What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

. (1 Viewer)

being the general of one of the NFLs best-ever teams, with 6x pro bowl appearances, 3x SB winner.yeah he belongs there.

 
being the general of one of the NFLs best-ever teams, with 6x pro bowl appearances, 3x SB winner.yeah he belongs there.
this.

You absolutely can say he wouldn't have done it without a great OL, Emmitt, Irvin, coaching etc.  But he did it.  Even if we discount the pro bowl, the dude was a winner. 

I hated the Cowboys, but they were damn good. 

 
Aikman had great success within the system of a truly dominant team. He could make the throws, did what he needed to and was a great leader.

Guy was a warrior too out there, tough as they come, despite the beatings he took. And he hasn't come back to sue the NFL for it.

That Cowboys era team was certainly full of fame type players, that's what the hall is about, not just 5,000 yard passing seasons.

 
I honestly don't see how Aikman got in the NFL Hall of Fame, and it looks unlikely Tim Lincecum will make it into baseballs HOF.  They're pretty similar, both 3 titles, both shortish careers, mediocre stats.
Most dominant pitcher from 2008 to 2011 according to reality.

Mediocre stats according to you.

 
Joe Namath

Kenny Stabler

Bob Griese 
Ok, honestly I can kinda agree with these three.  They are all from the same era, which is why I do so.  These guys all entered the league in the late 60s (Stabler in 70) - but a lot of the greats where still in the game and playing at very high levels (Blanda, Unitas, Starr, Jurgensen, Dawson, Tarkenton) who for the most part all played into the mid 70s.  Then in the late 70s and early 80s you had Montana, Marino, Elway, Moon and Young join the league.  So with these three guys above making it, we actually had an all time high of 11 future HOF QBs all playing in the 1970, 1971 and 1973 seasons - which is a lot considering there were only 26 teams.  By the early 80s (with two more teams added), that was down to only 4.

I'm of the thought that at any given time we should have between 4-6 future HOF QBs playing. 

 
Ok, honestly I can kinda agree with these three.  They are all from the same era, which is why I do so.  These guys all entered the league in the late 60s (Stabler in 70) - but a lot of the greats where still in the game and playing at very high levels (Blanda, Unitas, Starr, Jurgensen, Dawson, Tarkenton) who for the most part all played into the mid 70s.  Then in the late 70s and early 80s you had Montana, Marino, Elway, Moon and Young join the league.  So with these three guys above making it, we actually had an all time high of 11 future HOF QBs all playing in the 1970, 1971 and 1973 seasons - which is a lot considering there were only 26 teams.  By the early 80s (with two more teams added), that was down to only 4.

I'm of the thought that at any given time we should have between 4-6 future HOF QBs playing. 
I think all of these 3 were more emotional selections rather than based on their actual elite performance,  To be in the HOF, you should have to be elite.

Namath:  Take away super bowl 3 and he doesn't touch the HOF.  173 TDs to 220 INTs.  Not elite

Griese:  Good leader, solid QB, 2 super bowls, but have to call him a game manager.  8/11/88/1/1 against the Redskins 6/7/73 against the Vikings in the super bowl wins.  Again, not elite 

Stabler: Best of the 3 but still, 173 TDs to 222 Ints.  Fans loved him for his playing style and off the field lifestyle, which contributed to his being elected.  Still not elite.

IMO, Aikman was deserving.  Guy was a huge talent, but he played within their winning system.  As a 49er fan, I am all too familiar with Aikmans ability to make big throws into tight windows at clutch moments.  Had he played in a more open system, he would have put up big stats.  But I can also see the argument against.  That's the toughest one for me.

 
I don't see how anyone can complain about Eli (maybe even Flacco) getting in and not complain about Aikman.  Eli won his Super Bowls with much weaker supporting talent to boot.

165 TD vs. 142 INT for his career.  81 QB rating, 7.0 ypa.

It's easy to just throw out the "different eras" reference but Aikman was still in his early 30's in the late 90's.  Aikman was putting up 2900-17-12 when Steve Beuerlein was throwing for 4500-36-15.

You could literally put Troy Aikman's numbers his last 4 years when he was still in his prime age-wise up alongside Trent Dilfer's numbers those same years and you wouldn't be able to tell which is which.  Seriously...

898-1537 10,209yds 55td 43int
vs
855-1541 9,729yds 65td 56int

 
It is hall of Fame not hall of Numbers. Aikman was  a  key to one of the best teams ever. It was built on Smith and the running game but Aikman complimented it perfectly.  Plus he always seemed like the leader that kept the team pointed in the right direction.   Watch the NFC championship game the Cowboys lost to the 49ers, was that 1993?,  heroic effort in defeat.  His playoff effenciecy is fantastic as a QB.  First ballot, probably not. He definitely deserves to be there though.

 
I don't see how anyone can complain about Eli (maybe even Flacco) getting in and not complain about Aikman.  Eli won his Super Bowls with much weaker supporting talent to boot.

165 TD vs. 142 INT for his career.  81 QB rating, 7.0 ypa.

It's easy to just throw out the "different eras" reference but Aikman was still in his early 30's in the late 90's.  Aikman was putting up 2900-17-12 when Steve Beuerlein was throwing for 4500-36-15.

You could literally put Troy Aikman's numbers his last 4 years when he was still in his prime age-wise up alongside Trent Dilfer's numbers those same years and you wouldn't be able to tell which is which.  Seriously...

898-1537 10,209yds 55td 43int
vs
855-1541 9,729yds 65td 56int
Nobody seriously considers Flacco a HOFer

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top