Troy Aikman question (2 Viewers)

[Chase Stuart]

How much weight should be placed on what Aikman did in his first two seasons?

His 1989 season was terrible and his 1990 year wasn't much better. He was clearly one of, if not the, worst QBs in the league then. Now I'm not saying this changes how "good" he was later in his career -- clearly he simply had struggles in the beginning of his career, and totally turned things around.

But forgetting how good you think Aikman was at his best, how much weight should those two years have on his career evaluation? 20 TDs, 36 INTs and a completion percentage in the low 50s and a whole lot of losses.

Do you just ignore this when figuring out where Aikman ranks in the pantheon of great QBs? Is your system such that you rank a QB according to his best X seasons, where X is 4 or 6 or whatever? Do you think he deserves to be knocked because those seasons actually happened and he certainly hurt his team?

If you put together Aikman's '89 and '90 seasons, along with his '92 and '93 seasons, you get a guy who had 58 TDs, 56 INTs and averaged 6.98 Y/A. That's not any better than the league average for those four years. But I feel like generally Aikman gets credit for his great '92 and '93 seasons and his bad years get ignored. I'm not an Aikman hater and I think you can argue that those bad seasons should get ignored, but I'm curious to hear what others think.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

 

[pgreenfan]

I look at the first couple of years a qb is in the league (especially if the start from the get go) as pretty non-important if they struggle. Alex Smith is the quarterback that I think could fall into the same category as Aikman as far as stats go, people will forget Smith's struggles his first couple of years if he continues to improve. I am not at all suggesting that I expect Smith to win 3 super bowls just that I think he will be an above average QB for many years to come despite his early struggles.

 

[Bankerguy]

Chase,

Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.

I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

 

[Tag]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

Aikman had his growing pains to be sure but the 89 and 90 cowboys were a VERY bad team. Manning in his prime wouldnt have won many games on that team. That needs to be taken into consideration. I mean lol, they were absolutely horrible from top to bottom.

 

[pgreenfan]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

No.

 

[Bankerguy]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

Fair enough...to me it does not matter one bit. You could have put Montana in his prime on that team. They still go 5-11 at best. Can you address my point about his surrounding cast and the affect on his performance.

 

[Ryan_21]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

Aikman had his growing pains to be sure but the 89 and 90 cowboys were a VERY bad team. Manning in his prime wouldnt have won many games on that team. That needs to be taken into consideration. I mean lol, they were absolutely horrible from top to bottom.

Yes, I understand that. Aikman's 92-96 Cowboys were a VERY good team, and were absolutely incredible from top to bottom.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

Fair enough...to me it does not matter one bit. You could have put Montana in his prime on that team. They still go 5-11 at best. Can you address my point about his surrounding cast and the affect on his performance.

Yes, I agree that Aikman's surrounding cast was terrible, and his numbers jumped dramatically once he got some talent on offense.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

No.

Ok. Why not? Presumably if Aikman threw 10 more TDs in 1995, he would be looked at as a "better" QB than he is now. So if Aikman threw 10 fewer INTs in 1989, you're saying you wouldn't change your stance at all on him? If so, why?

 

[Chase Stuart]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

 

[LHUCKS]

It has a little bit of an impact for me, but not much.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bradshaw's another example...he was absolutely horrible his first five years in the league.

48 TDs, 81 INTs, 6.13 Y/A.

How much should he be knocked for that?

 

[LHUCKS]

Bradshaw's another example...he was absolutely horrible his first five years in the league.48 TDs, 81 INTs, 6.13 Y/A.How much should he be knocked for that?

Significantly...he's one of the most overrated QBs ever.

 

[Bankerguy]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

Well when either of those guys win the best QB of the decade, 3 SB's, and a HOFer we can compare.Having Culpepper and Big Ben in the same sentence with the QB's you mentioned is silly....again imo.Edit: Not sure why you are interested in the first 2 years.Culpepper was great....but you would hardly call him a "great" QB for his career.

 

[Eric Stratton]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

Well when either of those guys win the best QB of the decade, 3 SB's, and a HOFer we can compare.Having Culpepper and Big Ben in the same sentence with the QB's you mentioned is silly....again imo.Edit: Not sure why you are interested in the first 2 years.Culpepper was great....but you would hardly call him a "great" QB.

 

[Jack Ham & Eggs]

How much weight should be placed on what Aikman did in his first two seasons?His 1989 season was terrible and his 1990 year wasn't much better. He was clearly one of, if not the, worst QBs in the league then. Now I'm not saying this changes how "good" he was later in his career -- clearly he simply had struggles in the beginning of his career, and totally turned things around.But forgetting how good you think Aikman was at his best, how much weight should those two years have on his career evaluation? 20 TDs, 36 INTs and a completion percentage in the low 50s and a whole lot of losses.Do you just ignore this when figuring out where Aikman ranks in the pantheon of great QBs? Is your system such that you rank a QB according to his best X seasons, where X is 4 or 6 or whatever? Do you think he deserves to be knocked because those seasons actually happened and he certainly hurt his team?If you put together Aikman's '89 and '90 seasons, along with his '92 and '93 seasons, you get a guy who had 58 TDs, 56 INTs and averaged 6.98 Y/A. That's not any better than the league average for those four years. But I feel like generally Aikman gets credit for his great '92 and '93 seasons and his bad years get ignored. I'm not an Aikman hater and I think you can argue that those bad seasons should get ignored, but I'm curious to hear what others think.

The Cowboys were in full rebuilding mode those years and the whole team stunk. Aikman was green and Jimmy Johnson decided to throw him in there and let him learn on the job. It isn't like he cost the team anything because they weren't winning no matter who was at QB. How can you hold that against him?Aikman was a consummate team player. He could have posted much better numbers on a team that showcased his passing skills better. I'm sure he's quite happy with how things turned out though.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

Well when either of those guys win the best QB of the decade, 3 SB's, and a HOFer we can compare.Having Culpepper and Big Ben in the same sentence with the QB's you mentioned is silly....again imo.Edit: Not sure why you are interested in the first 2 years.Culpepper was great....but you would hardly call him a "great" QB for his career.

I would think that might illustrate the point even more. If even mediocre QBs can be great early on, what does that say about a QB that does not?If you want to just zero out Aikman's first two years in the league, I think there's some justification for that. But if that's what your doing, I'd just like a more thorough explanation.Aikman had three terrible years ('89, '90 and '00) and two excellent years ('93, '95), along with three very good years ('91, '92, '98) and three above average years ('94, '96, '99) and one mediocre year ('97).I haven't brought up '00 yet, but the premise is still the same. It's easy to look at '93 and '95 and say Aikman was one of the very best QBs in the league, and averaged close to 8 yards per pass while more than doubling his TDs than INTs. But if you weight '89, '90 and '00 equally, you'd say that his '93 and '95 "greatness" was entirely evaporated by his '89, '90 and '00 "badness". If that's the case, he doesn't deserve any more credit for his great two years than he deserves blame for his terrible three years, and three really bad years equals two excellent years. If you don't want to weigh them equally, what's the justification?

 

[Bankerguy]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

Well when either of those guys win the best QB of the decade, 3 SB's, and a HOFer we can compare.Having Culpepper and Big Ben in the same sentence with the QB's you mentioned is silly....again imo.Edit: Not sure why you are interested in the first 2 years.Culpepper was great....but you would hardly call him a "great" QB for his career.

I would think that might illustrate the point even more. If even mediocre QBs can be great early on, what does that say about a QB that does not?If you want to just zero out Aikman's first two years in the league, I think there's some justification for that. But if that's what your doing, I'd just like a more thorough explanation.Aikman had three terrible years ('89, '90 and '00) and two excellent years ('93, '95), along with three very good years ('91, '92, '98) and three above average years ('94, '96, '99) and one mediocre year ('97).I haven't brought up '00 yet, but the premise is still the same. It's easy to look at '93 and '95 and say Aikman was one of the very best QBs in the league, and averaged close to 8 yards per pass while more than doubling his TDs than INTs. But if you weight '89, '90 and '00 equally, you'd say that his '93 and '95 "greatness" was entirely evaporated by his '89, '90 and '00 "badness". If that's the case, he doesn't deserve any more credit for his great two years than he deserves blame for his terrible three years, and three really bad years equals two excellent years. If you don't want to weigh them equally, what's the justification?

So, are we talking Fantasy wise or QB play for your "Terrible/great/good" rankings?Call me obtuse, I fail to see any correlation or understanding of what you are trying to prove or show? I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I really don't what you are getting at.I evaluate a QB, on the totality of his work.For Aikman....It's easy to overlook his first couple years based on several factors:1-Lack of talent or team 2-Aikman was never me guy, he was a team guy.3-No fault of his own (Although he helped) he had the #1 rusher of all time (Yards). I believe Emmitt accounted for close to 30% (Don't quote me, but it's close) of his total teams yards some of those years. What was he supposed do? Throw it 50 times a game? He played in a ball control team with a FABULOUS run game.I could go on....

 

[Liquid Tension]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

The answer is that every year play can hurt or help your legacy whether that is your first year or one that you hung on too long. In baseball players are usually tracked by how much better than an average person you were and you could add that up for every year and tell how the persons career ended up. While football is far less individualistic (which is why counting wins as anything but a tie breaker is silly), you can still take that approach. Noted: it is hard to know how much better than average a player is many times.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So, are we talking Fantasy wise or QB play for your "Terrible/great/good" rankings?Call me obtuse, I fail to see any correlation or understanding of what you are trying to prove or show? I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I really don't what you are getting at.I evaluate a QB, on the totality of his work.For Aikman....It's easy to overlook his first couple years based on several factors:1-Lack of talent or team 2-Aikman was never me guy, he was a team guy.3-No fault of his own (Although he helped) he had the #1 rusher of all time (Yards). I believe Emmitt accounted for close to 30% (Don't quote me, but it's close) of his total teams yards some of those years. What was he supposed do? Throw it 50 times a game? He played in a ball control team with a FABULOUS run game.I could go on....

I'm not discussing fantasy statistics at all. The Emmitt stuff is irrelevant, because I said Aikman was one of the very best QBs in the NFL during Emmitt's prime. Certainly I'm not punishing him for having Emmitt on his team, when I said he was excellent in '93 and '95. Here's the quick version:1) Do you agree that Aikman was a very bad QB in 1989, 1990 and 2000?2) Do you agree that Aikman was an excellent QB for a few years as well?3) If YES to both, do they or do they not cancel each other out, and why?Stated in one question, how much differently should two QBs be judged:QBA: Best QB in the league, Best QBITL, BQBITL, Worst QB in the league, Worst QBITL, WQBITLQBB: Average QB, Average QB, AQB, AQB, AQB, AQB(I realize you can't ignore his teammates in '89 and '90, but I actually want to for the sake of this question. I'll add that I find it funny that Aikman's bad years are explained away by playing on the worst team in the league, when all his good years came while playing on the best team in the league. That's incredibly inconsistent. But once again, I don't care too much about supporting casts right now, even thought they're impossible to separate.)

 

[Bankerguy]

So, are we talking Fantasy wise or QB play for your "Terrible/great/good" rankings?Call me obtuse, I fail to see any correlation or understanding of what you are trying to prove or show? I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I really don't what you are getting at.I evaluate a QB, on the totality of his work.For Aikman....It's easy to overlook his first couple years based on several factors:1-Lack of talent or team 2-Aikman was never me guy, he was a team guy.3-No fault of his own (Although he helped) he had the #1 rusher of all time (Yards). I believe Emmitt accounted for close to 30% (Don't quote me, but it's close) of his total teams yards some of those years. What was he supposed do? Throw it 50 times a game? He played in a ball control team with a FABULOUS run game.I could go on....

I'm not discussing fantasy statistics at all. The Emmitt stuff is irrelevant, because I said Aikman was one of the very best QBs in the NFL during Emmitt's prime. Certainly I'm not punishing him for having Emmitt on his team, when I said he was excellent in '93 and '95. Here's the quick version:1) Do you agree that Aikman was a very bad QB in 1989, 1990 and 2000?2) Do you agree that Aikman was an excellent QB for a few years as well?3) If YES to both, do they or do they not cancel each other out, and why?Stated in one question, how much differently should two QBs be judged:QBA: Best QB in the league, Best QBITL, BQBITL, Worst QB in the league, Worst QBITL, WQBITLQBB: Average QB, Average QB, AQB, AQB, AQB, AQB(I realize you can't ignore his teammates in '89 and '90, but I actually want to for the sake of this question. I'll add that I find it funny that Aikman's bad years are explained away by playing on the worst team in the league, when all his good years came while playing on the best team in the league. That's incredibly inconsistent. But once again, I don't care too much about supporting casts right now, even thought they're impossible to separate.)

1) 89 and 90 ( I grade him as "progressing") 00- bad year for sure.2) Duh3) To me he played the game the way it is supposed to be played by a QB (Some will argue about some of the attributes-deep ball, arm strength, not overly mobile etc etc).The Troy Aikman of 92-96 is one of the 3 best QB's of all time (Fire away).Accuracy was second to none.Would take the hit to make a throwCool in the big games, nothing seemed to get to this guy.Good play fakes and foot workDid not care about statsWas a leader by example and brought the best out in his team mates.Classy, he always said the right things.If I were to tell someone who knew nothing about Football or QB's and wanted to learn what a Great QB is.I would tell him to study:Joe MontanaTroy AikmanJohn Elway (As much as I'm not a fan of his on a personal level)

 

[Chase Stuart]

So, are we talking Fantasy wise or QB play for your "Terrible/great/good" rankings?Call me obtuse, I fail to see any correlation or understanding of what you are trying to prove or show? I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I really don't what you are getting at.I evaluate a QB, on the totality of his work.For Aikman....It's easy to overlook his first couple years based on several factors:1-Lack of talent or team 2-Aikman was never me guy, he was a team guy.3-No fault of his own (Although he helped) he had the #1 rusher of all time (Yards). I believe Emmitt accounted for close to 30% (Don't quote me, but it's close) of his total teams yards some of those years. What was he supposed do? Throw it 50 times a game? He played in a ball control team with a FABULOUS run game.I could go on....

I'm not discussing fantasy statistics at all. The Emmitt stuff is irrelevant, because I said Aikman was one of the very best QBs in the NFL during Emmitt's prime. Certainly I'm not punishing him for having Emmitt on his team, when I said he was excellent in '93 and '95. Here's the quick version:1) Do you agree that Aikman was a very bad QB in 1989, 1990 and 2000?2) Do you agree that Aikman was an excellent QB for a few years as well?3) If YES to both, do they or do they not cancel each other out, and why?Stated in one question, how much differently should two QBs be judged:QBA: Best QB in the league, Best QBITL, BQBITL, Worst QB in the league, Worst QBITL, WQBITLQBB: Average QB, Average QB, AQB, AQB, AQB, AQB(I realize you can't ignore his teammates in '89 and '90, but I actually want to for the sake of this question. I'll add that I find it funny that Aikman's bad years are explained away by playing on the worst team in the league, when all his good years came while playing on the best team in the league. That's incredibly inconsistent. But once again, I don't care too much about supporting casts right now, even thought they're impossible to separate.)

1) 89 and 90 ( I grade him as "progressing") 00- bad year for sure.2) Duh3) To me he played the game the way it is supposed to be played by a QB (Some will argue about some of the attributes-deep ball, arm strength, not overly mobile etc etc).The Troy Aikman of 92-96 is one of the 3 best QB's of all time (Fire away).Accuracy was second to none.Would take the hit to make a throwCool in the big games, nothing seemed to get to this guy.Good play fakes and foot workDid not care about statsWas a leader by example and brought the best out in his team mates.Classy, he always said the right things.If I were to tell someone who knew nothing about Football or QB's and wanted to learn what a Great QB is.I would tell him to study:Joe MontanaTroy AikmanJohn Elway (As much as I'm not a fan of his on a personal level)

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or just have some automatic response whenever someone criticizes Aikman, but this isn't responding to my post at all.

 

[Bankerguy]

So, are we talking Fantasy wise or QB play for your "Terrible/great/good" rankings?Call me obtuse, I fail to see any correlation or understanding of what you are trying to prove or show? I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I really don't what you are getting at.I evaluate a QB, on the totality of his work.For Aikman....It's easy to overlook his first couple years based on several factors:1-Lack of talent or team 2-Aikman was never me guy, he was a team guy.3-No fault of his own (Although he helped) he had the #1 rusher of all time (Yards). I believe Emmitt accounted for close to 30% (Don't quote me, but it's close) of his total teams yards some of those years. What was he supposed do? Throw it 50 times a game? He played in a ball control team with a FABULOUS run game.I could go on....

I'm not discussing fantasy statistics at all. The Emmitt stuff is irrelevant, because I said Aikman was one of the very best QBs in the NFL during Emmitt's prime. Certainly I'm not punishing him for having Emmitt on his team, when I said he was excellent in '93 and '95. Here's the quick version:1) Do you agree that Aikman was a very bad QB in 1989, 1990 and 2000?2) Do you agree that Aikman was an excellent QB for a few years as well?3) If YES to both, do they or do they not cancel each other out, and why?Stated in one question, how much differently should two QBs be judged:QBA: Best QB in the league, Best QBITL, BQBITL, Worst QB in the league, Worst QBITL, WQBITLQBB: Average QB, Average QB, AQB, AQB, AQB, AQB(I realize you can't ignore his teammates in '89 and '90, but I actually want to for the sake of this question. I'll add that I find it funny that Aikman's bad years are explained away by playing on the worst team in the league, when all his good years came while playing on the best team in the league. That's incredibly inconsistent. But once again, I don't care too much about supporting casts right now, even thought they're impossible to separate.)

1) 89 and 90 ( I grade him as "progressing") 00- bad year for sure.2) Duh3) To me he played the game the way it is supposed to be played by a QB (Some will argue about some of the attributes-deep ball, arm strength, not overly mobile etc etc).The Troy Aikman of 92-96 is one of the 3 best QB's of all time (Fire away).Accuracy was second to none.Would take the hit to make a throwCool in the big games, nothing seemed to get to this guy.Good play fakes and foot workDid not care about statsWas a leader by example and brought the best out in his team mates.Classy, he always said the right things.If I were to tell someone who knew nothing about Football or QB's and wanted to learn what a Great QB is.I would tell him to study:Joe MontanaTroy AikmanJohn Elway (As much as I'm not a fan of his on a personal level)

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or just have some automatic response whenever someone criticizes Aikman, but this isn't responding to my post at all.

Sorry I'll go away. I thought I answered your question.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

The main point is this is a silly thread. Anyone that knows anything about football isn't going to analyze something like this at this after the career Aikman had. Considering how bad you think he was early in his career he sure did turn things around instead of playing himself out of the league.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

So, are we talking Fantasy wise or QB play for your "Terrible/great/good" rankings?Call me obtuse, I fail to see any correlation or understanding of what you are trying to prove or show? I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I really don't what you are getting at.I evaluate a QB, on the totality of his work.For Aikman....It's easy to overlook his first couple years based on several factors:1-Lack of talent or team 2-Aikman was never me guy, he was a team guy.3-No fault of his own (Although he helped) he had the #1 rusher of all time (Yards). I believe Emmitt accounted for close to 30% (Don't quote me, but it's close) of his total teams yards some of those years. What was he supposed do? Throw it 50 times a game? He played in a ball control team with a FABULOUS run game.I could go on....

I'll add that I find it funny that Aikman's bad years are explained away by playing on the worst team in the league, when all his good years came while playing on the best team in the league. That's incredibly inconsistent.

 

[Jack Ham & Eggs]

Stated in one question, how much differently should two QBs be judged:QBA: Best QB in the league, Best QBITL, BQBITL, Worst QB in the league, Worst QBITL, WQBITLQBB: Average QB, Average QB, AQB, AQB, AQB, AQB(I realize you can't ignore his teammates in '89 and '90, but I actually want to for the sake of this question. I'll add that I find it funny that Aikman's bad years are explained away by playing on the worst team in the league, when all his good years came while playing on the best team in the league. That's incredibly inconsistent. But once again, I don't care too much about supporting casts right now, even thought they're impossible to separate.)

Bill James has addressed similar questions with regard to baseball players and I believe his conclusion was it's generally more impacting to have a high peak. Think about it: NFL history is saturated with "average" QBs, but damn few guys were ever the best (even for a single year). You win with playmakers, so I'd take the guy that was great for three years. I'd rather have serious playoff runs and Super Bowl chances and some crap years than a bunch of 8-8 seasons.It is really impossible to answer the question without a broader context. In Aikman's case, the two bad years at the beginning of his career didn't hurt the Cowboys at all unless you think going 3-13 instead of 1-15 is a great tragedy. I would argue any such loss was offset by the experience gained.

 

[chris1969]

Bradshaw's another example...he was absolutely horrible his first five years in the league.48 TDs, 81 INTs, 6.13 Y/A.How much should he be knocked for that?

I think this is a good comparison. I think both QB's are way overated. They are both products of their surrounding casts. I laugh every time I hear someone say Aikman was the Cowboys best QB ever. He was smart and had alot of guts, but had pretty average athletic ability on an offense that had a ton of it.Bradshaw had a great arm but made bad decisions. His theory was if I throw up enough jump balls Lynn Swann will win more than he loses. I know I'm gonna get fragged for this, but I think both were really good Qb's that got a lot more credit than they deserved.

 

[beachbum]

His statistics were quite poor, but having watched those games I remember thinking what a tough kid he was... there's always the surrounding talent to consider as well as the obvious learning curve to the NFL, but I recall that he would stand in the pocket and get killed during those first two years... not sure if that quality is quantifiable to your question, but he always (especially early on) impressed me with his courage

 

[Ack88]

When I think of Troy Aikman's career, I'm reminded of what the political columnist George Will once said about then outgoing President Reagan; He belongs at the top of the second tier of the all time great Presidents.

While Aikman does not have the statistical credibility of a Montana, Elway, Marino, or Favre, he was absolutely great in the playoffs and Super Bowls. The Cowboy dynasty teams centered around the running game, so putting up hegemonic passing statistics was not part of the blueprint for success. Norv Turner's offense was based upon having a balanced attack.

As for Aikman's stats in '89 and '90, I just don't see them having much relevance in the debate. The Cowboys were historically inept in '89 and the talent base in '90, while much improved, was average at best. I think most players are remembered for the apex of their careers, not the low points. So, while Aikman may be a tad overrated, he is a worthy and deserving HOF member who is a top 15-18 all time QB.

 

[BigTex]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

If this had not been the begining of his career maybe I'd look at him differently, but it was and that's the difference in my mind. Times are different now as QBs are concerned. What I mean is now-a-days first round picks are expected to start right-a-way this was not the case during this time (89-90). QBs were groomed into the position.The fact that he improved as he gained more experience says it all.P.S.For those that say Troy was overrated, how can you overrate a QB who has 3 Superbowls?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Aikman is analogous to Bart Starr. He was a good Q.B. who completely adopted the philosophy of the system on a great team. He was among the leaders, never a distraction, and had, as a result of sublimating his ego to the team concept, multiple championships. Neither was a great Q.B., but their acceptance of their roles and their florishing within those roles makes each a great football player.

 

[H.K.]

But forgetting how good you think Aikman was at his best, how much weight should those two years have on his career evaluation? 20 TDs, 36 INTs and a completion percentage in the low 50s and a whole lot of losses.

Aikman ran for about 1000 yards in his career, almost half those yards came in his first two seasons. Root cause, anyone? In the two years being evaluated, Aikman took a 1-15 team and made it 7-9 the next year, so his first two seasons paved the way for that franchise to launch its amazing post season run the following season.Troy was never a stat guy. He was a do what it takes to win guy. Three SB's in four years only happened for Dallas because he could handle the pressure on the field and off. He had remarkable accuracy and was clutch in many big games.He has a better career completion percentage than Dan Marino. While I don't think that's a big deal, it does demonstrate that if Aikman wanted to be a loser and play for personal stats, he could have done that, luckily for the Cowboys, he bought into the team concept.

 

[mlball77]

The early poor play of QBs like Aikman and Bradshaw doesn't have much of an impact on my view of them. Both very good, but not the top tier of all-time (as someone eluded to previously); in the next group though.

Didn't Elway struggle pretty bad his first year or two as well??

On a related note, being a Bears fan that is not too much of a Grossman fan (even previous to the SB), I feel a little bit better about his odds of turning things around (only a little better though). Not to imply that he is ever going to be on the level of the aformentioned QBs.

 

[Bankerguy]

Aikman is analogous to Bart Starr. He was a good Q.B. who completely adopted the philosophy of the system on a great team. He was among the leaders, never a distraction, and had, as a result of sublimating his ego to the team concept, multiple championships. Neither was a great Q.B., but their acceptance of their roles and their florishing within those roles makes each a great football player.

 

[cobalt_27]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

Aside from a few of the names listed here, the natural progression for a QB is to stink his first few years and mature later. That's why I think perception is much more forgiving in the first couple of years of a QB than it is, should that same QB "regress" in the middle of his career.In stats, I guess it sort of comes down to the issue of "base rates." And, the base rate production for young QBs is generally pretty low with a lot of variability. I think there's some merit to discarding a chunk of that person's career IF it appears there was a substantial progression beyond it, as would be the case with Aikman, Young, Moon, etc.

 

[Phurfur]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

This means nothing. It doesn't matter at all.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Here's a question for you Chase:

If we're going to punish Aikman for a terrible rookie season, shouldn't we punish Joe Montana even more for his rookie season? He couldn't even get off the bench. At least Aikman was able to win his team's starting job.

To me it seems hard to shaft a guy for his performance when most of his peers his age aren't even allowed on the field yet. When you look at a baseball player's career, do you punish him for getting called up too early and struggling for a year?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here's a question for you Chase:If we're going to punish Aikman for a terrible rookie season, shouldn't we punish Joe Montana even more for his rookie season? He couldn't even get off the bench. At least Aikman was able to win his team's starting job.To me it seems hard to shaft a guy for his performance when most of his peers his age aren't even allowed on the field yet. When you look at a baseball player's career, do you punish him for getting called up too early and struggling for a year?

I think it's open to interpretation. Your example is a good one.If you want to look at a player's value added to a team, however, a baseball player that gets called up early and struggles for a year is less valuable to a team than a veteran that can play closer to the league average. For that year, the rookie has hurt his team.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

This means nothing. It doesn't matter at all.

Ok. Why? Presumably if Aikman had been a better QB in 1989 and 1990 and 2000, the Cowboys would have won more games those years.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It doesnt change his legacy at all IMO. All rookie QBs are EXPECTED to struggle their first couple of years.

What about how horribly he struggled? He was worse than your average rookie QB. Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Tom Brady, Daunte Culpepper, Ben Roethlisberger and a host of others were good in their first couple of years.

Aside from a few of the names listed here, the natural progression for a QB is to stink his first few years and mature later. That's why I think perception is much more forgiving in the first couple of years of a QB than it is, should that same QB "regress" in the middle of his career.In stats, I guess it sort of comes down to the issue of "base rates." And, the base rate production for young QBs is generally pretty low with a lot of variability. I think there's some merit to discarding a chunk of that person's career IF it appears there was a substantial progression beyond it, as would be the case with Aikman, Young, Moon, etc.

I'm not questioning how good Aikman was in his prime. I think that might be some of the confusion here. Regardless of whether Aikman was terrible, bad or average in the beginning of his career, he was great in the middle of his career. My question only relates to whether when looking at Aikman's contributions to Dallas, how much weight should you give to those first couple of years, since they did in fact happen? Presumably, Dallas would have been better off in those years (and in 2000) had Aikman not been the starter. They might also have been worse off in the middle years if Aikman didn't start in the early years, but it seems like he gets all the credit for the middle years and none of the blame for the early years.It goes back to my question...how would you compare two QBs, one who was the best QB in the league for 3 years and the worst starting QB in the league for 3 years, with someone who was with 16th best QB for six years?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Just to be clear, the main point here is how much more credit would you give Aikman had he been say, a league average QB in 1989-1990, instead of one of the worst QBs?

This means nothing. It doesn't matter at all.

Ok. Why? Presumably if Aikman had been a better QB in 1989 and 1990 and 2000, the Cowboys would have won more games those years.

 

[Phurfur]

Here's a question for you Chase:If we're going to punish Aikman for a terrible rookie season, shouldn't we punish Joe Montana even more for his rookie season? He couldn't even get off the bench. At least Aikman was able to win his team's starting job.To me it seems hard to shaft a guy for his performance when most of his peers his age aren't even allowed on the field yet. When you look at a baseball player's career, do you punish him for getting called up too early and struggling for a year?

I think it's open to interpretation. Your example is a good one.If you want to look at a player's value added to a team, however, a baseball player that gets called up early and struggles for a year is less valuable to a team than a veteran that can play closer to the league average. For that year, the rookie has hurt his team.

Trust me Aikman did not hurt that team. He was as good or better than most of them.

 

[switz]

If you put together Aikman's '89 and '90 seasons, along with his '92 and '93 seasons, you get a guy who had 58 TDs, 56 INTs and averaged 6.98 Y/A. That's not any better than the league average for those four years. But I feel like generally Aikman gets credit for his great '92 and '93 seasons and his bad years get ignored. I'm not an Aikman hater and I think you can argue that those bad seasons should get ignored, but I'm curious to hear what others think.

I generally don't expect much out of a QB until year 3.

 

[Christo]

Chase,Do you really remember his supporting cast? He was also a mere rookie with the weight of the number one pick on his shoulders. I am comtinually amazed with how quickly/frequently Aikman gets trashed.I am a fan, but still confused by the masses who think he's meh.

All of that is irrelevant to my point.I'm not debating how good Aikman was from 91 to whenever he stopped being good. I'm asking how much his poor play early on in his career hurts his legacy. Change the name if you want. Montana didn't play his first year, and was actually good in his second year. If Montana stunk it up big time in the first two seasons of his career, would that change your view on "Joe Montana"?

Doesn't Montana not playing in his first year mean he more than "stunk it up?"

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'd just like to add that this entire thread went entirely in the wrong direction and was a horrible attempt at fostering interesting discussion. Oops. Maybe I'll try again with a new thread.

 

[CowboyFan]

I'd just like to add that this entire thread went entirely in the wrong direction and was a horrible attempt at fostering interesting discussion. Oops. Maybe I'll try again with a new thread.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you didn't actually watch any Cowboys games in 89. Anyone who suffered through watching all 16 games that year, or any part thereof, wouldn't have to ask about how Aikman's rookie year should impact his career. Surviving it was as good as any qb could have done. Personally, I think the first 2 years took about 4 years off the end of his career.P.S. The Redskins game that year sticks in my mind as much as any of the Superbowls. It's amazing how 1 game can make the whole season bearable.

 

[vverhei]

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.