Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 6:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/25/2013 6:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 6:15:00 PM (view original):
Young is head and shoulders above Aikman. You play to win the game, but the talent of the QB isnt just simply correlated to Super Bowl wins.

No, it's not correlated.  But contemporaries can provide reasonable comparisons.  Young was more efficient AND prolific than Aikman.  Aikman won more titles, including most of the head-to-heads against Young.  I'm not arguing that Aikman is better than Young.  I'm saying he's better than Rodgers, Brees, Favre, and Tarkenton.

I like Brees, Favre, and Tarkenton more than Aikman. And in a 5 years or so, probably Rodgers.

That's fine.  I was just putting an opinion out there to establish a straw man.

And taking Tarkenton over Aikman is just plain silly.  You can make an argument for Favre (which essentially is quantity over quality), and if Brees manages to get New Orleans to another Super Bowl, you might be able to make an argument there.  But Tarkenton?  No way.  There is not a single QB skill where Tarkenton can beat Aikman.  OK, maybe escape-ability, but that's it.

Rodgers in five years on his current arc, sure.  But if he gets hurt, that goes out the window.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/25/2013 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):
For the Aikman lovers - what exactly did he do, stat-wise.  It's not so hard to win championships with Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and a fantastic defense.  Aikman nearly threw as many picks as TDs in a pass-friendly era.

www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm

YOU PLAY.  TO WIN.  THE GAME.

Aikman played roughly concurrently with Favre and Young.  He won more Super Bowls than they did.. .COMBINED.  Sure, he had Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin, but did it ever occur to you that Emmitt might have benefitted from having a strong-armed, accurate quarterback keeping the defenses honest?  And Irvin is totally overrated in my opinion.  That guy pushed off more than any receiver in history.

Aikman threw when he needed to, and did it very very well.  If there's one thing he had in his favor in Dallas, it was the O-line.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/26/2013 9:18:00 AM (view original):
I think it's important to compare QBs to players of their own era.  I didn't see Tarkenton play, I can only see stats and read about him.  Tarkenton was a 9 time Pro Bowler, and MVP in 1975.  Aikman played in a significantly more friendly passing era, yet Tarkenton put up very similar stats to Aikman.

Aikman never won an MVP, but he led the league in completion percentage once!

Yea, I know he was terrible in the Steelers SB.  But is it a huge knock to say "you weren't good when you played some of the best defenses of all-time?" (70s Dolphins, 70s Steelers, etc.)
 

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):
Fran Tarkenton gets bonus points for co-hosting the TV show "That's Incredible!" with John Davidson and Cathy Lee Crosby.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/26/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):
I've always found it humorous when players get knocked for putting up worse stats in the playoffs.  It's not good, no, but these are the BEST teams they're facing.  Of course their stats will be worse.  

That said, Stabler obviously stepped up his game in the postseason.  I asked an older co-worker just now (bias - is a Raider fan) if Tarkenton or Stabler was better, and he said he'd rather have Stabler, that he was a winner, and running around like a maniac doesn't win Super Bowls.  So basically what todd said.  And that's fine, maybe I'm wrong, I didn't see that guys play.  But stats don't support the Stabler > Tarkenton argument.