Aikman vs. Romo
by beautifultyrant on Apr 9, 2009 6:59 PM CDT
Email
PrintMany of you would say there’s no comparison simply because of the fact that Aikman is a hall of famer, a proven quarterback , and a legend in Dallas, not necessarily in that order. Another argument is that they have two different styles.
But let’s have some fun. Let’s start with some stories from Aikman’s training camps.
Some might remember, during one training camp, that Mark Tuinei challenged “Roy”, Tuinei’s nickname for Aikman, to hit a can off his head 20 yards away. Tuinei, trusting Aikman completely, did not move or flinch, or so the story goes. “Roy” threw a strike and wiped the can clean off Tuinei’s head, adding to the legend of his accuracy.
Another time, Nate Newton said Aikman was “the man” and that 400 yard games were imminent. It never happened; he never had those 400 yard barnburners like Marino, Elway or even Favre. A pure pocket passer and accurate as hell, Aikman never had to throw for 400 yard games because he could pick his spots; he was also on one of the most balanced teams in NFL history. However, Aikman could have done it if he had to. He was that accurate and talented. Aikman’s stats were not great; they weren’t even that good (11 years, 165 TD, 32,942 yds). Anyway you state it, the stat argument is moot because all Aikman did was bring home playoff victories and Super Bowl championships.
What about Romo? What are his training camp stories? His training camp stories involve Jessica Simpson and parties! I jest! From all accounts Romo is a professional and works hard during the off season. He is, after all, trying to build chemistry with “the receiver.” What about Romo’s lore and his legend? Well…that comes with time, and it’s not time yet.
What about his football qualities? He doesn’t have Aikman’s arm strength, but he is accurate, and he is a pure passer, Dan Marino with athleticism. I’m on the record for saying Romo’s a better passer than Aikman. He might be a better passer than anyone in the game right now, better than Manning, better than Brady. Before you think I’m on ‘shrooms, let me explain. Romo is not the prototypical pocket passer ala Manning, Brady, or Aikmen. He can be, but that is not his strength. He passes with accuracy on roll outs and boot-legs, he side steps rushers and throws accurate darts to Witten, he throws a very accurate long ball to a speeding receiver (insert TO), he can improvise on a broken plays and throw amazing touchdown passes, and again, if necessary, he can stand in the pocket and throw a timely slant. Aikman, for being one of the most… if not the most accurate pocket passer in NFL history could not do all this; he was not as athletically gifted as Romo is.
Romo’s stats prove he is a hell of a passer; just look at all the TDs he has thrown in a 2 ½ year period (81 TD, 10,562 yds).
His mistakes, and there are many, prevent people from recognizing how special Tony Romo really is. Only when he cuts down on his mistakes will people begin to appreciate Romo’s talents.
Don’t get me wrong, Aikman was and still is one of my favorite players, but he did have one of the most dominant offensive lines in NFL history and the best running back of the era.
Romo has a good line and good running backs, had a heck of a receiver. Yes Owens is better that Irvin, but that’s another post.
Right now Aikman is revered and he deserves it; he does have three rings.
Romo only has good stats. But give Romo time; he will deliver. When Romo wins a championship or two and retires after a good career, we will all declare “Romo was a better quarterback than Aikman.”
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
59 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Couldn't agree more. I guess it just never occured to me to get rid of Romo
as some people have suggested on here mainly because I remember some of the insane throws he makes. You nailed this part: “Only when he cuts down on his mistakes will people begin to appreciate Romo’s talents.” That’s fuel for the dissenters’ fire and when he cuts those back, watch out world!
here, here!
Draft Nick Reed. Draft Nick Reed. Draft Nick Reed. Say that fast, five times!
by Aaron Novinger on Apr 10, 2009 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
What
Comparing T.O to Michael Irvin is hard for me to do i mean based on TD’s you have to give it to him but the ability to make a play on a ball he will never be as good as 88 was
09+24+28+23+82+11+94+41+26+31+90+32+56=2009 Success!!!!
No...
TO is faster and the better athlete…OK Irvin was a leader and nobody ran a better slant. I’ll give you that. As far as pure talent…TO.
by beautifultyrant on Apr 10, 2009 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
+1
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 10, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions
You've got to be kidding
Aikman had poise, leadership, command of the offense, presence in the huddle, on the field, in the locker room, and off the field. Aikman was difficult to rattle, and had the mental toughness to stare down a blitzing LB and throw Irvin a 20 yard out on a rope!
These are the VERY qualities that Romo is missing. When the pressure in on, Romo is stumbling, fumbling, and bumbling, then he heaves a rainbow pass up for grabs, which all too often lands in the hands of a DB.
When I see Romo sling a pass way down field, I find myself cringing and hoping. With Aikman passing the ball, I always felt confident and assured that he knew what he was doing.
You might want to compare Romo to a young Brett Farve, but he is absolutely not in the class of Troy Aikman.
i think its difficult to compare
Romo hasn’t had a running game that can win him games. There were so many times last year that teams straight up pass rushed and decided to take their losses with our running game. Coming off of that injury, Romo just didn’t look the same to me – usually, as you said about aikman, he would make defenses pay for the blitz, but his timing was way off and he couldn’t seem to throw a slant for his life.
Romos only had two training camps under his belt as a starter. In 3 years, we’ll be able to make a much better comparison. If Romo can play as well in december and january as he does in the first 3 months…considering this offense relies 100% on the passing game to succeed….a super bowl victory for romo will be more impressive than any aikman had.
Come one Bishop...
In his first two to three years Aikman was nothing speacial; you couldn’t see all those intangibles you mentioned…well toughness for sure. Now, in 91 and 92 you could clearly see what Aikman brought to the table. Hell, in 92 he brought a Super bowl to the table, but my point is it takes time. I know Romo is 29 but he has only starteted two year.s This is his year. If the line holds up; Romo is going to be spectacular; he will win in the playoffs.
by beautifultyrant on Apr 10, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions
you couldn’t see all those intangibles you mentioned…
They were there nonetheless.
It’s hard for the fans, sitting at home, to see those intangibles when the QB (Aikman) is getting killed during a 1-15 season.
But they were there. By the time a guy gets to the NFL, a QB either as it or he doesn’t (regarding leadership).
Aikman had it from day one. Period. It might not have been visible at home on the big screen, but he had it in the huddle.
I don't really agree with that.
Give any qb the Terrel Owens that was on the Eagles and 49ers and he will alter their carer and “leadership skills” for the worst. There are other players like this too. Luckily we got the less toxic version of TO which is why im not as worried going forward. There are other players around a qb that play just as important a role in his success/leadership.
As far as your comment...
“It’s hard for the fans, sitting at home, to see those intangibles when the QB (Aikman) is getting killed during a 1-15 season.” One could make the same arugument for Romo. Romo was getting killed by his line this year. When the line performed well in 2007, you could see what he could do.
As far as leadership qualities, there are different types. Aikman was a stoic, demanding type, Montana was a relaxed lead by example type, and Favre was a gunslinging, tough as nails MF. I think, if protected by his line, Romo can be a Favre-like leader. Yes some intangibles are innate, but leadership is leanred too,
And by the way, give fans credit, they are not as ignorant as you’re implying.
by beautifultyrant on Apr 11, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions
+1
Draft Nick Reed. Draft Nick Reed. Draft Nick Reed. Say that fast, five times!
by Aaron Novinger on Apr 10, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
+1
Pull the emotion and ‘boy, I just know he is gonna be great’ stuff out of the conversation.
Let’s stop the comparisons to the all time greats here and just focus on the REAL world.
Romo is on the verge of becoming McNaab. The guy everyone wants to love, but also the guy who can’t get his team over the hump because he has no WR’s or gets hurt at key times or has o-line breakdowns. It’s hard not to like Tony. Everyone wants him to be the NEXT AikmanMarinoBradyElway.
He isn’t.
This year, we’ll find out what he really is…
"Well, we didn't block real good but we made up for it by not tackling."
- John McKay, the first coach of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers
"Stats" & "Intangibles"
You say this: Aikman’s stats were not great; they weren’t even that good (11 years, 165 TD, 32,942 yds). Anyway you state it, the stat argument is moot because all Aikman did was bring home playoff victories and Super Bowl championships.
Then you say this: Romo only has good stats. But give Romo time; he will deliver. When Romo wins a championship or two and retires after a good career, we will all declare "Romo was a better quarterback than Aikman."
Really? For REALITY, please read the 8:23 post from my “good friend, Bishop West!”
Bishop pretty much nailed it there (and personally, I like Tony. He’s a good kid).
Then you say this: Yes Owens is better that Irvin, but that’s another post.
Now , THAT’S HYSTERICAL! Nobody on the Cowboys worked harder than Michael Irvin. Nobody wanted to win more than Michael Irvin. Nobody was more of a team leader (something that’s almost completely missing from the current Cowboys) than Michael Irvin.
Off-The-Field? TO wins hands down against Michael. He’s never been in trouble off the field. Michael loses that argument in a heartbeat.
On-The Field? It’s not even close. I don’t care what the stats say. On the field, TO isn’t half the player that Michael was. Michael (like all WR’s) wanted the ball just as much as TO. The difference? Michael wanted the ball to WIN! TO wanted the ball to pull out his Sharpie, or grab the box of popcorn, or wave the pom-poms. (Hey America, look at me. I just made a TD! I’m the greatest thing since sliced bread)!
Respectfully, the problem with people such as yourself is that you give too much credence to the “tangibles” and not near enough to the “intangibles.”
Stat wise, Romo and TO are in the same league as Michael and Troy. Intangible wise, they’re not even close.
What?
Irvin worker harder, wanted to win and was more of a leader than TO. Ok maybe thats true but its irrelevant when discussing who is the better WR, which would be TO hands down
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 10, 2009 4:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Say What?
NO, that’s definitely true. And you just don’t get it. Great players combine “Stats” with “Intangibles.”
The “better WR” is the one that combines the physical skills of pass receiving with the “intangibles” of leadership and “team” not “individual” goals.
The BIGGEST difference between the SB winning Cowboys of the Jimmy Johnson era and the non-playoff winning Cowboys in the years since Jimmy?
Both eras had excellent players. The team that won SB’s had LEADERS (both players and coaches); the team that hasn’t won even one playoff LACKS leadrship (both players and coaches).
Apparently you are confusing the NFL with “Fantasy Football.”
See, in “Fantasy Football,” intangibles do not exist. It’s just numbers. In the NFL however, Intangibles matter! See BishopWest’s “You’ve got to be kidding”post at 8:23 for an example intangibles at the QB position.
You’re funny!
Well Alvin Harper won two with the 1990's cowboys
That doesnt make him a better WR than TO. Wideouts dont win championships on their own, Irvin just happened to be on one of the best teams of all time.
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 10, 2009 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Irvin didn't just
happen to be on one of the best teams of all time. He played a huge role in helping make that team one of the best teams of all time.
I’ll repeat: Nobody worked harder on that team. Nobody wanted to win more on that team. Nobody was as big a leader on that team.
That’s miles away from just being on that team.
Comparing Harper to Irvin is kind of laughable.
This is pointless...
I only mentioned Harper because fo your assertion that Irvin’s SB ring meant he was a better WR than TO, which is completely wrong
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 11, 2009 12:55 AM CDT up reply actions
Pointless?
Speaking of pointless remarks (by you), this gem: Wideouts dont win championships on their own. Fantastic. Really. Actually, as I stated elsewhere, no player wins “on their own.”
Down below, on April 10th at 7:08, I posted on that very subject. It’s worth reading.
Irvin’s SB rings don’t make him better than TO. His SB’s ring and his HOF bust are a by-product of two factors: his receiving skills and (almost as importantly) his leadership skills. TO, for all his considerable receiving skills, not only isn’t a team leader, but his actually more of a team cancer. And therin lies the difference between the two. Both could catch a football. However, one (Irvin) helped lead his team to victory while the other (TO) almost always ended up causing the team problems becasue of his selfish attitude.
Want proof? Just look at what recently happened. Jones reluctantly cut TO, who was such a great WR. Why? It’s not cause TO forgot how to catch a pass. No, it’s cause TO helps ruin a teams chemistry (so says Aikman and almost anyone else who pays attention to football).
I never said that Irvin “won the SB by himself.” Did I?
I said he was a key ingredient. Not only for his receiving skills, but for his leadership skills. Something that’s almost completely lacking from this current team. Something that’s been almost completely lacking since the Jimmy Johnson era.
You can have all the players in the world (Dallas had one of the most talented teams in the NFL last year): Without leadrship (from coaches and select players) and team almost assuredly will not go all the way.
Until people from Jerry Jones on down begin to understand this simple concept, don’t be surprised to see the Cowboys underachieve again.
Irvin's List
Michael tells this story (I believe on America’s Game, NFL Network).
Irvin was in Dallas the year before his college coach (Jimmy – from the “U”) arrived in Dallas.
In Irvin’s “year-before-Jimmy” down in Dallas, he closely observed what was going on in the locker room. Michael hated losing and pretty much hated being on that team. When Jimmy arrived, Irvin gave him a list of the players on the team.
The list of players were basically placed in either one of two groups:
A) Guys that wanted to win.
and
B) Guys that were just playing for a paycheck.
The first thing Irvin did in the “Jimmy Johnson era” was to give JJ a list of the “winners and losers” on that team.
That’s a guy who really wants to win. That’s team leadership.
Harper was number 2. He wasnt the lead dog.
Harper also proved he wasnt up to the challenge of being the number 1. Im talking big dog to big dog.
Im of the opinion that he was one of the main reasons it was one of the best teams of all time.
Irvin raised everyones game.
+1
Irvin maximized his talent to win big games, TO minimizes his talent with his mouth and divisive antics.
Acatully Irvin only has three rings...
unfortunately…
And can’t both Irvin and Owens be good?
0 = The number of Super Bowls the Eagles have won.
They are both excellent receivers
One (Irvin) badly wanted to win FIRST. He knew that by playing great AND winning that he’d have it all in Dallas.
The other (TO) badly wanted to be the “center of attention.” Witness his standing on the Dallas Star while a 49er. Nothing illustrates TO more than that! Winning, to TO, was a secondary concern of his, behind being the center of attention.
If you’re a (hypothetical) Cowboy fan, don’t all you really care about is winning? If you’re a Cowboy fan sitting at home or in the stands, do you really care about how many balls a WR catches, or how much he hogs the spotlight?
I wouldn’t. I’d just care about Wins and Losses and Super Bowls.
Let's see (Irvin/TO)
One WR racks up big numbers as he bounces from team (SF) to team (Philadelphia) to team (Dallas) to team (Buffalo). The other WR racks up numbers almost as big as he bounced from one team (Dallas) to the other team (the HOF).
Guess who. The former? TO. The latter? Michael Irvin.
Oh, by the way. Here are the stat lines between the two:
Receptions per game: 4.71 (Irvin) 5.03 (TO)
Yards per Game: 74.9 (Irvin) 74.7 (TO)
Yards per Reception: 15.9 (Irvin) 14.8 (TO)
TD’s: 65 (Irvin) 139 (TO)
Irvin gained one more yard per reception. TO had twice the TD’s.
Irvin was more of a possession WR while TO was more of a deep threat.
Nobody (least of all myself) is denying TO’s considerable receiving skills.
That said, Irvin was a key ingredient of Dallas’ SB winning teams, as well as a member of the HOF.
Eventually, teams can’t wait to get rid of TO (who will almost certainly never win a SB and almost certainly will never make the HOF).
TO: The better “Fantasy Football” WR.
Michael: The better SB winning, HOF, WR.
Are you a Cowboy fan, or is TO on your Fantasy Football team?
I see...
That your time away from these boards, you haven’t been reading any books on people skills.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
You kill me
I lack “people skills” because I disagreed with some of beautifultyrant’s post.
That’s funny.
No...
I disagree with people all the time.
I just generally try to talk to other people like adults.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
I think the fundamental difference in our opinoins derives from different interpritations of the term "better WR"
Irvin may have been a better teammate and preferable to have on your squad from an overall view, but to me the better WR is the guy who, if you solely look at on the field performance you would rather have in a key game. To me that guy is TO.
Irvin may have been a better player, but TO is a better WR.
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 10, 2009 7:59 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm having trouble agreeing with you
I can think of times when T.O. dropped key passes that hit him right in the hands.
Irvin was “Mr. Clutch” and the “go to guy” for Aikman. When Irvin lined up on the right side and did that little “slant in” it was almost always good for a 1st down. The chemistry between Aikman and Irvin was on a total different level than that of Romo and T.O.
In the final 2 minutes of a game, losing by 4, and needing to go the length of the field with first downs and get out of bounds-clock control = Aikman and Irvin were MONEY!
Well Id agree with that
If I was choosing between Aikman/Irvin and Owens/Romo, I would side with the former. However looking at the WR in isolation, TO would still be my choice.
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 10, 2009 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions
The two....
Are really hard to compare anyways because they ran an entirely different type offense.
Aikman/Irvin was really a run based offense that set up the pass, where the latter IMO is more pass happy.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
What do you really mean by "isolation"
Since T.O. can’t play all by himself, even though he said, “I love ME SOME ME!”
I’m not trying to be argumenative – but let me just ask this question.
In their prime (Irvin and T.O.) and if both of them were free agents, and you could get either one of them for the same money, Who Do You Pick?
By isolation I meant not involving Aikman/Romo in the discussion
And my signing would depend on my teams situation I think. If I was rebuilding, I would probably take Irvin, but if I thought I was one player away from a SB, I would sign TO
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Apr 10, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Football is unique
in team sports like baseball, basketball etc.
In baseball, Derek Jeter can hit a homerun for the Yankees. His teammates could be sleeping in the dugout. Jeter scores a run all by himself.
In basketball, Michael Jordan can grab a defensive rebound, take the ball upcourt completely by himself and score. His teammates could have done absolutely nothing to help him out on the play.
In football, it’s totally different. In order for TO to catch a pass, at the very least six other people (if not ten) have to help out (the QB and the O-Line).
No one player can do ANYTHING on the field by himself. Whatever receiving skills TO had/has, he undermines those skills with his “ME first, and not TEAM first” attitude.
That’s why Jerry Jones wisely let him go. If TO was so valuable, then why’d Jerry let him go. I’m pretty sure that Jerry Jones never, ever thought of cutting Michael Irvin (at least concerning his on-field play).
And that’s the difference. TO is a great talent who really doesn’t understand the concept of team play.
Players pile up stats, and teams win championships.
Cowboy fan since '81...
Just an opinion GeoMak.
by beautifultyrant on Apr 10, 2009 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions
I liked a lot of your post. It was well written
(although I disagree with the “stats” argument). And for the record I like Tony. My cousin went to school at Eastern Illinois.
Half, maybe two thirds of the teams in the NFL would love to have Tony. He’s fun to watch and he’s an above average QB. Easily. I think it will really help him not having TO this year.
The biggest difference between the Aikman era and the Romo era is leadership IMO.
Leadership, to me, starts at the top and works it’s way down. Starting with Jimmy, it worked it’s way down to guys like Michael and others.
I just don’t see that type of leadership at all on the Cowboys (post Jimmy). At all. I don’t see it from the HC and I don’t see it from any selected players.
TO & Michael
Rightly or wrongly TO has been called (a million times) a cancer.
Michael Irvin has been called a winner, a team leader, and one of, if not the, hardest working player on his team.
There’s a Grand Canyon sized difference between those two characterizations
great post, although I have to say
I don’t agree that Romo is a better pure passer than Romo. Troy’s game was soley within the pocket, he had some mobility, more than guys like Marino and Fouts, but he did his damage within the pocket and no qb who ever played did it better.
Romo, however, is a different kind of qb. While he certainly can slice up opposing secondaries within the pocket, he’s his most dangerous when the play breaks down and he has to make something out of nothing, something Troy and the vast majority of qbs can’t do, Manning and Brady included.
Comparing Romo and Troy is tough because their styles and talents are different, both are unique but both are truly special as well.
In Romo we Trust
I'm a little confused
Terry, you said “Romo is a better pure passer than Romo”
I’m assuming one of those names should be Aikman – which one?
Or are you comparing the “Good Romo” with the “Bad Romo?” ;)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
