *shrug*

I'm just bored and wanted to debate something..... opinions?

TitleTown088
04-21-2009, 12:30 PM
Yes.He earned his rice of passage.

Halsey
04-21-2009, 12:33 PM
If you leave Troy Aikman out for having a good supporting cast then you need to take a whole bunch of other players out. Also, Aikman was helping the other players around him just like they helped him. Should Michael Irvin be left out because he had a HoF QB throwing to him and all those other players around him? Ok then.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:39 PM
He never threw for more then 3400 yds and 23 TDs.
His success came from the fear of E. Smith and that big OL not the other way around.

That's how I see it, at least.
M. Irvin's 750-12000-65 is good but the 3 rings got him in

Thunder&Lightning
04-21-2009, 12:39 PM
Its a team sport you gotta have a good supporting cast in order to succeed in the NFL. There is no way he will be left out of the Hall of Fame.

CashmoneyDrew
04-21-2009, 12:44 PM
If he had only won one Superbowl you could probably make a much better case, but you throw in solid stats and three superbowls and it's much harder to argue against him.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:47 PM
I agree on the "team sport" comment.
Here's my thing though- when we talk about people who aren't in yet
The negative talk is "He didn't put that GREAT of numbers. If he was GREAT/HOF worthy then he'd put up numbers regardless of who his surrounding cast is.

For example: People are saying that T. Holt needs more productive years to get in.

Torry Holt: 869 rec- 12,260 yds- 74 TDs
Mike Irvin: 750 rec- 11,904 yds- 65 TDs

Gay Ork Wang
04-21-2009, 12:48 PM
i think there is a difference between HoF Worthy and making it into the HoF.

im not quite sure, but Holt played in a much more pass oriented offense than Irvin

Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:51 PM
Sure, but Holt still played with very productive RBs though (Faulk and Jackson)
So it's not like the QB is stepping back and throwing it 50 times a game ala McNabb

703SKINS202
04-21-2009, 12:51 PM
I agree on the "team sport" comment.
Here's my thing though- when we talk about people who aren't in yet
The negative talk is "He didn't put that GREAT of numbers. If he was GREAT/HOF worthy then he'd put up numbers regardless of who his surrounding cast is.

For example: People are saying that T. Holt needs more productive years to get in.

Torry Holt: 869 rec- 12,260 yds- 74 TDs
Mike Irvin: 750 rec- 11,904 yds- 65 TDs

You bring up some interesting points but like others have said the 3 superbowl rings make him a HOF in my book. He's the only ex or current cowboys player I really like. I know people hate Joe Buck but I love him and Aikman.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:51 PM
i think there is a difference between HoF Worthy and making it into the HoF.


Expand on that please. You might be on to something

Bengals78
04-21-2009, 12:54 PM
Troy Aikman would smack you nay sayers, but it is hard for him to lift a hand weighted down by 3 Super Bowl rings...

On a serious note, not everything is stats. Look at Namath. No way he has the numbers.

Gay Ork Wang
04-21-2009, 12:54 PM
well there are always guys getting in because of the Media, their fame not exactly always because they were the best of the best.

Its just like I dont know why Ray Guy and Cris carter arent in

Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Wasn't Joe Namath the 1st to throw for 4000 yds?
Also, I know Stats changer per era so that's why I put up the numbers of the other HOF QBs that he played against

Nalej
04-21-2009, 12:59 PM
See- media reasoning- that's a load of bull.
I under that the Cowboys were real famous in the mid 90's.
If the reason he's in is bc of that then he is NOT HOF worthy IMO
just taking advantage of the situation, I guess. *shrug*

eaglesalltheway
04-21-2009, 01:14 PM
OK, I'm an Eagles fan and HATED Troy Aikman.

He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, so I say he is HOF worthy. He was a very good QB who was fortunate to also have a very good team around him, particularly his OL and skill players, as was said. But if you would've had the average NFL QB on those teams, they may not have won 3 Superbowls. You must also figure when you add up those numbers that his career was shortened, albeit slightly, by concussions. As for his highest season total not being astounding, you mentioned it nalej, it was because of that balanced attack they had with Emmit Smith running behind that line. I say Troy Aikman, without a doubt is HOF worthy.


You have no idea how much it pains me to say that, haha.

Addict
04-21-2009, 01:14 PM
See- media reasoning- that's a load of bull.
I under that the Cowboys were real famous in the mid 90's.
If the reason he's in is bc of that then he is NOT HOF worthy IMO
just taking advantage of the situation, I guess. *shrug*

what else would you think everything is based on? It's all about how you took your chances. It's what makes the world go 'round.

Gay Ork Wang
04-21-2009, 01:18 PM
See- media reasoning- that's a load of bull.
I under that the Cowboys were real famous in the mid 90's.
If the reason he's in is bc of that then he is NOT HOF worthy IMO
just taking advantage of the situation, I guess. *shrug*
thats why i said there is a difference between HoF worthy for u and guys actually getting in

awfullyquiet
04-21-2009, 01:20 PM
he's not hof worthy. but will he get in? yeah.

much to my dismay.

here's my test:

would the cowboys have been better with kurt warner in the same time period? i'd say yes.
would the cowboys have been better with matt hasselbeck? about equal.

is matt hasselbeck hof worthy? no.

Splat
04-21-2009, 01:22 PM
The year Aikman was drafted has got to be one of the best if not the best top five players drafted ever.

1.Troy Aikman (http://www.nfl.com/players/troyaikman/profile?id=AIK553722) (HOF)

2.Tony Mandarich (http://www.nfl.com/players/tonymandarich/profile?id=MAN047916)

3.Barry Sanders (http://www.nfl.com/players/barrysanders/profile?id=SAN194381) (HOF)

4.Derrick Thomas (http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickthomas/profile?id=THO103054) (HOF)

5.Deion Sanders (http://www.nfl.com/players/deionsanders/profile?id=SAN282736) (Will Be HOF)

Nalej
04-21-2009, 01:23 PM
Taking advantage of his situation- all I meant was getting into the HOF solely on Cowboys media hype.
If that's the case then I, ME, MYSELF, can't agree with that.

To me- Troy Aikman is the NFL's greatest Game Manager.
If that's good enough for ya to be in the HOF- then I guess I can't debate that anymore

eaglesalltheway
04-21-2009, 01:24 PM
he's not hof worthy. but will he get in? yeah.

much to my dismay.

here's my test:

would the cowboys have been better with kurt warner in the same time period? i'd say yes.
would the cowboys have been better with matt hasselbeck? about equal.

is matt hasselbeck hof worthy? no.

Its tough to say, I think They would've been the same with Kurt, maybe a little worse, but there is a big dropoff if you go to Hasselbeck. I don't think the Cowboys win 3 superbowls if Hasselbeck is the QB. Maybe one, but no more than that.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 01:24 PM
The year Aikman was drafted has got to be one of the best if not the best top five players drafted ever.

1.Troy Aikman (http://www.nfl.com/players/troyaikman/profile?id=AIK553722) (HOF)

2.Tony Mandarich (http://www.nfl.com/players/tonymandarich/profile?id=MAN047916)

3.Barry Sanders (http://www.nfl.com/players/barrysanders/profile?id=SAN194381) (HOF)

4.Derrick Thomas (http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickthomas/profile?id=THO103054) (HOF)

5.Deion Sanders (http://www.nfl.com/players/deionsanders/profile?id=SAN282736) (Will Be HOF)

That's a big MISS @ 2 lol when you look at the other 3 they coulda had

someone447
04-21-2009, 01:34 PM
That's a big MISS @ 2 lol when you look at the other 3 they coulda had

Now you see why Ryan Leaf doesn't compare to Tony Mandarich as a bust. The only pick in any sport that could possibly be worse was Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, but the Blazers already had Clyde Drexler, so it is at least understandable.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
04-21-2009, 01:36 PM
The year Aikman was drafted has got to be one of the best if not the best top five players drafted ever.

1.Troy Aikman (http://www.nfl.com/players/troyaikman/profile?id=AIK553722) (HOF)

2.Tony Mandarich (http://www.nfl.com/players/tonymandarich/profile?id=MAN047916)

3.Barry Sanders (http://www.nfl.com/players/barrysanders/profile?id=SAN194381) (HOF)

4.Derrick Thomas (http://www.nfl.com/players/derrickthomas/profile?id=THO103054) (HOF)

5.Deion Sanders (http://www.nfl.com/players/deionsanders/profile?id=SAN282736) (Will Be HOF)

One of these things is not like the other...

Gay Ork Wang
04-21-2009, 01:40 PM
One of these things is not like the other...
its obviously Derrick Thomas cause he is dead

Im_a_Romosexual
04-21-2009, 01:41 PM
he's not hof worthy. but will he get in? yeah.

much to my dismay.

He's already in

here's my test:

would the cowboys have been better with kurt warner in the same time period? i'd say yes.
would the cowboys have been better with matt hasselbeck? about equal.

is matt hasselbeck hof worthy? no.

Aikman retired in like 2002 before either were big time/starters



Troy just did what he had to do to help the team win. If that meant handing it off to Emmitt, he did that. If he was needed to make some throws to win, he could do that too, although that wasn't as often. Throw in the three rings and you've got a HOF

awfullyquiet
04-21-2009, 01:42 PM
Its tough to say, I think They would've been the same with Kurt, maybe a little worse, but there is a big dropoff if you go to Hasselbeck. I don't think the Cowboys win 3 superbowls if Hasselbeck is the QB. Maybe one, but no more than that.

the question you have to ask yourself is this:

how good was aikman in those three superbowls

28, he sucked.
30, he was okay, threw for 200 yards and a td.
27, he was good.

Gay Ork Wang
04-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Troy just did what he had to do to help the team win. If that meant handing it off to Emmitt, he did that. If he was needed to make some throws to win, he could do that too, although that wasn't as often. Throw in the three rings and you've got a HOF
after your logic, everyone on those teams should make it. they did what they had to to win those superbowls

awfullyquiet
04-21-2009, 01:45 PM
Troy just did what he had to do to help the team win. If that meant handing it off to Emmitt, he did that. If he was needed to make some throws to win, he could do that too, although that wasn't as often. Throw in the three rings and you've got a HOF

again, always the question is, do the rings make you HoF worthy?

handing it off to arguably the second greatest RB of all time, and the greatest run blocking OLs of all time... i believe you could plug quite a few good qb's in there and watch them flourish. good qb's do not make the HoF.

Splat
04-21-2009, 01:47 PM
its obviously Derrick Thomas cause he is dead

That is not even close to being funny.

eaglesalltheway
04-21-2009, 01:49 PM
the question you have to ask yourself is this:

how good was aikman in those three superbowls

28, he sucked.
30, he was okay, threw for 200 yards and a td.
27, he was good.

Its hard to tell how they would do anyway. With Kurt Warner they may have had similar results. but I doubt they'd even get to at least two of those Superbowls with Matt Hasselbeck. I like Hasselbeck too, so that should tell you something...

Im_a_Romosexual
04-21-2009, 01:52 PM
again, always the question is, do the rings make you HoF worthy?

handing it off to arguably the second greatest RB of all time, and the greatest run blocking OLs of all time... i believe you could plug quite a few good qb's in there and watch them flourish. good qb's do not make the HoF.

Rings are what got him in, so yes.

Maybe you could plug somebody else, but he was the QB. He was fortunate enough to end up in that situation

Geo
04-21-2009, 01:55 PM
Interesting question.

I vote "no" on Aikman.

Played well, one of the best winners in his era, but not HOF worthy.

Gay Ork Wang
04-21-2009, 01:55 PM
i think Troy Aikman is about the same case as Terry Bradshaw. Was he really leading these teams to the Superbowl? or did he just not prevent them to not make it there?

Fogartynyy2789
04-21-2009, 02:19 PM
If Jim Kelly is in the hall of fame, then Aikman goes in no question.

abaddon41_80
04-21-2009, 02:31 PM
If Jim Kelly is in the hall of fame, then Aikman goes in no question.

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.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 02:32 PM
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.



I tend to agree... completely

Fogartynyy2789
04-21-2009, 02:38 PM
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.


I'm talking about winning in the playoffs and leading a team, I'm not arguing Kelly as a hall of famer, he is without a doubt. Aikman was the leader of three Super Bowl teams and was a tremendous playoff performer up until 1997.

Shane P. Hallam
04-21-2009, 02:48 PM
I think he is HOF caliber. What more do you want the guy to do? He used the talent around him and won a ton of championships. He played extremely well and is one of the best leaders the NFL has seen. He is and should be in.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 02:56 PM
I guess the point is... I don't think he played extremely well.
I think he played well. I think he played safe. I think he was a Game Manager to a Great team.

He didn't win games. He just didn't lose them.
That to me... is not the definition of a HOFer
I do agree that he was a great leader. I'll give you that.

Shane P. Hallam
04-21-2009, 02:58 PM
He won games at times, I am not sure where that assumption comes from. He maybe never had to put the team on just his shoulders, but he made some huge plays to clinch games...

Halsey
04-21-2009, 03:04 PM
Throwing out hollow cliches like "he was a game manager" or "he didn't win games, he just didn't lose him" are not an argument against Aikman and won't keep him out. The fact is he was the starting QB for a dynasty, went to 6 Pro Bowls and won a Super Bowl MVP. Those type things hold more weight than hollow cliches.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 03:06 PM
Stupid thread.

One of the greatest leaders ever. Held his teammates accountable. Was one of the main, if not the main reason that a team with so many ego's and so much publicity was able to succeed and win 3 SB's.

He did exactly what Jimmy Johnson and Barry Switzer wanted him to do. Don't kid yourself into thinking that Aikman couldn't have put up the same stats as the rest.

Both Aikman and Irvin took a hit to their stats in order to play within the system and succeed in the league. When you have a massive O-line and a great running back, why not use it?

Too many people on these boards weren't around to see and appreciate those Cowboy teams. Too many young people. Hell even I was young, but I was a die hard fan and still own all the DVDs.

Easily HOF worthy. Stats can be used to distort anything, you must take them in combination with winning. Aikman was one of the greatest winners ever in the league.

If Jimmy Johnson hadn't been fired he would have won 4 straight SB's. The guy is a stud.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 03:09 PM
Brett Favre took equally talented teams (on both sides of the ball) and couldn't beat Aikman.

Yes, Farve had better stats, but he played outside the system to get those stats and look where it got him.

Aikman sacrificed his own numbers for the success of the team.

Does everyone in here honestly believe Aikman was put into the HOF simply because he was a Cowboy or politics? Do some research. The Cowboys have one of the most HoF "snubbed" franchises of all time.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 03:16 PM
The fact that he WILL get in should really end this silly debate.

Some of the points being made here make me think you guys were 5 years old when you watched this era of football.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 03:19 PM
The fact that he WILL get in should really end this silly debate.

Some of the points being made here make me think you guys were 5 years old when you watched this era of football.

They WERE only 5 years old.

Remember that plenty of posters on this site (maybe the majority) can't even legally consume alcohol yet.

You can't know the greatness of Troy Aikman by looking at his stats.

I'll put it this way -- the QB that Madden slobbers over the most after Farve is Aikman. There is a reason for that.

E-Man
04-21-2009, 03:20 PM
I tried to keep out of this thread cause I'm a Cowboy fan that doesn't want to look biased. But Cowboy's media hype hasn't gotten anyone into the Hall of Fame. If that was the case then there would be more than 9 players in the Hall of Fame. I know it looks like I'm biased because I'm a Cowboy fan, but how can a team that has accomplished so much in history have less players in the Hall than teams with lesser wins. Hell there are more Redskins in the Hall of Fame than the Cowboys, but the Cowboys have more Division titles, Playoff wins, Conference Championships, Super Bowl wins, and head to head wins over them. I'll be the first to tell you that I hate the Redskins with a passion, but I'm throwing out facts here.

Aikman deserves to be in the Hall not based on his wins. I don't give QBs credit for team success. He deserves to be in because he stepped up like a Hall of Famer when they needed him to. He just had a great supporting cast around him that dwindled his numbers. But he was a huge factor in winning crucial games when the passing game needed it. There were better quarterbacks than him, but he still was always top 5 in minimum in his prime. If he played on another team he'd have close to 50,000 yards and more touchdowns. Besides if Steve Young can go in first ballot Troy should too. Steve was good too, but you can make a similar argument that he was just in a good offense with a legendary receiver. Besides the real person to argue for is Darren Woodson. I've seen people argue for Brian Dawkins, John Lynch, and Steve Atwater, but Woody deserves to be in just as much, if not more than them. But when his time comes I'm sure people will disregard his role on a top defense that won 3 Super Bowls because "he was only seen as good because of Cowboy media hype.":rolleyes:

someone447
04-21-2009, 03:31 PM
To preface this, I absolutely loathe the Cowboys. I am a Packer fan and I grew up watching the Cowboys beat the Packers in the playoffs.

That being said, Aikman is definitely a HOFer, I don't think he should have been first ballot, but there is no doubt he should be in.

The Packers of the early-mid 90s were no where near as talented as the Cowboys. It wasn't until 96-97 that the Packers had great teams. The Packers of the early 90s were Brett Favre and Sterling Sharpe, and thats it.

Nalej
04-21-2009, 03:34 PM
He IS in already. That's not the debate.
The debate is do you think he deserves to be in.

I'll call him a Game Manager. You can call him a team player.
You can argue all you want of what he COULD have done.
I'll just stick to what he DIDN'T do.
He put up avg stats on a great team.

As for 6 Pro Bowls? I'll go back to T. Holt.
He's been to 7 and been All Pro twice (1st n 2nd team)
Still, Holt needs to prove himself.


Football is a team sport but you go to the HOF based on your indivisual accomplishments... plus rings.

Paul
04-21-2009, 03:47 PM
He IS in already. That's not the debate.
The debate is do you think he deserves to be in.

I'll call him a Game Manager. You can call him a team player. I call him a THE leader of the team in that era. So would the rest of 90's cowboys.
You can argue all you want of what he COULD have done.
I'll just stick to what he DIDN'T do. QB of 3 SB winning teams, one of which he was the MVP,an All-Pro and made it to multiple pro bowls. What else do you want.
He put up avg stats on a great team. As burns already mentioned, on a run heavy team. But seriously how do question a players value purely based on stats?

As for 6 Pro Bowls? I'll go back to T. Holt.
He's been to 7 and been All Pro twice (1st n 2nd team)
Still, Holt needs to prove himself.


Football is a team sport but you go to the HOF based on your indivisual accomplishments... plus rings.

Responses in bold.

Did you ever watch him play in the early to mid 90's? You've seem to rely to heavily on stats.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 04:03 PM
No, I'm betting all this guy did was look at stats.

Anyone on here who was around to see Aikman play knows his worth.

He was FIRST BALLOT..

We're not talking Art Monk here. You don't make it in on the first ballot if you aren't worthy.

Maybe we can look at some of the seniors who got in and say they didn't quite deserve it. For example, you would have a much better argument going after Bob Hayes. You have no argument going after a first ballot HoFer like Aikman.

E-Man
04-21-2009, 04:15 PM
He IS in already. That's not the debate.
The debate is do you think he deserves to be in.

I'll call him a Game Manager. You can call him a team player.
You can argue all you want of what he COULD have done.
I'll just stick to what he DIDN'T do.
He put up avg stats on a great team.

As for 6 Pro Bowls? I'll go back to T. Holt.
He's been to 7 and been All Pro twice (1st n 2nd team)
Still, Holt needs to prove himself.


Football is a team sport but you go to the HOF based on your indivisual accomplishments... plus rings.

Holt doesn't need to prove himself to me. If he got in the Hall I'd be all for it. He was one of the most consistent and fundamentally sound wideouts in his prime. Him and Marvin Harrison are really in the same boat if you ask me. Both guys are skilled receivers in great offenses. Both have a ring. Both guys got less hype opposed to bigger receivers in size and mouth in Moss, T.O., and they even talked about Keyshawn more than those two. Only difference is that Harrison has better numbers and didn't have Wayne his whole career. But you can easily say that Bruce and Faulk would take stats away from Torry, Harrison is 3 years older, and that Holt didn't have Peyton. The biggest factor for HOF is how you stack them compared to other wide outs of their time. Irvin easily gets in because his stats and impact were neck and neck with the top WRs(Rice, Carter, and Brown). Plus Irvin played with the all time leading rusher that took away stats, and an injury forced him into retirement. You can make an argument for Irvin being elite in his heyday against the receivers I just named. Can we say the same for Holt? Moss, T.O., and Harrison are obviously making the Hall barring stupid politics. Ater that then who else? Steve Smith can make a run if he has 3 or 4 more seasons like he usually has. Same thing with Anquan Boldin. Chad Johnson has some serious numbers too. What point do you say no to any more receivers from a particular era? Isaac Bruce deserves a mention too. After all he was Torry's teammate, and the number one guy for Torry's early years when he was developing.

Honestly I'd put Moss, T.O., Harrison, Holt, and Bruce in at this point if it were up to me. If Smith and Boldin stay on pace I'd put them in too. There's no limit to how many of a certain type of player I'd put in. If they're elite for an extended period of time(6-8 years IMO) then they have my vote.

cunit2k9
04-21-2009, 04:20 PM
Yes and Torry Holt is a HOF as well.

someone447
04-21-2009, 05:51 PM
No, I'm betting all this guy did was look at stats.

Anyone on here who was around to see Aikman play knows his worth.

He was FIRST BALLOT..

We're not talking Art Monk here. You don't make it in on the first ballot if you aren't worthy.

Maybe we can look at some of the seniors who got in and say they didn't quite deserve it. For example, you would have a much better argument going after Bob Hayes. You have no argument going after a first ballot HoFer like Aikman.

No way did Aikman deserve to be a first ballot hall of famer. That should be reserved for the creme de la creme. Aikman undoubtedly deserves to be in the HOF, but not on his first ballot.

jth1331
04-21-2009, 06:02 PM
I tried to keep out of this thread cause I'm a Cowboy fan that doesn't want to look biased. But Cowboy's media hype hasn't gotten anyone into the Hall of Fame. If that was the case then there would be more than 9 players in the Hall of Fame. I know it looks like I'm biased because I'm a Cowboy fan, but how can a team that has accomplished so much in history have less players in the Hall than teams with lesser wins. Hell there are more Redskins in the Hall of Fame than the Cowboys, but the Cowboys have more Division titles, Playoff wins, Conference Championships, Super Bowl wins, and head to head wins over them. I'll be the first to tell you that I hate the Redskins with a passion, but I'm throwing out facts here.

Aikman deserves to be in the Hall not based on his wins. I don't give QBs credit for team success. He deserves to be in because he stepped up like a Hall of Famer when they needed him to. He just had a great supporting cast around him that dwindled his numbers. But he was a huge factor in winning crucial games when the passing game needed it. There were better quarterbacks than him, but he still was always top 5 in minimum in his prime. If he played on another team he'd have close to 50,000 yards and more touchdowns. Besides if Steve Young can go in first ballot Troy should too. Steve was good too, but you can make a similar argument that he was just in a good offense with a legendary receiver. Besides the real person to argue for is Darren Woodson. I've seen people argue for Brian Dawkins, John Lynch, and Steve Atwater, but Woody deserves to be in just as much, if not more than them. But when his time comes I'm sure people will disregard his role on a top defense that won 3 Super Bowls because "he was only seen as good because of Cowboy media hype.":rolleyes:

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.

yourfavestoner
04-21-2009, 06:13 PM
again, always the question is, do the rings make you HoF worthy?

handing it off to arguably the second greatest RB of all time, and the greatest run blocking OLs of all time... i believe you could plug quite a few good qb's in there and watch them flourish. good qb's do not make the HoF.

Once you add the 's' to the end of 'ring' then the answer to that question is almost always yes. Rings hold more bearing other stat or number you can produce. Because, after all, you play to win the game.

To tell the truth, regular season statistics are about the most worthless thing you can measure a player's greatness. All it can do is point you in the general direction of "was he good or not." True greatness shines in big, meaningful games, not in week five against some scrub (cough Peyton cough).

Let's look at Troy's postseason stats. He played exactly 16 postseason games in his career, a perfect number to compare it to his regular season stats.

Record: 11-5 in the postseason (3 Superbowl wins)
320 Completions
502 Attempts
3849 Yards
63.7% 7.7 YPA
23 Touchdowns
17 Interceptions
88.3 QB Rating

Far better than even his regular season performance. Looks to me like Troy Aikman played his best in the biggest games of his career. Now that a Hall of Famer.

Geo
04-21-2009, 06:17 PM
Aikman as a first ballot HOF, lol. [Turns out he was, LOL @ me!]

We're talking about a guy who threw more than 20 TDs only once is his career, that's pathetic. 16 game seasons, and he averaged exactly 1 TD pass per game played: 165 TDs and 141 INTs in 165 GS/165 GP. He couldn't even average 8.0 passing yards per attempt in one season in his career, when he had Michael Irvin and Alvin Harper.

Now credit where it's due, the Cowboys drafted Aikman first overall and he helped win a Super Bowl (the other two, meh). So he delivered on that great expectation, and not just as a first overall pick QB but as a first overall pick QB for a franchise that was in the dumps. That's big. And of course, he was a great player in his time. He was part of one of the NFL's dynasties. That all automatically earns him the discussion/debate.

But not HOF worthy. The problem with Aikman imo is that he wasn't truly great for a long enough period of time nor was he good enough for a much longer period of time. He falls just shy in the former, and the concussions aren't enough to excuse the latter.

Maybe he was your childhood hero/idol, I loved the guy when I was younger, but let's get a grip. He was more the product of Jimmy Johnson and the running game. Once the former left and the latter declined, Aikman dropped off hard.

In his last four seasons (97-00) as the starting QB of the Cowboys, Aikman "led" the Cowboys to a 24-28 record and the once super-accurate passer couldn't even muster a 60 percent completion rate in one single season.

This is the Hall of Fame. The Greatest of the Great. You put Aikman in, heck you might as well put Phil Simms, Boomer Esiason, and God knows who else in the years to come.

[Edit: Okay Aikman is already in. Brain fart. And I can live with it, although I hope guys like Simms, Esiason, and whoever questionable in the years to come don't get a free pass.]

bored of education
04-21-2009, 06:22 PM
Ken Anderson should be in!

Brent
04-21-2009, 06:32 PM
All this talk of the 90's NFL makes me want to watch some old Niners DVDs of Steve and Jerry.

BTW, Geo has a nice post there.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:36 PM
Aikman as a first ballot HOF, lol. There's bound to be at least Cowboys fan who doesn't disappoint in embarrassing themselves.

We're talking about a guy who threw more than 20 TDs only once is his career, that's pathetic. 16 game seasons, and he averaged exactly 1 TD pass per game played: 165 TDs and 141 INTs in 165 GS/165 GP. He couldn't even average 8.0 passing yards per attempt in one season in his career, when he had Michael Irvin and Alvin Harper.

Now credit where it's due, the Cowboys drafted Aikman first overall and he helped win a Super Bowl (the other two, meh). So he delivered on that great expectation, and not just as a first overall pick QB but as a first overall pick QB for a franchise that was in the dumps. That's big. And of course, he was a great player in his time. He was part of one of the NFL's dynasties. That all automatically earns him the discussion/debate.

But not HOF worthy. The problem with Aikman is that he wasn't truly great for a long enough period of time nor was he good enough for a much longer period of time. He falls just shy in the former, and the concussions aren't enough to excuse the latter.

Maybe he was your childhood hero/idol, I loved the guy when I was younger, but get a freaking grip. He was a product of Jimmy Johnson and the running game. Once the former left and the latter declined, Aikman dropped off hard.

In his last four seasons (97-00) as the starting QB of the Cowboys, Aikman "led" the Cowboys to a 24-28 record and the once super-accurate passer couldn't even muster a 60 percent completion rate in one single season.

This is the Hall of Fame. The Greatest of the Great. You put Aikman in, **** you might as well put Phil Simms, Boomer Esiason, and God knows who else in the years to come.

Embarrassed myself huh?

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=254

You do realize Aikman has already been inducted into the Hall of Fame on his first try, don't you?

Oh, you didn't? Try the Pro Football Hall of Fame website sometime, it works wonders.

He was voted in by his peers as a FIRST BALLOT HALL OF FAMER. This is not a Cowboy fan "embarrassing himself", this is a fact.

God damn, Haters gotta hate I guess.

I have people in here arguing with me that he "shouldn't get in" and they don't even know that he has already been inducted. Jesus.

SimonRath
04-21-2009, 06:41 PM
He IS in already. That's not the debate.
The debate is do you think he deserves to be in.

I'll call him a Game Manager. You can call him a team player.
You can argue all you want of what he COULD have done.
I'll just stick to what he DIDN'T do.
He put up avg stats on a great team.

As for 6 Pro Bowls? I'll go back to T. Holt.
He's been to 7 and been All Pro twice (1st n 2nd team)
Still, Holt needs to prove himself.


Football is a team sport but you go to the HOF based on your indivisual accomplishments... plus rings.


you have a good argument i must say

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:42 PM
With their high-powered offense and stingy defense, the 13-3 Cowboys swept through the 1992 NFL playoffs, scoring a combined total of 116 points in three games including a 52-17 victory over the Buffalo Bills in Super Bowl XXVII. Aikman's 22 of 30 for 273 yards passing and four touchdowns earned him Super Bowl MVP honors.

Over the next three seasons, the Cowboys enjoyed three consecutive 12-4 records and victories in Super Bowls XXVIII and XXX. Aikman, wide receiver Michael Irvin, and running back Emmitt Smith delivered an offensive attack that opponents found nearly impossible to contain. When defenses focused on Irvin and/or Smith, Aikman would find tight end Jay Novacek or wide receiver Alvin Harper. In the 1994 NFC Divisional Playoff Game against the Green Bay Packers, Aikman completed 23 of 30 passes for 337 yards. Irvin, Novacek, and Harper, each had more than 100 yards receiving. Aikman's 94-yard touchdown pass to Harper was the longest play from scrimmage in NFL post-season history at the time.

With 90 wins in the 1990s, Aikman became the winningest starting quarterback of any decade in NFL history. Unfortunately, during his final two seasons, injuries began to take a toll on the Dallas quarterback and the team's winning ways. Finally, after the 2000 season, the Cowboys' six-time Pro Bowl selection announced his retirement from football. His career statistics include 32,942 yards and 165 touchdowns for a passer rating of 81.6.


Oh and Geo, how nice of you to use his final injury plagued seasons (with no receiving threats at all on the team) as a measuring stick.

This is why statistics are crap. Because people manipulate them.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:46 PM
or they're arguing that he wasn't worthy, whether he made it on the first ballot or not, which is the question the thread actually asks. but i'm sure you're still not embarrassed by a lack of ability to comprehend fairly simple english.

the amount of rabid, vapid, mouth froth generated by certain groups of fans anytime one of "their players" is even remotely insulted is pretty entertaining.

Go back and read the posts. Only about half of the naysayers realize that he's even in the HoF and are debating whether he belongs there.

The rest, Such are Geo, are making fun of me for calling him a first ballot HoFer -- implying that he hasn't been inducted yet.

So thanks for the input, but you're wrong.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:47 PM
I posted stats to show performance level in a big game -- I also posted stats that show he was the winningest QB of his time.

Far different from showing career stats, or harping on overall bad seasons.

Like YFS said above -- look at the big game performance when it counts.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:50 PM
Look you guys can argue all you want. The fact is, a panel of his peers and former NFL greats decided that Aikman was good enough to be inducted on his first ballot.

Now that might now mean anything to some of you, but it means just about everything to me.

No matter who the player, or what team they played for. If you get in on the first or second ballot -- you belong there in my opinion.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:52 PM
so it ONLY counts when he did well? what a crappy, intellectually dishonest argument. but i guess you'll also spin his nearly 1:1 td/int ratio.

and his career stats are somehow irrelevant? heh, that's entertaining.

some people shouldn't leave their team forums.

NJX, are you honestly going to tell me that when a player performs well in HUGE games, that we should view it the same way as if that player blew a team out in week 1?

Or how about the other way around? Are you going to tell me if a player is a regular season superstar, but can't pull it together in the playoffs -- we shouldn't take the atmosphere or type of games into account?

You don't believe that. You're just arguing.

Geo
04-21-2009, 06:54 PM
Literally, I actually forgot Aikman was already voted in the HOF. That's incredibly disappointing yet also extremely hilarious.

So on that point I apologize to you, Burnsy.

That is worse than Art Monk getting in. Hell, that is worse than Warren Moon getting in.

Burns336
04-21-2009, 06:56 PM
Literally, I actually forgot Aikman was already voted in the HOF. That's incredibly disappointing yet also extremely hilarious.

That is worse than Art Monk getting in. Hell, that is worse than Warren Moon getting in.

That's fine dude... I'm just saying -- He's already in.

I wouldn't expect anyone to remember the players that aren't on their teams anyway, but if you're going to call me an embarrassment, make sure that I am first haha.

Geo
04-21-2009, 06:58 PM
I don't know how I forgot that, it's actually kind of sad. And it's not like it's the greatest injustice in the world, because for a period of time Aikman was great, but obviously I wouldn't have voted for him myself.

Then again I would vote for Edgerrin James, so I'm probably just as guilty as you, Burns. (not first ballot of course)

Dam8610
04-21-2009, 06:59 PM
With 90 wins in the 1990s, Aikman became the winningest starting quarterback of any decade in NFL history. Unfortunately, during his final two seasons, injuries began to take a toll on the Dallas quarterback and the team's winning ways. Finally, after the 2000 season, the Cowboys' six-time Pro Bowl selection announced his retirement from football.

Until now, anyway. Peyton Manning currently has 101 wins in the 00s with a year left to build upon that total.

Geo
04-21-2009, 07:00 PM
Isn't Brady also primed to break that record?

abaddon41_80
04-21-2009, 07:00 PM
NJX, are you honestly going to tell me that when a player performs well in HUGE games, that we should view it the same way as if that player blew a team out in week 1?

Or how about the other way around? Are you going to tell me if a player is a regular season superstar, but can't pull it together in the playoffs -- we shouldn't take the atmosphere or type of games into account?

You don't believe that. You're just arguing.

njx does like to argue, but he is right nonetheless.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 07:03 PM
read and understood, but thanks. but don't let your homerism get in the way of an honest assessment. :rolleyes:
That's the greatest comeback. You can never knock it. LOL.

Of course he's gotta be a homer because he believes Troy Aikman was worthy to be a HOFer. What a crazy homeristic thought.

Dam8610
04-21-2009, 07:03 PM
Isn't Brady also primed to break that record?

Brady needs 3 wins next year. Barring a 15-16 win Patriot season combined with a 0-1 win Colt season, Manning will leave the decade with that record.

Geo
04-21-2009, 07:08 PM
I remember charting it like a year ago, and hoping Peyton would win out in most wins in the decade.

E-Man
04-21-2009, 07:22 PM
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.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 07:36 PM
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.

E-Man
04-21-2009, 07:49 PM
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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 07:51 PM
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.

jth1331
04-21-2009, 08:10 PM
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.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 08:27 PM
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.

yourfavestoner
04-21-2009, 08:30 PM
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

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

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 08:34 PM
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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:34 PM
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.

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).

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.

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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:37 PM
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...

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 08:38 PM
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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:41 PM
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.

yourfavestoner
04-21-2009, 08:42 PM
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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:48 PM
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.

Geo
04-21-2009, 08:49 PM
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 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00_playoffs.htm)

Peyton postseason career (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannPe00_playoffs.htm)

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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:49 PM
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.

Geo
04-21-2009, 08:50 PM
But maybe the dynamic of the Cowboys doesn't work with Peyton, etcetera. It's always good for debates, but you never really know.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 08:52 PM
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.

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:56 PM
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.

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.

jsagan77
04-21-2009, 08:56 PM
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...

3pac
04-21-2009, 08:57 PM
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.

yourfavestoner
04-21-2009, 08:57 PM
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.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 08:58 PM
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
04-21-2009, 08:58 PM
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?

3pac
04-21-2009, 09:00 PM
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.

Yes, that's true, but it works both ways. The W/L can change just as much as the stats. In the end, its all hypothetical which is why this discussion we're all having is so pointless at the end of the day.

All it really comes down to is one simple personal opinion: do you think SB rings are the most important "stat" for QBs? And sadly for us, none of us will probably change each others' minds.

3pac
04-21-2009, 09:00 PM
If SB rings hardly matter, then why say Aikman got in because of his rings?

Because my opinion is not the opinion of everyone else, as evidenced by this discussion.

E-Man
04-21-2009, 09:01 PM
But maybe the dynamic of the Cowboys doesn't work with Peyton, etcetera. It's always good for debates, but you never really know.
I think they might work, but who knows. Peyton certainly is a better passer than Aikman, and he is certainly productive as hell. Aikman could have run a pass heavy offense and put up big numbers too, but not in Peyton's league I think. Here's the big deal though. Would Peyton have choked when the Cowboys needed him? I don't put the blame solely on Peyton's shoulders for the big losses the Colts had, but he did have some bad games. With the teams the Cowboys faced Aikman had to make plays at some point in time that Peyton might have choked at.

It's a fun discussion though, because I think the world of Peyton. He's got all the talent in the world, and he is the best QB in the league to me. He's a rare QB that actually makes things happen. Most QBs get credit for not screwing up while their defense and running game picks up the slack. I don't see that with Peyton. I see the offense work through him, and because of him. It would've been a treat to see him against the 90s teams.

bantx
04-21-2009, 09:02 PM
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.

Do you take the time to read other post in this thread?

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 09:03 PM
Which is stupid, IMO. But sadly probably true.
Seriously? What is so stupid about that? No QB ever to play the game has accomplished as much as Ben has. He may have started off as a Bus Driver QB, but he has turned into much more than that. If he was simply a guy behind the wheel he would've been exposed by now.

bantx
04-21-2009, 09:05 PM
He probably didnt watch the superbowl either.

3pac
04-21-2009, 09:06 PM
Seriously? What is so stupid about that? No QB ever to play the game has accomplished as much as Ben has. He may have started off as a Bus Driver QB, but he has turned into much more than that. If he was simply a guy behind the wheel he would've been exposed by now.

Their first SB win was about as big of an exposition as you can get. Although he did perform very well in this last one, props to him. Heck, I even like the guy.

someone447
04-21-2009, 09:09 PM
If SB rings hardly matter, then why say Aikman got in because of his rings?

That's not what he is saying...

He means they SHOULDN'T matter as much as they do. He just isn't saying it very eloquently.

someone447
04-21-2009, 09:18 PM
Seriously? What is so stupid about that? No QB ever to play the game has accomplished as much as Ben has. He may have started off as a Bus Driver QB, but he has turned into much more than that. If he was simply a guy behind the wheel he would've been exposed by now.

Ben Roethlisberger and Troy Aikman are incredibly similar. Both are great QBs and Aikman deserves the HOF(Big Ben will if he keeps up what he is doing.) Aikman was a top 5 QB his entire career, just like big Ben is now.

1. Elway
2. Favre
3. Young
4. Kelley
5. Aikman

and now

1. Peyton
2. Brady
3. Brees(arguably)
4. Warner(arguably)
5. Big Ben

They are both very good QBs, very, very good. But their rings are enough to take the very good into the HOF. That's how it should be too. If you had a long career as one of the best QBs in the league and you win a few rings, you should get in.

3pac
04-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Ben Roethlisberger and Troy Aikman are incredibly similar. Both are great QBs and Aikman deserves the HOF(Big Ben will if he keeps up what he is doing.) Aikman was a top 5 QB his entire career, just like big Ben is now.

1. Elway
2. Favre
3. Young
4. Kelley
5. Aikman

and now

1. Peyton
2. Brady
3. Brees(arguably)
4. Warner(arguably)
5. Big Ben

They are both very good QBs, very, very good. But their rings are enough to take the very good into the HOF. That's how it should be too. If you had a long career as one of the best QBs in the league and you win a few rings, you should get in.

We basically agree on everything except you value SB wins more than me.

someone447
04-21-2009, 09:21 PM
We basically agree on everything except you value SB wins more than me.


The best way to think if someone was a hall of famer, could you give the history of the NFL without mentioning them? I don't think you can tell a history of the NFL in the 90s without mentioning Aikman, He was the QB of a dominant team. He is important to NFL history

Burns336
04-21-2009, 09:22 PM
Seriously? What is so stupid about that? No QB ever to play the game has accomplished as much as Ben has. He may have started off as a Bus Driver QB, but he has turned into much more than that. If he was simply a guy behind the wheel he would've been exposed by now.

Not to mention he has the most 4th quarter comebacks out of any active QB.... Talk about clutch.

3pac
04-21-2009, 09:23 PM
The best way to think if someone was a hall of famer, could you give the history of the NFL without mentioning them? I don't think you can tell a history of the NFL in the 90s without mentioning Aikman, He was the QB of a dominant team. He is important to NFL history

Touche, I'll give you that.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 09:24 PM
That's not what he is saying...

He means they SHOULDN'T matter as much as they do. He just isn't saying it very eloquently.
But I don't think they do matter as much as he thinks it does matter. That's why there are a lot of QBs with a SB win who are not in the HOF.

someone447
04-21-2009, 09:26 PM
But I don't think they do matter as much as he thinks it does matter. That's why there are a lot of QBs with a SB win who are not in the HOF.

If Aikman didn't win 3 super bowls, would he be in? I think that is unequivocally no. One Super Bowl doesn't matter, but multiple Super Bowls matter a lot.

yourfavestoner
04-21-2009, 10:08 PM
If Aikman didn't win 3 super bowls, would he be in? I think that is unequivocally no. One Super Bowl doesn't matter, but multiple Super Bowls matter a lot.

Bingo. Like I said in one of the first posts in this thread, once you put an 's' at the end of 'ring,' the discussion pretty much ends. Your team was a dynasty and your players were better than everybody else's at that time.

someone447
04-21-2009, 10:13 PM
Bingo. Like I said in one of the first posts in this thread, once you put an 's' at the end of 'ring,' the discussion pretty much ends. Your team was a dynasty and your players were better than everybody else's at that time.

I disagree with the last half of your last sentence. Aikman wasn't better than Elway, Kelly, Young, or Favre. But he definitely deserves the HOF.

D-Unit
04-21-2009, 10:30 PM
If Aikman didn't win 3 super bowls, would he be in? I think that is unequivocally no. One Super Bowl doesn't matter, but multiple Super Bowls matter a lot.
Ha... That's a completely hypothetical assumption. If he had lost those 3 SBs I still think he would've been a HOF QB. Who's to say for a fact that he wouldn't?


Let's talk about facts. Aikman did win 3. Aikman is worthy of his HOF induction. There's no "if" in this argument.

someone447
04-21-2009, 10:42 PM
Ha... That's a completely hypothetical assumption. If he had lost those 3 SBs I still think he would've been a HOF QB. Who's to say for a fact that he wouldn't?


Let's talk about facts. Aikman did win 3. Aikman is worthy of his HOF induction. There's no "if" in this argument.

Have you not read the rest of my posts? I am arguing for Aikman to make it. Stoner just said the Cowboys players were better than everyone else. Without the rings, I just don't see Aikman making the HOF. But the rings give it to him, without a doubt.

I said they weren't and the rings don't make them so. Aikman definitely deserves the HOF, although I don't think he should have got first ballot.

jth1331
04-22-2009, 12:47 AM
I think no way Aikman gets into the HoF if the Cowboys don't win those Super Bowls. His stats are rather average and don't distance himself from other QB's in the league at the time.

Like it is stated earlier, too much emphasis is on how well a player does in the postseason and how many rings he gets.

And for you guys supporting Aikman, I'll ask this again, why not Terrell Davis? He was exceptional in the postseason and had his career ended early and had amazing stats for how little he played. Is he a HOFer? Why not?

Burns336
04-22-2009, 02:00 AM
I think no way Aikman gets into the HoF if the Cowboys don't win those Super Bowls. His stats are rather average and don't distance himself from other QB's in the league at the time.

Like it is stated earlier, too much emphasis is on how well a player does in the postseason and how many rings he gets.

And for you guys supporting Aikman, I'll ask this again, why not Terrell Davis? He was exceptional in the postseason and had his career ended early and had amazing stats for how little he played. Is he a HOFer? Why not?

He just has the "system" argument working against him. I don't think TD was JAG -- I think he was one of the best to ever run for the Bronco's but people will always claim that the system inflated his stats or made it easier or blah blah...

It's really unfair. He did what he was supposed to do with what was given to him and he did it really well. He should get credit for that no matter what team or system he was in.

But what Aikman supporter said no to TD? You're just kinda throwing that out there...

D-Unit
04-22-2009, 03:45 AM
I think no way Aikman gets into the HoF if the Cowboys don't win those Super Bowls. His stats are rather average and don't distance himself from other QB's in the league at the time.

Like it is stated earlier, too much emphasis is on how well a player does in the postseason and how many rings he gets.

And for you guys supporting Aikman, I'll ask this again, why not Terrell Davis? He was exceptional in the postseason and had his career ended early and had amazing stats for how little he played. Is he a HOFer? Why not?
I don't know Terrell Davis' career stats, but speaking of Aikman alone.... I know his success spanned over many consistent years. When I think of TD, I think of some flash in the pan.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-22-2009, 04:14 AM
I question the legitimacy of even just looking at statistical production and playoff wins in regards to judging HOF-worthiness. Based on the group of players who are in the Hall, that's obviously not what the voters are purely going by.

The Hall of Fame is just that. It's a grouping of players who have had significant impact on the landscape of the NFL. Stats play a hand in that, as do wins, as do Superbowl victories. But so do a lot of other things, to be honest. To try and evaluate these guys in some sort of vacuum is futile.

As a pure approximation of Aikman as a quarterback and nothing more, I think he's more than a bit overrated. But does he belong in the Hall? Absolutely.

Kurve
04-22-2009, 05:59 AM
The fact is he is in the hall of fame so people who make the vote thought that he was HOF worthy out side of that what others think is pretty irrelevant at this point dont you think...he already is in.

Nalej
04-22-2009, 12:05 PM
The fact is he is in the hall of fame so people who make the vote thought that he was HOF worthy out side of that what others think is pretty irrelevant at this point dont you think...he already is in.

Obviously not if I made the thread.
I already stated that I acknowledge that he's a HOF
and that the point of the thread was for mere discussion.
I just wanted to know what others on the board thought.
There's a lot of good arguements going both ways.
So please- if you're not going to contribute to the topic
then don't bother entering or replying to the thread.

Thank you.

Nalej
04-22-2009, 12:11 PM
The best way to think if someone was a hall of famer, could you give the history of the NFL without mentioning them? I don't think you can tell a history of the NFL in the 90s without mentioning Aikman, He was the QB of a dominant team. He is important to NFL history

This is the best arguement so far.
It's really hard to disagree with that.

jth1331
04-22-2009, 07:14 PM
He just has the "system" argument working against him. I don't think TD was JAG -- I think he was one of the best to ever run for the Bronco's but people will always claim that the system inflated his stats or made it easier or blah blah...

It's really unfair. He did what he was supposed to do with what was given to him and he did it really well. He should get credit for that no matter what team or system he was in.

But what Aikman supporter said no to TD? You're just kinda throwing that out there...

No Aikman supporter mentioned TD when I asked, so I asked again. I threw it up there because most Aikman supporters said he did so well in big games and the playoffs, which is why he got in. I say TD had a great career and performed amazing in big games and the playoffs, so he should be in based on the same scenario.

I don't know Terrell Davis' career stats, but speaking of Aikman alone.... I know his success spanned over many consistent years. When I think of TD, I think of some flash in the pan.

How old are you? Did you even watch Davis play? He wasn't some flash in the pan. 2,000 yard rushing season, 60ish TD's his first 4 years in the league, Super Bowl MVP, NFL MVP.
What is amazing is his performance in 8 playoff games:
1,140 yards, 12 TD's, 5.6 yards per carry.
His career was cut short sadly due to a torn ACL and knee degeneration disease :(

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 01:47 AM
This is the best arguement so far.
It's really hard to disagree with that.
So should Drew Bledsoe be in the HoF?

Burns336
04-23-2009, 04:34 AM
So should Drew Bledsoe be in the HoF?

I could definitely tell the history of the NFL in the 90's without mentioning Drew Bledsoe at all, with the exception of mentioning his name among number 1 overall picks that never lived up to expectations.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 07:27 AM
he was the one that actually led to Tom Brady?

or i mean all those busts that really made some of the NFL Teams bad, big blockbuster trades like the Ricky Williams trade or Michael Vick bringing excitement and well his trials. All those things are part of the NFL. Trent Dilfer could be in the story. Then again, most dominant Linemen are hardly ever in any history of the NFL.

MetSox17
04-23-2009, 10:44 AM
Did people already mention that before Tom Brady came in and went berserk on the NFL, he had the highest winning percentage in the playoffs?

I love how convenient everyone chooses their arguments against players. I constantly hear how X player shouldn't be worthy of accolades because he never won championships or won in the playoffs, but ALL Troy Aikman did was win in the playoffs. His winning percentage and Super Bowl rings show that. He is without a doubt worthy of his HOF status.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 11:07 AM
Did people already mention that before Tom Brady came in and went berserk on the NFL, he had the highest winning percentage in the playoffs?

I love how convenient everyone chooses their arguments against players. I constantly hear how X player shouldn't be worthy of accolades because he never won championships or won in the playoffs, but ALL Troy Aikman did was win in the playoffs. His winning percentage and Super Bowl rings show that. He is without a doubt worthy of his HOF status.
well i dont think its the case of choosing arguements. its more that people expect a lot from those guys. You need to win tons of playoffs games/Championships AND u need to be a dominant guy with awesome stats.

someone447
04-23-2009, 11:43 AM
he was the one that actually led to Tom Brady?

or i mean all those busts that really made some of the NFL Teams bad, big blockbuster trades like the Ricky Williams trade or Michael Vick bringing excitement and well his trials. All those things are part of the NFL. Trent Dilfer could be in the story. Then again, most dominant Linemen are hardly ever in any history of the NFL.

That's why there are less linemen than QBs, RBs, and WRs in the HOF. The Ricky Williams TRADE could maybe be mentioned, but not Ricky Williams the PLAYER. Huge difference there. Drew Bledsoe did not make a mark on the game, he isn't integral to the history of the game. Do you remember who got hurt so Favre would come in?(Don Majkowski) Trent Dilfer doesn't NEED to be part of the story. This is how you tell the Ravens story. The Ray Lewis led Ravens had one of the best defensive performances of all time, however, their offense left something to be desired.

Now tell me, how do you talk about the early 90s Cowboys without mentioning the Triplets?

bigmac076
04-23-2009, 12:28 PM
this argument is so erroneous and off-base I can't even begin to comprehend the thinking process of you nay-sayers. And, mark my words when when I say, next year when it comes time for the all-time leading rusher to be enshrined, people will go on and on about how the only reason he has that many yards is "because he had one of the best offensive lines in front of him. I mean you could drive a truck through them holes!". And how Emmitt Smith doesn't deserve to be a first ballot HOFer. You people are just hilarious.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 12:43 PM
That's why there are less linemen than QBs, RBs, and WRs in the HOF. The Ricky Williams TRADE could maybe be mentioned, but not Ricky Williams the PLAYER. Huge difference there. Drew Bledsoe did not make a mark on the game, he isn't integral to the history of the game. Do you remember who got hurt so Favre would come in?(Don Majkowski) Trent Dilfer doesn't NEED to be part of the story. This is how you tell the Ravens story. The Ray Lewis led Ravens had one of the best defensive performances of all time, however, their offense left something to be desired.

Now tell me, how do you talk about the early 90s Cowboys without mentioning the Triplets?
That would really prevent successful guys on crappy teams to ever be inducted in the HoF. Lets just say someone like Calvin Johnson is on a team like the Lions. Or Barry Sanders on the Lions. I mean you dont need to mention the Lions at all to tell the story of the NFL. You wouldnt really need them at any point. Just like if u talk about the Ravens, is it only the Ravens Defense that u talk about and not the individuals? If u look at that, u dont look at the Individual itself which eventually is the reason why he should be put in the HoF

someone447
04-23-2009, 01:23 PM
That would really prevent successful guys on crappy teams to ever be inducted in the HoF. Lets just say someone like Calvin Johnson is on a team like the Lions. Or Barry Sanders on the Lions. I mean you dont need to mention the Lions at all to tell the story of the NFL. You wouldnt really need them at any point. Just like if u talk about the Ravens, is it only the Ravens Defense that u talk about and not the individuals? If u look at that, u dont look at the Individual itself which eventually is the reason why he should be put in the HoF

No, it wouldn't. You are confusing what I am saying. How do you figure you don't need to talk about the Lions? Ya, they have never been good, but they have been in the league a long time. When you mention teams, you mention the leaders of that team. You can also mention specific players. You can't tell the history of the NFL without talking about Barry Sanders.

If you talk about the Ravens Superbowl year you talk about the defense as a whole, and then you have to talk about Ray Lewis and Rod Woodson.

someone447
04-23-2009, 01:25 PM
this argument is so erroneous and off-base I can't even begin to comprehend the thinking process of you nay-sayers. And, mark my words when when I say, next year when it comes time for the all-time leading rusher to be enshrined, people will go on and on about how the only reason he has that many yards is "because he had one of the best offensive lines in front of him. I mean you could drive a truck through them holes!". And how Emmitt Smith doesn't deserve to be a first ballot HOFer. You people are just hilarious.

There is a huge difference between Emmitt Smith and Troy Aikman. I argue that Smith isn't the GOAT and that his extraordinary stats were largely a result of that O-line. But he is definitely top 5, anyone who tries to argue Smith doesn't deserve a first ballot HOF nod is just a complete homer, and no one hates the Cowboys more than me.

I do think it is ridiculous that people are saying Aikman shouldn't make the hall. But there is no way he should have been a first ballot.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 01:30 PM
No, it wouldn't. You are confusing what I am saying. How do you figure you don't need to talk about the Lions? Ya, they have never been good, but they have been in the league a long time. When you mention teams, you mention the leaders of that team. You can also mention specific players. You can't tell the history of the NFL without talking about Barry Sanders.

If you talk about the Ravens Superbowl year you talk about the defense as a whole, and then you have to talk about Ray Lewis and Rod Woodson.
well if u want to talk about the NFL so closely, the story of the NFL, do u talk about every single team, about every single player on that team? cause if u do it like that u already or lets say u talk about it like that, u already predetermined that u think Aikman or the guy is worthy. so its not really the reason he should be in the HoF but another that makes u think he is

someone447
04-23-2009, 01:39 PM
well if u want to talk about the NFL so closely, the story of the NFL, do u talk about every single team, about every single player on that team? cause if u do it like that u already or lets say u talk about it like that, u already predetermined that u think Aikman or the guy is worthy. so its not really the reason he should be in the HoF but another that makes u think he is

Of course you talk about every team... Every team is important to the history of the NFL(excluding the very early NFL when teams were folding left and right.) The lions would probably get a brief mention, "The Detroit Lions have not won a playoff game since the 50s, and became the first team to go 0-16 in 2008. However, they have had one bright spot in their history, Barry Sanders, arguably the greatest running back of all time. He was on pace to shatter the all-time rushing record before he unexpectedly retired." Then you have to talk about when they had Bobby Lane and Alex Karras, but I don't know enough about the Lions during that time to do it. That is essentially all you needed to say about them.

The REASON I have predetermined is because it is impossible to tell the history of the NFL without mentioning them. That is why Namath is in. It sure as hell isn't stats. It is because you can't tell the history of the NFL without mentioning the guarantee.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 01:52 PM
if u look at it like that u cant really tell it without anyone

someone447
04-23-2009, 01:56 PM
if u look at it like that u cant really tell it without anyone

I swear, you argue with me just to argue with me. I showed you exactly how you could do it.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 02:08 PM
I swear, you argue with me just to argue with me. I showed you exactly how you could do it.
well u just picked it your way.

If u want to tell the whole history, u have to mention everyone. If u just mention the best of the best, u already determined for yourself the best of the best. Why do u think you cant tell the story without them? cause determined they were so good, that made that kind of an impact that they are one of the bests that cant be let out. Which is why they should be in the HoF. not because u mention them in the story. because they are that good u mention them, they arent good cause u mention them.

Nalej
04-23-2009, 02:25 PM
this argument is so erroneous and off-base I can't even begin to comprehend the thinking process of you nay-sayers. And, mark my words when when I say, next year when it comes time for the all-time leading rusher to be enshrined, people will go on and on about how the only reason he has that many yards is "because he had one of the best offensive lines in front of him. I mean you could drive a truck through them holes!". And how Emmitt Smith doesn't deserve to be a first ballot HOFer. You people are just hilarious.

Not true. I def believe E. Smith is a HOF.
Here's the difference though. He had a great OL and he put up great stats
Aikman had a great OL, a great RB and a HOF WR and put up mediocre(sp) stats
M. Irvin had a great RB and a great OL- he put up great stats.
The only person who didn't was Aikman.

To be in the HOF IMO you have to have stats and the post season.
If you don't have the post season success then you need have ridiculous reg season success ala Marino

someone447
04-23-2009, 02:27 PM
well u just picked it your way.

If u want to tell the whole history, u have to mention everyone. If u just mention the best of the best, u already determined for yourself the best of the best. Why do u think you cant tell the story without them? cause determined they were so good, that made that kind of an impact that they are one of the bests that cant be let out. Which is why they should be in the HoF. not because u mention them in the story. because they are that good u mention them, they arent good cause u mention them.

Of course the best of the best will be in the HOF because they are the best. I'm not arguing otherwise. But if you can tell the story of the NFL without including them, they do not deserve the HOF. Both being an integral part of the history and being the best of the best are intertwined. You very, very rarely have one without the other(Namath.) The way you become an important part of NFL history is by being a great player(or changing the game in some way.)

They are important to the history of the NFL BECAUSE they were the best of the best. If you can tell the story of the NFL without including them, they are not the best of the best. Of course, ultimately, the best of the best make the HOF. But being important to the history of the NFL determines who is the best of the best. The two or inextricably linked.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 02:30 PM
well but why are they important to the history? cause of their play. so its their play that should be discussed not the history of the nfl

Burns336
04-23-2009, 03:06 PM
Not true. I def believe E. Smith is a HOF.
Here's the difference though. He had a great OL and he put up great stats
Aikman had a great OL, a great RB and a HOF WR and put up mediocre(sp) stats
M. Irvin had a great RB and a great OL- he put up great stats.
The only person who didn't was Aikman.

To be in the HOF IMO you have to have stats and the post season.
If you don't have the post season success then you need have ridiculous reg season success ala Marino

Irvin's stats really weren't that great.

Nalej
04-23-2009, 04:07 PM
Irvin started for only 8 years. In that span he avg'd:
83 rec- 1287 yds- 7 TDs
To me that's pretty damn hard to AVG that for almost a decade

Aikman avg'd for his career (minus the 1st 2 yrs since his stats are horrible)
2,862 yds- 15 TDs- 11 Int
>3000 yds only 5 of his 12 yrs in league
>20 TDs only once in his career (23)

someone447
04-23-2009, 04:33 PM
well but why are they important to the history? cause of their play. so its their play that should be discussed not the history of the nfl

I'm done, you are being intentionally dense.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 04:34 PM
I'm done, you are being intentionally dense.
no im being rational

someone447
04-23-2009, 04:40 PM
no im being rational

No, you have missed the entire point of what I said, no matter how clearly I've explained it. No one else has seemed to misunderstood me, you have. I don't get how you think I believe the play doesn't matter. The HOF is about people who made a mark on league history, to argue otherwise is asinine. It doesn't matter whether it was a ridiculous guarantee, stellar stats, championship wins, making rule changes, changing coaching, or any number of other things people did that made the HOF. Every single person in the hall of fame is in their because of their mark on the game. It doesn't matter what their mark was, but that is why they are in there.

Gay Ork Wang
04-23-2009, 04:44 PM
im not saying the HoF Player didnt make a mark. i just dont think making a mark is an argument to get into HoF. Its more a sign that he did. but the HOW did he make the mark is the better reason for why he should be in the HoF. He is in the HoF because of his play which left a mark on the game. Focus on his game, his play and naturally the result is the mark making. so concentrate on that first.

MetSox17
04-23-2009, 10:21 PM
There is a huge difference between Emmitt Smith and Troy Aikman. I argue that Smith isn't the GOAT and that his extraordinary stats were largely a result of that O-line. But he is definitely top 5, anyone who tries to argue Smith doesn't deserve a first ballot HOF nod is just a complete homer, and no one hates the Cowboys more than me.

I do think it is ridiculous that people are saying Aikman shouldn't make the hall. But there is no way he should have been a first ballot.

What people fail to see is how balanced and downright dominating those 90s Cowboys teams were. There's a reason Emmitt Smith has a **** ton of yards, and that's because most of the time, they were jamming it down their throats to end games. There was never any need for Troy Aikman to put up 300 plus yards a game, but when they did, he showed up (see '94 NFC Championship), as did Irvin. So really, there's always a way you can attack the statistical argument people make. Second highest playoff winning percentage, three Superbowl rings with an MVP in Superbowl XXVII. How many players can say they've done all that?

Also, i don't think the amount of time someone takes to get into the hall should be looked at as much as you are. Yes, he got in with the first ballot, but who else was there that you wanted to put in his place?

someone447
04-23-2009, 10:34 PM
What people fail to see is how balanced and downright dominating those 90s Cowboys teams were. There's a reason Emmitt Smith has a **** ton of yards, and that's because most of the time, they were jamming it down their throats to end games. There was never any need for Troy Aikman to put up 300 plus yards a game, but when they did, he showed up (see '94 NFC Championship), as did Irvin. So really, there's always a way you can attack the statistical argument people make. Second highest playoff winning percentage, three Superbowl rings with an MVP in Superbowl XXVII. How many players can say they've done all that?

Also, i don't think the amount of time someone takes to get into the hall should be looked at as much as you are. Yes, he got in with the first ballot, but who else was there that you wanted to put in his place?

That's why I am arguing he should belong in the HOF without a doubt.

The first ballot should be reserved for the best of the best. Aikman was never the best QB in the league. I would have put in Ray Guy or Art Monk over him. Then I would have voted in Aikman the next year, without hesitation.

Byrd430
04-23-2009, 11:10 PM
**Warning: May be biased.**

Aikman didn't put up great numbers. He didn't have to. Aikman was a winner. He won football games and championships.

All that aside, I truly believe that he is in based on one thing...

It was Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, AND Troy Aikman who was the face of a franchise that should've won 4 straight Super Bowls (did win 3 out of 4), and became one of the top dynasties in NFL history.

His stats are average, but his championships, and his "mark on history" is more than enough to get him in.

Nalej
04-23-2009, 11:21 PM
Robert Horry a HOF? He had other players that put up all the stats
So his stats are blah- but came up big in every big game.
I think its fair to say that the teams he was on wouldn't of won it all without him
He also has 7 rings. Show'd up to all of them.
Won them in Houston (Halajuwon), Lakers (Kobe/Shaq) and Spurs (Duncan)

HOFer? No ***** way

someone447
04-23-2009, 11:25 PM
Robert Horry a HOF? He had other players that put up all the stats
So his stats are blah- but came up big in every big game.
I think its fair to say that the teams he was on wouldn't of won it all without him
He also has 7 rings. Show'd up to all of them.
Won them in Houston (Halajuwon), Lakers (Kobe/Shaq) and Spurs (Duncan)

HOFer? No ***** way

I think Horry is an eventual hall of famer. He has had a long career and he was huge in big games. Basketball is a completely different argument though. Just due to the number of players on the floor at one time. Each person is more important.

Nalej
04-24-2009, 12:35 AM
I think Horry is an eventual hall of famer. He has had a long career and he was huge in big games. Basketball is a completely different argument though. Just due to the number of players on the floor at one time. Each person is more important.

Well, nevermind then. To me- Horry is nowhere near a HOF

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
04-24-2009, 01:34 AM
I wouldn't put Horry anywhere near the HOF, but that's a bad comparison for Aikman. Horry lucked out by being near Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan. Aikman was a starting QB. Journeyman roleplayer != starting QB.

yourfavestoner
04-24-2009, 03:31 AM
Tony Romo is already blasting away at Troy Aikman's franchise passing records. Is Tony Romo a better QB than Troy Aikman?

We can go round and round with this for days.

3pac
04-24-2009, 03:48 AM
Tony Romo is already blasting away at Troy Aikman's franchise passing records. Is Tony Romo a better QB than Troy Aikman?

We can go round and round with this for days.

At this rate, yes, he will end up a better QB than Troy Aikman.

Assuming of course he manages to actually win some playoff games...

Addict
04-24-2009, 03:50 AM
At this rate, yes, he will end up a better QB than Troy Aikman.

Assuming of course he manages to actually win some playoff games...

statistically, anyway.

3pac
04-24-2009, 03:59 AM
statistically, anyway.

Yeah, not factoring in SBs I meant.

bigmac076
04-24-2009, 07:44 AM
Tony Romo is already blasting away at Troy Aikman's franchise passing records. Is Tony Romo a better QB than Troy Aikman?

We can go round and round with this for days.
Romo probably already is a better pure QB at this time. But Aikman is not in the QB HOF. He's in the Pro Football HOF. Aikman has so many of the intangibles you look for in a team leader. And he was just that, a team leader. And IMO you can throw the stats out the window, and just look at the circumstances; worst to first, leader of a dynasty, 3 Super Bowls/3 Super Bowl wins, Super Bowl MVP, and able to live up to 1st pick overall. That does not happen often and it should be rewarded.