Cowboys random blurbs
by Dave Halprin on Jun 27, 2007 4:55 PM CDT
in News
25 comments
There’s another video of stadium construction up at DC.com.
The DMN blog picked up on my post about Pete Prisco calling Roy Williams the most overrated player in the NFL last year, like Mark Schlereth just did this year. By the way, the Cowboys have been in Schlereth’s doghouse ever since they signed Owens. That dude hates him some Owens. But the DMN blog actually did the journalistic thing and read the article. I just remembered Prisco’s comment from last year, and also someone asking Parcells about it in a press conference. Parcells did his usual thing. You know, he wanted to know what writer, who did he write for, then when he found out, he denigrated Internet sites in general, making friends wherever he went. But that was the Tuna, it was expected, I don’t even remember if he bothered to defend Roy Williams or not.
Anyway, if I had bothered to read the article again (this year) I would have seen that Prisco had Drew Bledsoe as his Cowboys’ most-underrated player last year. I was sure I must have commented on that and the Roy Williams comment, so I searched back to find what I said then.
On the Drew Bledsoe comment – Jul 06, 2006
...I do like his choice for underrated on the Cowboys team (not for the entire league).
Well, that wasn’t much. But here’s me on Roy Williams - Jul 06, 2006
Personally, I think Prisco is being a little harsh. While I've always thought Roy could wrap-up better on tackles - sometimes he goes for the big hit when the occasion screams for making a sure tackle - he's not nearly as bad in coverage as Prisco would have you believe. Certainly he's never going to be a coverage safety - he is a SS after all - so his value lays in getting turnovers, sacks and making momentum changing hits. You can't underestimate that in terms of establishing your defense as intimidators and it does lead to guys hearing footsteps and causing some "alligator arms" when receivers go over the middle.
In my estimation, he's a tad overrated, but still an elite safety and one Dallas should absolutely keep for years to come.
Interesting, I still feel most of that is true. But I’m a little less-pleased with Roy today than I was at this time last year. He did come up with 7 turnovers last season, an excellent stat, but his tackles were down, he had no sacks and his coverage continued to be porous.
Maybe I’ll just drink some Phillips 34 kool-aid and say that with Wade here, it will all be groovy.
Hat tip Burt-D
USA Today is doing a series on the Top 25 NFL players over the past 25 years. So far, Troy Aikman checks in at #20.
It was Aikman's postseason success that defined his career and elevated him among his peers. He won 11 of his first 13 playoffs games, including three Super Bowls in four seasons.
Hat tip DMN blog
0 recs |
25 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Wade-aid!
Pass it on down... I'll have me a drink.
by dunkman on Jun 27, 2007 6:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
And I can't wait to see
who these guys put ahead of Aikman, specifically at the QB position. I only count a handful of QBs I rate as better...
by dunkman on Jun 27, 2007 6:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm wondering about other QBs on the list, too.
Some that come to mind:
Montana
Elway
Farve
Manning
Brady
Marino
and who knows, maybe:
Kelly
Warner
Depends on who is doing the ratings, I suppose.
by llutherr on Jun 27, 2007 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Manning doesnt deserve to be on that list
he consistently sucks in the post season and in no way deserved superbowl MVP that should have gone tho domanic rhodes
by Burt D on Jun 27, 2007 9:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have got to be kidding,
be as biased as you want that guy is and has been for a few years. A Great QB every team wishs they had! After saying that you know Brady has to be there somewhere.
by Badknees on Jun 27, 2007 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As fun as they are to watch...
Ray Lewis and Marshall Faulk DO NOT belong ahead of Troy Aikman.
USA Today never bothered to state what they based their rankings on.
Lewis and Faulk only helped lead their respective teams to ONE Super Bowl Title.
Aikman was a primary contributor to THREE Super Bowl Winning Dallas Cowboys Teams.
I do like the way they described what #8 accomplished by using the following words: "Aikman rescued America's Team."
by kcbrett5 on Jun 27, 2007 9:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Super Bowls
are not necessarily the end all of individual evidence, though I do like it to evaluate the really great teams (and coaches).
I'm sure Michael Irvin and Emmitt Smith will both show up at or near the top of this list. Without seeing the top 20, I wouldn't be so quick to say that Aikman is placed inappropriately.
Teams win Super Bowls. Individuals, for instance, never lead the league in anything.
Troy Aikman was a very good football player who won Super Bowls on an excellent team. He deserves a spot among the Top 25 players in the past 20 years. I do not think he is owed a spot among the top 10. Though if your metric is only "amount of Super Bowls won" he absolutely deserves a spot at the top. But then so does Bill Bates.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 28, 2007 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irvin
There isn't a chance in Hell Irivn makes this list. Emmitt will of course.
Irvin doesn't get the credit he deserves for his talent. It wasn't his and Troy's fault that they played in a primarily rushing offense. I'm sure they don't care, they're both in the HoF.
No way Mike makes this list though...
by mhuff13 on Jun 28, 2007 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno
I think Aikman was better than very good. For starters, he's in the HOF, no the hall of very good. No, he didn't put up Marino numbers, but not because he couldn't. Tremendous accuracy, especially in post-season, which speaks to both talent and mental toughness. Maybe it's definitional. To me, Theisman, Moon, Kelly and Warner were very good. Elway, Favre and Aikman were excellent.
I definitely place Montana at the top of the heap, and probably Marino up there too, and maybe Brady (but I can wait until later in his career to decide). But Aikman is probably at the same level as the rest (in the past 25).
by dunkman on Jun 28, 2007 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
Troy Aikman and Joe Theismann:
I think you're being pretty kind to Theismann, calling him Very Good. I think he was quite good. Aikman is clearly the more accurate passer, though they've got nearly identical TD:Int ratios, identical YPA, though Theismann has nearly twice as many rushing touchdowns and did something that Aikman never did; led the league in a passing category. Theismann's 1983 season is unquestionably better than any of Troy Aikman's regular seasons. Consider touchdowns as well; Troy Aikman threw over 20 just once. Theismann did it three times. In over 1,000 fewer attempts, he had just 5 fewer touchdowns than Troy.
None of which to say is that the latter is better than the former, though I think comparisons between the two are much closer than Cowboys fans would grant. And I can assure you that Theismann will not make this list. Troy Aikman's 3 Super Bowls are what (rightly) put him above Theismann.
Aikman to Warren Moon:
Moon was a bit more accurate than Theismann, a bit less than Aikman. But beyond that (and the Super Bowls) we're really not comparing the same quality of player here. Moon had a higher career YPA, a better TD:Int ratio, was a legitimate running threat, and produced more over the course of his career. Warren Moon was the most prolific QB in the NFL multiple seasons: he led all peers in passing yards in 1990 and 1991, and touchdowns in 1990. Troy Aikman never did that.
Even in the area where Troy Aikman clearly got the benefit of the doubt, Pro Bowls (his '91, '94, and '96 seasons did not warrant it), Warren Moon still wins with 9 to Troy's 6.
Aikman to Jim Kelly:
Both accurate and beyond that Jim Kelly was simply a better quarterback. I'd be interested to hear why you think Troy Aikman deserves to be mentioned in the same argument with Kelly, and not the other way around. One was very good, one was better.
Aikman to Kurt Warner:
Kurt Warner was more accurate. Kurt Warner had a higher YPA. Kurt Warner had a better TD:Int ratio. Kurt Warner led the league in passing yards and Touchdowns (twice). He even had a better postseason record, which seems to be a positive for Troy Aikman.
Again, I'm interested to hear why you think Troy Aikman is better than Kurt Warner? If it's the Super Bowls, then I'll simply concede the point. Some people are of the opinion that players should be measured exclusively by how many rings they have. I'm not one of those people. That's how you evaluate exceptional teams and coaches, in my opinion.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 28, 2007 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You gotta be one fast typist!
First, stats are not nearly as relevant to me as results because Jimmy Johnson was CLEARLY a run-first guy who had a great line and one of the best running backs in the history of the NFL. Math becomes less relevant under those conditions.
I don't necessarily go by championships, although the QB is right up there with the coaches and team when using that as a metric. Sure, an "OK" QB (see Doug Williams, Brad Johnson or Trent Dilfer) can get a team there, but not repeatedly. Add to that the quality of his performances on that stage and you'd be short-sighted to not give that achievement considerable weight.
Here are a few numbers:
- His 90 wins in the 1990s is the most by any quarterback in any decade.
- 11-5 record in the post-season
- 502 passes attempted
- 320 passes completed
- 3,849 passing yards (240.5 ypg)
- 24 passing touchdowns
- 17 passes intercepted
- 89.0 Quarterback rating
- 29.5 passing attempts per interception in the post-season
- 6 Pro Bowls
- 1 Super Bowl MVP award
- 3 Super Bowl victories
I debated on Kelly. A really great QB who despite an extraordinary number of chances could not win the big game. Once, maybe twice is bad luck, team mates (Thomas) letting you down, but somewhere in there, he lacked something to get his team over the top.
Not sure why you selected Warner. First, yes he has some good numbers, but how long did he sustain that? Basically 1999-2003. One of my metrics is sustained excellence. Second, his was definitely a pass-first offense and he had the benefit of two excellent receivers (vs one for Aikman). If you are looking for numbers, compare Troy's 11-5 post-season record to Warner's 7-7. I think you'd be awfully lonely in a room set aside for people who rated Kurt Warner ahead of Troy Aikman.
And I missed on Steve Young, who's game I really admired. I rank him up there as well.
by dunkman on Jun 28, 2007 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
We need to separate team accomplishments from individual ones. For instance:
If we are talking strictly about quarterbacks and how good they are, I don't think Troy Aikman is elevated above Very Good by anything besides his 3 Super Bowls. Certainly nothing about his completion %, TD:Int ratio, YPA, or success relative to his peers suggests otherwise. We might argue that "Troy Aikman didn't have the chance to do X (because the Cowboys were a running team, for instance) but didn't, but really he would have, trust me." But the same could be said about his Super Bowls, which were just as likely not won had he never paired himself next to Emmitt Smith or Michael Irvin. In fact that conclusion seems quite reasonable, given that he compares unfavorably to many other quarterbacks, some listed here, who enjoyed less success in Super Bowls.
For the record, I think Super Bowl performance should count when measuring QBs, I just don't think it should be enough to vaunt a very good Troy Aikman over a demonstrably better Jim Kelly or demonstrably more accomplished Warren Moon. The question becomes how much more important are Super Bowls than regular games, or how important SB statistics are compared to regular season statistics. If you think that SBs are 100 times more important than everything else when measuring quarterbacks, than you'd probably have to conclude that Troy Aikman isn't merely a Very Good quarterback (but Terry Bradshaw is coming with him!). If you think that SBs are more important than regular season games, but not so decisive that they make a Troy Aikman better than a Jim Kelly, then you have at least one thing in common with Skin Patrol (hurrah!).
Great point about Aikman relative to Kurt Warner as regards longevity. I admit that Aikman is a better quarterback than Kurt Warner, despite the fact that the latter was better than the former in their respective primes. I think longevity matters, along with SBs, and I place Troy Aikman in the top 25 of the past 20 years in large part because he was good for many years (as opposed to just a few, like Warner) and because he won a bunch of Super Bowls. Those things matter.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 28, 2007 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately
you can't separate any player - and in particular not the QB - from his team. Who do you credit more, Steve Young or Jerry Rice or the O-line that gave him time or maybe Walsh who designed and play-called the WCO? The team is the context and no stats are truly individual. Emmitt is not Emmitt without Erik Williams, Larry Allen, Jimmy Johnson, Moose Johnston, etc.
Given that, it's really all about what-ifs. Jim Kelly on the Oilers is a sack record waiting to happen. Steve Young staying at Tampa Bay is Michael Vick.
And yes there were some truly gaudy numbers, but Aikman doesn't seriously lag behind any of the QBs you mention, and his accomplishments are obviously significant.
So what I look at is results, which are not really the same as rings or stats. When Troy Aikman had the chance to win or lose playoff games, he that certain something - poise, leadership, drive - that many others did not have (at least in sufficient quantity) that helped his team win. Jim Kelly had four chances to win the Superbowl and managed zero. So what is that stat worth? Since it's the only reason teams take the field in the Fall, pretty much it's worth everything.
by dunkman on Jun 28, 2007 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
So you speculate, when needed. Sometimes it isn't needed, like when comparing Jim Kelly to Troy Aikman (as the former is clearly better). Sometimes it is, when comparing two guys who are comparable due to other factors, like Kurt Warner and Troy Aikman. If you have two qbs with identical stats and identical teammates, the one you give the nod to is the one with more SB wins or more wins or etc. In the absence of identical circumstances, you do your best to evaluate the relative importance of the data available. We'd both seemingly agree, since it appears the disagreement is merely what we choose to emphasise; you like Super Bowls, I like QB statistics.
Emmitt is still an incredible RB if he never wins a single Super Bowl. Troy Aikman is still a very good quarterback if he never wins a Super Bowl. No hypothetical will take that away from either guy.
Earlier I spoke of trying to use the full body of data to evaluate which player is better. Super Bowl rings is one data set, an important one, but it doesn't tell the entire story. It tells which of two teams won a game. It neglects to mention other information, for instance, Troy Aikman faced a Buffalo Bills defense in the Super Bowl that ranked 13th and 28th. Jim Kelly faced a Cowboys defense that ranked 1st and 8th in the Super Bowl. And a 1991 Washington Redskins defense that finished 3rd. And a New York Giants team that finished 2nd, defensively. Those are things worth considering.
Time to quantify how important I think Super Bowls, as you've thoughtfully provided your metric ("everything"). A quarterback's performance in the Super Bowl signifies how they play in the most important game, so there is an additional stress factor in play. They are also playing against a very good team which has necessarily beaten a number of opponents (though as was shown with Troy Aikman, he wasn't necessarily playing against above average defenses), so it should be valued more statistically than a game against a cupcake.
So how much? I'll start with X times as important as a typical regular season game (atypical ones being week 17, for instance).
In other words, I value Super Bowls some amount less than as "everything".
by Skin Patrol on Jun 28, 2007 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
"everything" was a rhetorical device, not a mathematical expression. It's purpose was to state the obvious - that the only metric that really matters to players and franchises every year is winning.
Aikman's completion percentage and QB rating is more than adequate to be considered anmong the best. But the context means more than you give it credit for. Why didn't Aikman throw for more yards, like Elway or Marino or Favre? It wasn't his call, except for an audible or three. It was the system he played in and the coaching calls. His percentages say that had Johnson/Switzer elected to pass more often, his numbers would have been as grand as other QBs he is supposed to compare unfavorably to. That's not as much a hypothetical as it is an extrapolation of his numbers.
Normally this is a discussion you have when a great QB fails to win a championship, say in the case of Marino. In this case he put up great numbers given the system he played in (as opposed to being based on his own lack of ability) and in the process won more games in a decade than any QB in history. I'd say that's above very good, but it's all in what one values.
And by the way, having watched him in the big games, I have a great deal of respect for Bradshaw's ability.
by dunkman on Jun 28, 2007 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
In any event, we're speculating now on what Aikman didn't do, and I want to stay away from that. You've provided a context for why Aikman's numbers are less than the others, and I think it's worth taking that into account. But we don't know what Aikman does with more pass attempts. Maybe he bombs. We don't know what he does without Smith or Johnson or Switzer. Maybe he bombs. I'm not going to grade Aikman on what he didn't do, though I appreciate putting his production in context of the offense he found himself.
Personally, I think he benefitted far more from said offense production-wise than he did suffer as a prisoner of it. Just my opinion though, and I've heard they're a lot like noses.
I'm not dogging Terry Bradshaw. Terry might, as he's an admitted Steelers hater. But I have no beef with the Bradshaw. I absolutely don't think he's one of the best quarterbacks of all time; perhaps in the top 20, but not in the top 10.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 28, 2007 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make a fine arguement!
However, it falls on deaf ears in this Blog! At least with me! Was Troy in the top 25 in history according to the numbers? Hell, I don't know numbers mean little to me. Wins, losses and championships mean something thou, and Aikman was one of the best in my book when he had the tools to work with.
Earlier an argument was be made about how much the team mattered. Well, it matters a lot as far as if you win or lose and just how effective you are on any given play good O-lines will help, bad ones will hurt. Receivers who can get open and have good hands help, and ones that don't...don't. Good defenses also help as the they set up better opportunities, give you more chances and allow you to make more mistakes and can even win games for you; where as the bad ones will do the exact opposite.
How does this all help the argument that Troy Aikman was one of the best QBs in the last 25 years? I don't guess it does, but I'm a die hard cowboy fan and in my book, he is along with Roger Staubach, and Danny White were among the best top ever play the game.
Like I said you make a great argument. But numbers don't make greatness. Wins, Losses and how your fans remember you, how ever biased is what makes you a legend. So, thank you for your opinion we'll take it for what its worth to the Cowboy fan. Now, with all due respect quit talking negative about A HOF QB on his teams site, and go mqke an arguement why any Redskin QB should be on any list ( the most entertaining Redskin QB I ever watched was Sonny Jergensen!); Because, you can't win this argument on this board regardless of the presentable facts. Greatness is about more than numbers!
by Badknees on Jun 29, 2007 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Partisan support for your players
is what makes for great fans. I have a lot of respect for your point of view and I am not the least bit confuzzled that Cowboys fans hold Troy Aikman in higher esteem than I might. Afterall, I'm sure I have a much higher opinion of, say, Art Monk than you guys.
Troy Aikman is a deserving Hall of Famer and a great quarterback. I don't want to take anything away from him.
by Skin Patrol on Jun 29, 2007 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Art Monk was a great player
just not as great as Michael of course. ;)
by Terry on Jun 29, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
...measured by arrests?
by Skin Patrol on Jun 29, 2007 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He said Irvin
Monk deserves the HOF, but there is most definitely a bias against certain teams and favor toward certain others. The Steelers and 9ers, good as they were, are over-represented. The Cowboys, Redskins and Giants are under-represented. Maybe because they had excellent TEAMS and people have trouble picking them out. I don't know.
by dunkman on Jun 29, 2007 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aikman was the best qb
during the last 25 years. He could have put up gaudy numbers like Marino or Manning, but he wanted to win championships, which he did.
If I want to win a game, I want Aikman qbing my team, period, end of story.
by Terry on Jun 28, 2007 2:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
