Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Troy Aikman vs. Steve Young

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by boknows34 View Post
    Larry Allen, Deion and Emmitt all still make the Top 100 without those titles imo. Irvin and Aikman would have missed the cut.

    Nobody is saying Troy is comparible to Trent Dilfer but more likely a Phil Simms who was still a very good QB but a notch below what is required for Canton.
    Well said. I agree.
    -Boston Red Sox-New England Patriots-Boston Celtics-

    Comment


    • #32
      It's Young by a sizeable margin.

      However, I think that both Bradshaw and Aikman are criminally underrated by the hardcore football fanbase. They might be overrated by the media and casual fans, but it's caused an undue backlash on them from the hardcore football fans.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by bullg8rdaddy View Post
        .gif FAIL?
        yeah I guess hotlinking wasnt the best choice.


        Pick the Winners Champion 2008 | 2011

        Comment


        • #34
          Young also has a couple of signature moments. The ones you see on NFL Films a lot. That pass to Terrell Owens in the wild card game in 1998 and the run against the Vikings are probably his most memorable. And the best performance by a quarterback in the Super Bowl.

          "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
          -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
          Originally posted by Borat
          Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

          Comment


          • #35
            Thanks for the feedback fellas. Very informative. As we all know stats only tell part of the story and can be made to suit almost any agenda.

            Does Emmitt owe anything to Troy and Michael for possibly keeping defenses honest and having to respect the pass instead of loading up the box all the time? I know that Barry Sanders would probably have destroyed all kinds of records if he had the Cowboy O-line from that era, but Emmitt was no slouch either. (I know no one has gone that far in this thread.)

            "I don't do Pro Days, we send our scouts to those. I would rather spend my time watching film. The eye in the sky never lies. Functional Strength and athletic ability are the first things we look for in a college prospect." - Mark Dominik, Buccaneers GM

            Comment


            • #36
              Didn't think people really thought this was close.
              Originally posted by SNIPER26
              fwiw, i amz deunks ofs myt ass. ilo vez drinmoinz befotre i post. wha t a hreat ideas.z.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by bullg8rdaddy View Post
                Thanks for the feedback fellas. Very informative. As we all know stats only tell part of the story and can be made to suit almost any agenda.

                Does Emmitt owe anything to Troy and Michael for possibly keeping defenses honest and having to respect the pass instead of loading up the box all the time? I know that Barry Sanders would probably have destroyed all kinds of records if he had the Cowboy O-line from that era, but Emmitt was no slouch either. (I know no one has gone that far in this thread.)
                It really helps aslong as its not so good that it really cuts down on Smith's carries. Smith has the record for carries, so that didn't happen to him.

                A good passing game helped the Cowboys get leads in the 4th quarter, so he'd get even more carries late.

                Sanders had Herman Moore, Brett Perriman and Scott Mitchell for a while, they were a strong passing game.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Saints-Tigers View Post
                  Didn't think people really thought this was close.
                  Apparently NFL Network did. They put Aikman ahead of Young by one spot.

                  "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
                  -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
                  Originally posted by Borat
                  Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Stats are semi-irrelevant here. Both were asked to do vastly different things, and they both did them with great success.

                    People act like Aikman hit the lottery going to the Cowboys, but so did Young. If he had not been traded to the 49ers we probably wouldn't even know who he is right now.

                    I'll vote for Young still, but not by as much as some people in here would seem to believe.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Young was the better pure QB IMO, but Dallas scored so many points on the ground, with their D creating turnovers and with Aikman throwing strikes to Irvin.

                      The Cowboys didn't need Aikman to win shootouts or throw for 400 yards and 3TDs a game to dominate.

                      If you watched Aikman in the playoffs during the Cowboys SB run(s), you really don't have a problem with him being in Canton.

                      But if you go strictly by stats, he looks overrated.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by FUNBUNCHER View Post
                        Young was the better pure QB IMO, but Dallas scored so many points on the ground, with their D creating turnovers and with Aikman throwing strikes to Irvin.

                        The Cowboys didn't need Aikman to win shootouts or throw for 400 yards and 3TDs a game to dominate.

                        If you watched Aikman in the playoffs during the Cowboys SB run(s), you really don't have a problem with him being in Canton.

                        But if you go strictly by stats, he looks overrated.
                        Bingo, bango, jango.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I feel like, it's almost as if winning championships actually hurts your perception amongst the die hard fans today bc they now look for reasons to call you overrated.

                          Part of me wants to say Aikman was better, bc Aikman was better in the playoffs than Young.

                          Young was statistically dominant, but the guy was a constant underachiever in the postseason.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
                            I feel like, it's almost as if winning championships actually hurts your perception amongst the die hard fans today bc they now look for reasons to call you overrated.

                            Part of me wants to say Aikman was better, bc Aikman was better in the playoffs than Young.

                            Young was statistically dominant, but the guy was a constant underachiever in the postseason.
                            That's because it's such an arbitrary and subjective topic - and it really just comes down to how you define "better."

                            The line is really drawn when you're attempting to define "who was the better player" vs "who had the better career." How you value these things ultimately affects your perception on the greatness of players.

                            Hardcore fans tend to be such close-up examiners that they end up not being able to see the forest for the trees, so to speak. I've given countless examples over the years about how worthless statistics are in measuring a player's ability because statistics in football don't happen in a vacuum.

                            This is especially true for quarterbacks. Football is a team game, yes, but the quarterback arguably has more of an impact on any particular game than the other 21 players combined. He is the conductor of the offense and the trophy of the defense.

                            The most unfair recipient of criticism, IMO, is Terry Bradshaw. The favorite arguments against him center around his statistics and his supporting cast. Fine. Well, who in the 1970s was better than Bradshaw? Really, the only guy is Staubach - and he would likely be considered the GOAT if he had played a full NFL career.
                            Last edited by yourfavestoner; 02-02-2011, 06:51 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by bigbluedefense View Post
                              I feel like, it's almost as if winning championships actually hurts your perception amongst the die hard fans today bc they now look for reasons to call you overrated.

                              Part of me wants to say Aikman was better, bc Aikman was better in the playoffs than Young.

                              Young was statistically dominant, but the guy was a constant underachiever in the postseason.
                              And at the same time, one could easily turn right around and say that being statistically dominant in the regular season has started to hurt guys as they are never that dominant in the post season. This is because postseason games are won by great TEAMS, not players.

                              Look at Brady (as of 2006), manning, and young. all have been great in the regular season, but none won crap without good teams around them, particularly on the other side of the ball. Yet they were called chokers because they werent as dominant in the postseason. This is because they went from playing good teams every now and then to playing great defenses and well coached teams every game in the postseason.

                              So of course they wont do as well if they are forced to continue to carry the team. A great qb can get his team to the playoffs, but from their he needs help. If the game's all on him, hes not going to win.
                              Originally posted by Thumper/JBCX/Bixby
                              Orton will never be in the same class as the Drew Brees or the Peyton Mannings or the Tom Bradys of the world. Kevin Kolb has the potential to be that kind of player.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by hockey619 View Post
                                And at the same time, one could easily turn right around and say that being statistically dominant in the regular season has started to hurt guys as they are never that dominant in the post season. This is because postseason games are won by great TEAMS, not players.

                                Look at Brady (as of 2006), manning, and young. all have been great in the regular season, but none won crap without good teams around them, particularly on the other side of the ball. Yet they were called chokers because they werent as dominant in the postseason. This is because they went from playing good teams every now and then to playing great defenses and well coached teams every game in the postseason.

                                So of course they wont do as well if they are forced to continue to carry the team. A great qb can get his team to the playoffs, but from their he needs help. If the game's all on him, hes not going to win.
                                Wait, so how you perform against the best competition should somehow count less because it's harder? A player's (especially a quarterback's) greatness is measured by times of adversity.

                                This is exactly what we're talking about.
                                Last edited by yourfavestoner; 02-02-2011, 12:50 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information