DMN: The five best Dallas Cowboys QBs of all time, ranked: Where do Staubach, Aikman

L.T. Fan · Jul 14, 2016

Iamtdg said:
But, that's simply not true, and you're willfully ignoring it as fiction.

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?

L.T. Fan · Jul 14, 2016

Genghis Khan said:
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 %+

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.

Cotton · Jul 14, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
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?

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 %.

Genghis Khan · Jul 14, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
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.

I've explained it; the + is a measurement against the average QB from the same season(s).

League average is 100.

So if Aikman scores 130 for instance (which he did several times), that means he did 30% better than league average for that season.

So to put that in real terms (and without doing the actual math), that might mean league average for that season was, say, 59%, and Aikman may have been around 65%.

Now, let's say Romo has a season of 120 completion%+ (still a very good score btw). Maybe that means the league average that season was 64%, and Romo's was 69%.

Now we can compare IN CONTEXT. Aikman's 130 completion%+ is better than Romo's 120. Even though Romo's raw completion% is higher, it's not meaningful until you have a way of judging the stats IN CONTEXT, i.e., compared to how well his peers were doing at the same time.

You have to do it this way to be truly accurate. Because if the entire league averaged say, 58% in 1992, and say, 64% in 2014, clearly and logically there's some element(s) happening that makes completing passes easier in 2014. Because EVERYONE got better at it.

The plus accounts for that and brings it back to more of an apples to apples comparison.

data · Jul 14, 2016

Convolute it even more, completion % is affected by many other variables - quality of your WRs. Jerry Rice vs Hands of Stone and same QB has drastically different stats.

Game situation - losing teams and QB will be forcing more throws and forcing deeper throws. In favor Aikman, constantly protecting lead and his throws could be argued as more conservative.

average yards per pass - more high completion % plays of WR screens and West Coast passing used today than 70s.

NoDak · Jul 14, 2016

Iamtdg said:
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 %.

This is a very simple concept to grasp.

For most of us.

L.T. Fan · Jul 14, 2016

NoDak said:
This is a very simple concept to grasp.

For most of us.

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.

bbgun · Jul 14, 2016

kidd said:
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.

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.

L.T. Fan · Jul 15, 2016

bbgun said:
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.

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.

data · Jul 15, 2016

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.

L.T. Fan · Jul 15, 2016

pdom said:
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.

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.

data · Jul 15, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
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.

So Barry better than Emmitt?

philip rivers (very similar stats to Romo) better than Aikman?

L.T. Fan · Jul 16, 2016

pdom said:
So Barry better than Emmitt?

philip rivers (very similar stats to Romo) better than Aikman?

Maybe regarding Sanders not sure about Rivers. I haven't run the numbers but he is more athletic than Aikman was.

Carp · Jul 16, 2016

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.

L.T. Fan · Jul 16, 2016

Carp said:
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.

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.

townsend · Jul 16, 2016

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.

Rev · Jul 16, 2016

All you had to say is that you didn't know.

townsend · Jul 16, 2016

Here's something crazy. In 2000 when Joey Galloway was injured, Aikman was injured, Emmitt was a husk of himself, the defense was in shambles, we still won more games than we did in 2015. That's how dependent this team is on Romo, it's worse than the worst of the Campo years without him.

L.T. Fan · Jul 16, 2016

townsend said:
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.

But the point of this thread was comparing the top 5 Dallas QBs. So it isn't pointless. It the product of the topic.

DMN: The five best Dallas Cowboys QBs of all time, ranked: Where do Staubach, Aikman

Hotlinking' sonofabitch

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are

One-armed Knife Sharpener

The worst version of myself

Forbes #1

Hotlinking' sonofabitch

I'm Easy If You Are

please don't "dur" me

I'm Easy If You Are

Forbes #1

I'm Easy If You Are

Forbes #1

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are