What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Troy Aikman question (1 Viewer)

I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.
Ben Roethlisberger won a SB despite being an average-at-best QB. He played smart, didn't make mistakes.Aikman is the same to me.Throw an Elway, Kelly, Manning, Favre on those teams, and they would have won even more SBs and/or had an undefeated season, IMHO.
 
I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.
Ben Roethlisberger won a SB despite being an average-at-best QB. He played smart, didn't make mistakes.Aikman is the same to me.Throw an Elway, Kelly, Manning, Favre on those teams, and they would have won even more SBs and/or had an undefeated season, IMHO.
Im not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Dallas's style with Norv running the offense wasnt to "run and gun it". Aikman was the perfect QB for that system. I still think if Aikman had played for GB or Buffalo he would've had better numbers. This guy wasnt a dumb, noodle-armed QB, he was as accurate as they come and could've played anywhere.
 
This guy wasnt a dumb, noodle-armed QB, he was as accurate as they come and could've played anywhere.
I didn't mean to imply that at all. Though I can see how you took it that way. I wasn't trying to imply Aikman was an "average-at-best" QB. I just think he benefitted far more from his team, than they did from him. And that the team would have been even better, had they had a QB like those I listed above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This guy wasnt a dumb, noodle-armed QB, he was as accurate as they come and could've played anywhere.
I didn't mean to imply that at all. Though I can see how you took it that way. I wasn't trying to imply Aikman was an "average-at-best" QB. I just think he benefitted far more from his team, than they did from him. And that the team would have been even better, had they had a QB like those I listed above.
Aikman was the perfect QB for that offense.
 
Look at it the other way: What if a player had several bad years at the END of his career?Ludicrous example to prove a point: Suppose Brett Favre plays five more years, goes 0-80, and throws 10 TDS to go with 100 INTs. None of that takes away from what he has already done -- the Super Bowl, the records, the MVPs. His legacy can't be tarnished. It's untarnishable.The methodology should be this: Set a baseline, whether it's league average, replacement, top 10, whatever. A player gets credit for every season over the baseline, and the higher over the baseline he is, the more credit he gets. The seasons below the baseline? Throw 'em out. They don't matter.
It's irrelevant to my original point (which I recognize was missed) whether the bad years come at the end or beginning of a career. They key question I'd have is why would you want to throw out the seasons below the baseline? If Favre goes 0-80 over the next five years with 100 INTs, wouldn't you say that means Brett Favre's career wasn't as good as if he retired today?
 
Look at it the other way: What if a player had several bad years at the END of his career?

Ludicrous example to prove a point: Suppose Brett Favre plays five more years, goes 0-80, and throws 10 TDS to go with 100 INTs.

None of that takes away from what he has already done -- the Super Bowl, the records, the MVPs. His legacy can't be tarnished. It's untarnishable.

The methodology should be this: Set a baseline, whether it's league average, replacement, top 10, whatever. A player gets credit for every season over the baseline, and the higher over the baseline he is, the more credit he gets.

The seasons below the baseline? Throw 'em out. They don't matter.
It's irrelevant to my original point (which I recognize was missed) whether the bad years come at the end or beginning of a career. They key question I'd have is why would you want to throw out the seasons below the baseline? If Favre goes 0-80 over the next five years with 100 INTs, wouldn't you say that means Brett Favre's career wasn't as good as if he retired today?
No, actually, I wouldn't. I would say AT THAT POINT he's a horrible, miserable QB, but that doesn't change how I'd evaluate his career.Just playing in the NFL is an accomplishment. The guy out on the field getting sacked and throwing picks is (usually) a better QB than the guy holding the clipboard. Or the guy in the Arena League. Or the guy selling insurance.

It just occurred to me that we actually have the ultimate example of this in basketball. When Michael Jordan came back after his second retirement with the Wizards, he was clearly a bad player. basketball-reference.com lists those two years as his only season with more Player Losses than Player Wins. But if you ask the vast, vast majority of basketball fans who the best player of the past 25 years was, they'll say Jordan without even thinking about it. The Wizards years are a non-factor. They simply don't matter and should be thrown out.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

 
The beginning- especially if you start from day one as a QB- is not nearly as important as the end. Here are some guys who were crappy their first year or couldn't play their first year: Elway, Montana, Farve, Brady, Palmer and McNabb. Here are some guys who were really bad for two years or couldn't play much: Young, Aikman, Bradshaw, Fouts (terrible-just terrible), Stabler, Brees, Plunkett. It doesn't have affect one anyone's legacy. and it enhances his because of his determination.

Chase, part of fostering conversation is being open to other ideas. Otherwise, what is the point?

 
The beginning- especially if you start from day one as a QB- is not nearly as important as the end. Here are some guys who were crappy their first year or couldn't play their first year: Elway, Montana, Farve, Brady, Palmer and McNabb. Here are some guys who were really bad for two years or couldn't play much: Young, Aikman, Bradshaw, Fouts (terrible-just terrible), Stabler, Brees, Plunkett. It doesn't have affect one anyone's legacy. and it enhances his because of his determination.Chase, part of fostering conversation is being open to other ideas. Otherwise, what is the point?
Do you think being great for 8 years and bad for two years is the same as being great for 10 years?
 
The beginning- especially if you start from day one as a QB- is not nearly as important as the end. Here are some guys who were crappy their first year or couldn't play their first year: Elway, Montana, Farve, Brady, Palmer and McNabb. Here are some guys who were really bad for two years or couldn't play much: Young, Aikman, Bradshaw, Fouts (terrible-just terrible), Stabler, Brees, Plunkett. It doesn't have affect one anyone's legacy. and it enhances his because of his determination.Chase, part of fostering conversation is being open to other ideas. Otherwise, what is the point?
Do you think being great for 8 years and bad for two years is the same as being great for 10 years?
I've read this entire thread and now I feel like I'm waiting for the punch line.
 
Do you think being great for 8 years and bad for two years is the same as being great for 10 years?
No. Being great for 10 years and horrible for 2 is the same as being great for 10 years.Being great for 8 years and average for 2 is the same as being great for 8 years and horrible for 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What about going 12-4 for 8 years and 8-8 for 2 years vs. 12-4 for 8 years and 3-13 for 2 years? The same?
Actually, having thought about this a little more, they may not be the same. If your baseline is wins above AVERAGE (this works for wins, points, QB rating, whatever), they are the same. If your baseline is wins above REPLACEMENT, the former is better, but only slightly. 8-8 is much closer to 3-13 than it is to 13-3.
 
What about going 12-4 for 8 years and 8-8 for 2 years vs. 12-4 for 8 years and 3-13 for 2 years? The same?
Actually, having thought about this a little more, they may not be the same. If your baseline is wins above AVERAGE (this works for wins, points, QB rating, whatever), they are the same. If your baseline is wins above REPLACEMENT, the former is better, but only slightly. 8-8 is much closer to 3-13 than it is to 13-3.
Can you unpack REPLACEMENT for me? I think I might know what it means w/r/t individual players, but I don't know what it has to do w/r/t teams. How do you replace a 3-13 (or any) team?
 
Can you unpack REPLACEMENT for me? I think I might know what it means w/r/t individual players, but I don't know what it has to do w/r/t teams. How do you replace a 3-13 (or any) team?
OK. This started as a discussion about individual players. Now we're talking about teams. So I guess, going back to this question:
What about going 12-4 for 8 years and 8-8 for 2 years vs. 12-4 for 8 years and 3-13 for 2 years? The same?
The answer is: The first team, obviously, is better -- but not as much as you might think. While I'd much rather cheer for an 8-8 team than a 3-13 team, they have about the same odds of winning a playoff game, championship or Super Bowl.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top