Although I think that alot of their success also stems from the defense.

I think Ben is really good, but if you look at the games were Troy P. plays to where he doesn’t… I honestly think he’s the best player on that team. He can be the difference between them being one and done in the playoffs to getting to a super bowl.

Montana had tow more great seasons with Kanas City. One year he got them all the way the AFC championship game.

I know, its not all about stats.

But the guy pretty much got in the hall on a guarantee.

I just don’t think that Namath is really in the same class as alot of guys.

I totally agree with the different era guys. I mean how do you compare Otto Graham to someone?

Plus, alot of those QB’s played in systems that were tailored just for passing.

Generally guys who win 3-4 superbowls, don’t ever have to put up ridiculous statistics because they benefit from a monster run game and great defense.

Tom Brady wasn’t ever having to put up big numbers in those superbowls because his defense and running games were pretty solid.. but when the secondary and defense as a whole was old, along with a sub par running game.. it forced him to air it out.

how is he too high? he has the all time TD record, super bowl, and mvp, are you really going to hold that he was the most durable QB of all time AGAINST him? for some reason i find that a plus.

Ok, cool, so I learned something today. Did a little research on the guy from profootballhof.com and wikipedia. Herber was the QB of the Packers from 1930 – 1940 and then 2 years with Giants after the war. He won a bunch of passing titles and threw more than any other QB, especially when Don Hutson arrived in 1935. Herber to Hutson was the first big-time threat to go deep. Herber is a Hall of Famer and a member of the 1930s All-Decade team. He Quarterbacked the Packers to 4 Championships in ’30, ’31, ’36, and ’39.

Longer than just about anyone else. The key metrics are yard per attempt and not turning the ball over. He did both extremely well for a long time, longer than Montana.

Elway was really only a great qb the last five or so years of his career. He threw tons of interceptions his first ten years, which causes me to devalue that period. I give him credit for his come from behind clutch wins, but not as much as most people.

There’s various media awards, but the AP award is the dominant one.

I need to correct myself on how many people won three MVPs. Unitas and Jim Brown also won three, but Favre was the only person to do it three years in a row.

plus, i hate to hold the concussions against him, but if he was a little more mobile maybe that would have helped.

Young ran one of the most efficient and productive offenses in the history of the league, even when everyone knew they were going to pass. You prove to me the so-called system inflated his efficiency. Prove it.

Aikman was surrounded by Pro-Bowlers on offense, had the third best running back in the history of the league, had an offensive coordinator who ran a balanced attack, and Young still was much more efficient than Aikman.

No comparison between the two, Young was much, much better.

Yeah. At the end of the day, the only question that matters in manners such as this…… Aikman vs. Young, etc., is would the Cowboys have won 4 or 5 in a row with Young at the helm instead of Aikman? Probably not. 3 out of 4 Super Bowls is damn good and more to the point damn difficult to achieve. As far as hypotheticals go; yes, of course, that Cowboys team was so stacked that there were probably a handful of other less heralded guys after Aikman and the usual suspects (Young, Marino, Favre*, Elway) that would’ve won a couple of titles with that team.

*Although you can’t necessarily plug in a seemingly obvious guy like Favre into the equation. Remember in ’92 and ‘93, Favre was still very young and stupid. In ’93, Favre had severe growing pains throwing 24 INT’s. He didn’t begin his excellent run of quarterbacking until ’94.

Back to what could’ve been for the Cowboys in the ‘90s…..
 
It does seem to me it’s far too easily taken for granted that the ‘90s Cowboys could’ve easily won 4 in a row if:
A. Jimmy never left in the first place or
B. Barry Switzer didn’t turn into a spastic anus right before halftime of the ’95 NFC Title game.
But could they really have won 4 in a row? I mean a case could just as easily be made that the late ‘80s 9ers should’ve won at least 3 if not 4 Super Bowls in a row. In ’87, they lost at home to a stinking Vikings team they had no business losing to as Joe Montana had one of his worst playoff games and Anthony Carter had the greatest receiving game of all-time in the playoffs up to that point. Then, in ’90 they lost a nail-biter at the gun to a Jeff Hostetler led Giants team. They held the opposition to five field goals but still lost. Oh and did I mention Roger Craig lost the ball to set up the Giants game-winner?

So, while there’s nothing wrong with actually ranking who exactly is better than who if you’re saying Aikman was so inferior to the other elite QB’s of his era that they would’ve definitely led the Cowboys to 4 in a row whereas Aikman couldn’t, I say that’s a bunch of hooey.

Now, the other interesting case one could make is how some of these other guys might have had more longevity than the punch-drunk Aikman who got embarrassed in games like the Cards playoff loss during the Cowboys last hurrah as any kind of contender. My rebuttal to that would be the cupboard was pretty threadbare by that point and no matter who was at the helm there just wasn’t enough talent left on the team to get back to the Super Bowl by the end of the decade. I mean though Young himself played at an elite level up to his premature exit, he did have to abruptly retire two seasons before Aikman was more or less shoved out the door. So Young wouldn’t have provided anymore longevity at the position than Aikman did.

Two main questions……..

Were there quite a few other guys like Steve Beuerlein or Chris Miller who could’ve won at least two Super Bowls as the triggerman for the Cowboys? Probably.

On the other hand, was Aikman so overrated and closer to being pedestrian than HOF than other Pro Bowl QB’s of that era that it cost the Cowboys another trophy or two? Hell no.

That’s my take on Aikman and how big a part of the Cowboys success he was. They won all that could be expected of them during their window in the early ‘90s. If you think otherwise, like I said, consider that many people’s greatest QB of all time Joe Montana should’ve came away with at least 3 titles in ‘87-’90. However busted up Aikman was by the Chan Gailey era, Jerry was still never able to replace guys like Alvin Harper and Jay Novacek and even when Aikman did light it up like the Thanksgiving game against the Vikings the defense yielded 46 points.

Aikman was a huge part of winning 3 out of 4 Super Bowls and if anybody doesn’t believe he was capable of putting up eye-popping numbers when called upon, check out what he put up in those particular post-seasons.

Team went “threw” them. And Aikman was part of the team. This is football, not table tennis.

Than a game-changing quarterback. He did play well in the playoffs, but seldom was asked to bring the team from behind, and didn’t have a great record when that burden fell in his shoulders. Also, the team was able to keep winning in the regular season and even the playoffs (1991) when he was out of the lineup. That doesn’t sound like the track record of a devastating offensive weapon that defenses feared to face.

I do wonder if people have completely forgotten how great Favre was in his prime, and the original discussion was considering the period 1991 to 1996, carefully cherry-picked to put Aikman in the best light. Favre won three straight MVPs, something no one else has ever done in league history, and was the center of the offense, because the running attack was pretty weak most of those years. He was erratic after his peak period, and dreadful at the end. But he was one of the best quarterbacks in league history in his prime, and based on how I weight my evaluations, that’s what really matters.