No that's not the point. There just doesn't seem to me to be a huge difference overall . How do you measure how much would have been receptions?But, that's simply not true, and you're willfully ignoring it as fiction.
One can theorize those factors but what is the measurable element of the +? You might as well say that it automatic for different era quarterbacks to assume that because of the way the game was played some were handicapped by the systems. Then you evaluate the differences in the ones that did well in spite of the systems and award them the benefit of not being able to totally display their real skills. In addition they also are awarded another benefit for having to play in that system when different systems would have made them execute better. That seems a awfully complicated to me and it then presumes that the official stats are not comparative.It's more than just mugging receivers, although that's a bigger deal than you are giving it credit for. But it's also scheme changes and offensive philosophy changes that in today's game emphasize short simple passes with a high chance of completion. That significantly increases the QBs completion percentage.
Nowadays everyone has elements of that. Every single offense. That wasn't true in Aikman's day; it was basically only the Walsh offenses (49ers and Packers).
So you can't make an apples to apples comparison. Instead, you compare the QB to the standard of his era, then compare those comparisons with each other.
THAT'S COMPLETION %+
That's impossible to put exact numbers to. But, you can apply some common sense that would tell you that the more a receiver is draped all over, the harder it would be for him to catch the ball, in turn lowering the completion %.No that's not the point. There just doesn't seem to me to be a huge difference overall . How do you measure how much would have been receptions?
I've explained it; the + is a measurement against the average QB from the same season(s).One can theorize those factors but what is the measurable element of the +? You might as well say that it automatic for different era quarterbacks to assume that because of the way the game was played some were handicapped by the systems. Then you evaluate the differences in the ones that did well in spite of the systems and award them the benefit of not being able to totally display their real skills. In addition they also are awarded another benefit for having to play in that system when different systems would have made them execute better. That seems a awfully complicated to me and it then presumes that the official stats are not comparative.
This is a very simple concept to grasp.That's impossible to put exact numbers to. But, you can apply some common sense that would tell you that the more a receiver is draped all over, the harder it would be for him to catch the ball, in turn lowering the completion %.
Quit being a wise guy. I know the theory I just don't know that it necessarily answers the question of who is the better QB of two guys from different eras. It may well answer the question of what was outstanding among his peers but the peer group in another era may be more equal and no one stands out but several may be as good or better than the one individual of the different era. I just don't necessarily think it will always answer a comparative question. My position is simple. I am of the opinion that Romo is a better and more proficient QB than Aikman was because of his performance on the field. I don't question that Aikman was a good and accurate QB I simply think under the same conditions Romo is better because of his athletic ability.This is a very simple concept to grasp.
For most of us.
Troy began and ended his career on some awful teams. Tony has never played on a team as wretched as the '89 Cowboys. Nor has Tony ever been short on weapons (Witten, TO, Dez, Austin, Crayton, Robinson, etc. and 900 - 1K rushers like Barber, JJ, and Murray). And now he has a shiny new toy in the form of Elliott. Yes, Troy had Irvin, Harper (who left early) and Novacek (who retired after '95), but also had to tolerate guys like Stepfret Williams, Jeff Ogden, Bjornsen, Kevin Williams, and past his prime Anthony Miller. Hell, even Deion was playing WR out of necessity. For the most part, when Dallas has had a terrible season, it's because Romo got hurt, not because the talent around him sucked balls.He squeezes by Aikman as well IMO.
Aikman already had his rings when Jimmy left.
Comparatively, Romo has had far inferior talent and coaching surrounding him since he took over.
Just goes to show you that when Aikman has bad players he didn't excel. When he had good players he did so it's more than comparing peer group players and seeing who stands out. Some good QBs of the same comparative time could have looked average because of the teams personnel. One can presume but in the final analysis I think you have to look at how an individual performs with good and average players around them. If they remain pretty consistent then that tells a lot about the player.Troy began and ended his career on some awful teams. Tony has never played on a team as wretched as the '89 Cowboys. Nor has Tony ever been short on weapons (Witten, TO, Dez, Austin, Crayton, Robinson, etc. and 900 - 1K rushers like Barber, JJ, and Murray). And now he has a shiny new toy in the form of Elliott. Yes, Troy had Irvin, Harper (who left early) and Novacek (who retired after '95), but also had to tolerate guys like Stepfret Williams, Jeff Ogden, Bjornsen, Kevin Williams, and past his prime Anthony Miller. Hell, even Deion was playing WR out of necessity. For the most part, when Dallas has had a terrible season, it's because Romo got hurt, not because the talent around him sucked balls.
But in Romo's unstable years he still managed to keep his numbers consistent. That didn't happen with Aikman. He lost ground in the first few years , rose in the middle with the super days then fell off again as the team declined.With all that being said, Romo's got his mobility. Unfortunately, that's also come with happy feet. Combined with his early years gunslinging, that's culminated in lots of turnovers, cost a victory here and there. It's taken years for Romo to settle down and mature. If we had 2014 Romo in the 2010s, we'd have more December/playoff success.
On the flipside, Aikman would stand and deliver, unfazed by the rush, a 1st down pass. Had it taken Aikman 7 years to mature, we'd have zero Super Bowls.
So Barry better than Emmitt?But in Romo's unstable years he still managed to keep his numbers consistent. That didn't happen with Aikman. He lost ground in the first few years , rose in the middle with the super days then fell off again as the team declined.
Maybe regarding Sanders not sure about Rivers. I haven't run the numbers but he is more athletic than Aikman was.So Barry better than Emmitt?
philip rivers (very similar stats to Romo) better than Aikman?
I think I remember watching him from the stands of Texas Stadium.. Aikman wasn't a mobile QB. In the shotgun he would always retreat to his right and from the down under position he would retreat backwards, He wasn't elusive either way. Fortunately the OL usually gave him the time he needed to deliver but when was under pressure he had problems.Rivers is more athletic than Aikman? Not even close to being true. I think you are remembering him at the end of his career...initially he was pretty nimble. The Mets tried to sign him out of high school too.
But the point of this thread was comparing the top 5 Dallas QBs. So it isn't pointless. It the product of the topic.Aikman vs. Romo is such a pointless comparison. Aikman had every advantage better receiver, better line, HOF running back, outstanding coaches and coordinators, and a real defense, but he achieved everything you could possibly expect someone to in that timeline. You'd be hard pressed to think anyone could replicate his level of success, even under ideal circumstances. How many loaded teams have we seen stall in the playoffs? Aikman took a loaded team and won the Super Bowl 3 times. Romo still had one of his worse performances of the 07 season against the Giants when it counted most. That's when Aikman was at his best.
Romo was a guy who's played with a shit line most of his career. Except for 2007 and 2014, which he still helped by being athletic enough to improvise when he got caught in the backfield. He's had two good defenses he's played with in 07 and 09. In 80% of his seasons he's been fighting to keep pace with offenses that were tearing Zimmer, Stewart, Ryan, and Kiffin coordinated defenses to shreds. He has had Garrett as his coordinator for every year except for 2006. Who was so unqualified, Norv Turner refused to accept a HC job with Garrett as OC. Romo's running backs have been good to mediocre, but his offenses have been so unbalanced and predictable they were rarely helped take pressure off Romo. Despite all of those disadvantages he's managed to be a reasonably successful QB. I don't know if any QB could replicate that Either. Aikman always struggled without Emmitt, and that team could win without Aikman. So it's pretty doubtful he could walk into the poorly managed shit show and be nearly as successful.
So how can you say either is better, neither one would do as well in the other's curcumstances.