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

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
And the stats prove Marino is a better QB. Your example doesn't display QB stats.
But stats are also a byproduct of eras. Older QBs had less rules to pr.otect them, and less strictly enforced pass interference. No telling the kind of stats a high level QB from a previous era could have racked up in 2016. The most TDs Joe Montana ever threw in a season was 31, Andy Dalton and Blake freaking Bortles have already had more prolific seasons.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
But stats are also a byproduct of eras. Older QBs had less rules to pr.otect them, and less strictly enforced pass interference. No telling the kind of stats a high level QB from a previous era could have racked up in 2016. The most TDs Joe Montana ever threw in a season was 31, Andy Dalton and Blake freaking Bortles have already had more prolific seasons.
The percentage of completions etc.,will still have the same parity.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
Aikman
Staubach
Romo
White
Meredith
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
The percentage of completions etc.,will still have the same parity.
Not even close. 30 years ago, defensive backs could practically rape a WR while running down the field with them. Now if they look sternly at them, you're risking at least a 5 yard defensive holding call.

Look back to guys like Lester Hayes. He was a damn good corner, that was always banging receivers and redirecting them where HE wanted them to go. If he was playing today, with that same style, he'd have been run out of the league for racking up record amounts of pass interference penalties.

Or look at it from the other side. You think a guy like Miles Austin could have competed with a guy like Lester Hayes hanging all over him? All the while wondering when a guy like Ronnie Lott was going to arrive to separate his head from his shoulders? I don't.
 

Texas Ace

Teh Acester
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
23,400
I hate these types of debates because I have to take away from players that I loved watching.

Another thing to consider is what the teams were without their starter.

Everyone here knows what happens when Romo misses significant time. But with Akikman, you could plug in a Wade Wilson, Steve Buerline, Bernie Kosar, or hell, even Jason Garrett and still win games.
And had Jimmy Johnson coached this team last year instead of Jason Garrett, we'd have won more games without Romo as well.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Again, you're wrong about this.
No it's simple math. Attempts divided by completions will equal percentage of completion for any QB regardless of volume. Completion percentage is just that.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Not even close. 30 years ago, defensive backs could practically rape a WR while running down the field with them. Now if they look sternly at them, you're risking at least a 5 yard defensive holding call.

Look back to guys like Lester Hayes. He was a damn good corner, that was always banging receivers and redirecting them where HE wanted them to go. If he was playing today, with that same style, he'd have been run out of the league for racking up record amounts of pass interference penalties.

Or look at it from the other side. You think a guy like Miles Austin could have competed with a guy like Lester Hayes hanging all over him? All the while wondering when a guy like Ronnie Lott was going to arrive to separate his head from his shoulders? I don't.
You are using what ifs to couch your argument. Statistics are numbers that have a static result.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
You are using what ifs to couch your argument. Statistics are numbers that have a static result.
Of course statics are a number with a static result. Nobody is disputing that. But if you don't think there are outside influences that have a direct bearing on the final outcome, you're fooling yourself. Because when it's all said and done, THAT'S when the statistic you are so fond of becomes final.

Do you seriously think that having a defensive back banging away at a WR, pulling on his arms all the way down the field wouldn't have any effect on the QBs completion percentage? You are old enough to have watched guys like Lester Hayes and Mel Blount manhandle WRs. In those days, they could pretty much do anything except outright tackle a receiver before the ball arrived. Today, WRs are mostly given a clean release, then go UNTOUCHED after 5 yards. If you don't think that affects today's completion percentage in comparison to yesteryear, I don't know what to tell you.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,414
So wait, you guys are telling me that there are external factors that influence and distort statistics?

Intriguing concept.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Of course statics are a number with a static result. Nobody is disputing that. But if you don't think there are outside influences that have a direct bearing on the final outcome, you're fooling yourself. Because when it's all said and done, THAT'S when the statistic you are so fond of becomes final.

Do you seriously think that having a defensive back banging away at a WR, pulling on his arms all the way down the field wouldn't have any effect on the QBs completion percentage? You are old enough to have watched guys like Lester Hayes and Mel Blount manhandle WRs. In those days, they could pretty much do anything except outright tackle a receiver before the ball arrived. Today, WRs are mostly given a clean release, then go UNTOUCHED after 5 yards. If you don't think that affects today's completion percentage in comparison to yesteryear, I don't know what to tell you.
My point is that all the what ifs are mental brainstorming and while it may have a basis for conversation it isn't conclusive to the extent that any one has created a formula that is acceptable to substitute theory for actual numbers. When I couch numbers I am asking someone to accept my subjective thinking for actual numbers and agree it is correct. Obviously different people have different views about what they think is correct.

In the instant case Romo' s numbers are more impressive than Aikmans and one can conclude that his performance is better. Others can take a position that various scenarios if the were to have occurred would presen another and more favorable outcome for Aikman. This of course didn't happen so it's all up in the air. I am taking a position that Romo s numbers are in fact more favorable so his performance has been better. We obviously disagree but one position is based on static numbers and the other on what if analysis.
 
Last edited:

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
There is no "what if". Defensive backs could mug receivers in the past, and they did. Now they can not, and do not.

Pretty simple.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
There is no "what if". Defensive backs could mug receivers in the past, and they did. Now they can not, and do not.

Pretty simple.
Okay then let's do a what if with Aikman having the team around him that Romo did over the course that was inferior receivers, a different offensive scheme and the coaching staff as well as a defense that gave up possessions like a charity organization. How would you factor Aikmans ability to stave off the pass rush and move around in the pocket or scramble for his life. Would that have affected his passing accuracy and completion percentage?
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
Okay then let's do a what if with Aikman having the team around him that Romo did over the course that was inferior receivers, a different offensive scheme and the coaching staff as well as a defense that gave up possessions like a charity organization. How would you factor Aikmans ability to stave off the pass rush and move around in the pocket or scramble for his life. Would that have affected his passing accuracy and completion percentage?
Aikman had Michael Irvin. Granted, a HOF talent. But who were his other receivers? Were they special? Outside of Novacek, I'd say no. While Romo hasn't had a Michael Irvin, he has had some very good WRs to work with. He's also had Jason Witten from the jump.

And while Aikman had a very good line in the middle of his career, his first couple years and the last few they were horrid. Which directly led to his early retirement. Romo has had some pretty good Olines in his career, also.

The only clear outside advantage Aikman had over Romo is coaching. And as far as your stats go, Romo plays in a vastly more pass happy scheme. If Aikman had been asked to throw more, don't kid yourself. He'd have been perfectly fine. He passed early to jump on a team, (was there a more deadly combo than Aikman to Irvin? Maybe Montana to Rice) then was asked to hand the ball off to one of the most devastating, methodical running attacks the game has seen to bleed them to death.

Either way, I'm done. You wanted to play what ifs in these last couple posts. That's fine. But no matter how you shake it, there is no what if when it comes to talking how DBs played 30 years ago. They actually DID play that way then.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Aikman had Michael Irvin. Granted, a HOF talent. But who were his other receivers? Were they special? Outside of Novacek, I'd say no. While Romo hasn't had a Michael Irvin, he has had some very good WRs to work with. He's also had Jason Witten from the jump.

And while Aikman had a very good line in the middle of his career, his first couple years and the last few they were horrid. Which directly led to his early retirement. Romo has had some pretty good Olines in his career, also.

The only clear outside advantage Aikman had over Romo is coaching. And as far as your stats go, Romo plays in a vastly more pass happy scheme. If Aikman had been asked to throw more, don't kid yourself. He'd have been perfectly fine. He passed early to jump on a team, (was there a more deadly combo than Aikman to Irvin? Maybe Montana to Rice) then was asked to hand the ball off to one of the most devastating, methodical running attacks the game has seen to bleed them to death.

Either way, I'm done. You wanted to play what ifs in these last couple posts. That's fine. But no matter how you shake it, there is no what if when it comes to talking how DBs played 30 years ago. They actually DID play that way then.
No I didnt want to play what ifs. I wanted to take the stats and use as evidence of performance. All this came up because I rated Romo ahead of Aikman.
 
Last edited:

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
No I didnt want to play what ifs. I wanted to take the stats and use as evidence of performance. All this came up because I rated Romo ahead of Aikman.

Again, if you want to use stats...they have a stat that can accurately compare completion percentage across eras. It's called completion percentage plus, and Aikman's peak years were better than Romo's. I discussed this above.

That's cold, hard concrete stats.

I'm not even debating whether aikman or Romo is better. This portion of the discussion is about Aikman's accuracy, which you are completely, objectively, statistically wrong about.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
No I didnt want to play what ifs. I wanted to take the stats and use as evidence of performance. All this came up because I rated Romo ahead of Aikman.
Well, your 'evidence of performance' was hard to take seriously right from the start when you were claiming that Aikman was mostly low to mid 50% completion rate.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Well, your 'evidence of performance' was hard to take seriously right from the start when you were claiming that Aikman was mostly low to mid 50% completion rate.
I said he had 6 seasons above 60 % and that is what the stats show. I also said Romo has 9 so far. It's my opinion that as a pure position comparison, Romo has performed better at the position than Aikman did notwithstanding the team'accomplishments of Super Bowl wins under Aikmans tenure. It's subjective but I can at least substantiate it with numbers.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,917
I said he had 6 seasons above 60 % and that is what the stats show. I also said Romo has 9 so far. It's my opinion that as a pure position comparison, Romo has performed better at the position than Aikman did notwithstanding the team'accomplishments of Super Bowl wins under Aikmans tenure. It's subjective but I can at least substantiate it with numbers.
You said no such thing until AFTER your initial post of saying he was low to mid 50's and called out for being wrong. You made out like Romo was faaar ahead of Aikman. It was only after being shown they were only a few percentage points apart in career avg, you started to back track.

http://www.dallascowboyscentral.com/showthread.php?5873-DMN-The-five-best-Dallas-Cowboys-QBs-of-all-time-ranked-Where-do-Staubach-Aikman&p=280843&viewfull=1#post280843

LT said:
Aikman's completion percentage is well below Romo s. There may be other factors for judging accuracy but percentage of completions is certainly on Romo s side by a pretty large amount. Aikman stayed in the low to mid 50's with a few exceptions. Romo was in the 60's for the most part.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
You said no such thing until AFTER your initial post of saying he was low to mid 50's and called out for being wrong. You made out like Romo was faaar ahead of Aikman. It was only after being shown they were only a few percentage points apart in career avg, you started to back track.

http://www.dallascowboyscentral.com/showthread.php?5873-DMN-The-five-best-Dallas-Cowboys-QBs-of-all-time-ranked-Where-do-Staubach-Aikman&p=280843&viewfull=1#post280843
Yes I stated that and it was somewhat skewed but later I clarified the numbers. If I cleared it up then I have made acorrection.
 
Top Bottom