Archer: Jerry Jones - Tony Romo is at his best

[Chocolate Lab]

I can always tell the posters who are so young they only remember the old, beat-to-hell Aikman who couldn't move.

And the ones who don't realize how horrendous that 1989 team was. That was way worse than anything Tony has played with.

 

[kidd]

I can always tell the posters who are so young they only remember the old, beat-to-hell Aikman who couldn't move.

And the ones who don't realize how horrendous that 1989 team was. That was way worse than anything Tony has played with.

And Aikman went 1-15.

So yeah, I'm still waiting on your point.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That the 1-15 squad was way worse than anything Tony has played with. Like I said the first time.

It shouldn't be that hard to get.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Just cause he got elite level help doesn't mean he needed it. Most QBs would have suffered on that shit team he started with.

Anyone with his mobility would have suffered behind a non-elite line. Steve Beuerlein took us to the playoffs in 1991 because Aikman couldn't hold up behind a line that was merely above average.

 

[kidd]

That the 1-15 squad was way worse than anything Tony has played with. Like I said the first time.

It shouldn't be that hard to get.

So Aikman played on a worse team than Romo and couldn't carry them. He also has played on teams with equal talent and couldn't carry them.

So again, what's your point? How does that make him so much better than Romo?

 

[Genghis Khan]

Romo had the luxury of sitting and developing his first 3 and a half years.

It's more than a little retarded to point to Aikman's struggles in his first three years to prop Romo.

If Romo had played in 2003, he'd have been much worse than Aikman was as a rookie. Romo was severely overmatched even against scrubs in preseason that year.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Anyone with his mobility would have suffered behind a non-elite line. Steve Beuerlein took us to the playoffs in 1991 because Aikman couldn't hold up behind a line that was merely above average.

There's a little more to it than that. Had Aikman not gotten hurt at the end of 1990and Laughenberg come in, we were on our way to a possible playoff birth .

Some people here are trying to paint Aikman as sucking until the team around him was elite. That's simply not true.

 

[ravidubey]

If you mean overall team talent and success, I agree. But offensively, this team is absolutely loaded. There's Pro Bowl talent at literally every single position, or at least there was last year.

And we had the 2nd highest points of any Cowboys team ever as a result. Last year's team was most like 1983 (1st in points) than any other Dallas team-- great offense and bad defense. The 83 defense was built around Randy White and Harvey Martin rushing the passer, but Martin was totally done.

It was hard to build both great offense and defense in any era. Romo's best shot was 2007, and even then the defense wasn't in the same league as Staubach's and Aikman's.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Aikman was a great pocket QB and among the best at that role. He was not as versatile as Romo. You take Aikman out of his element and he was vulnerable. Romo can ad lib and extend play. Of the two Romo has had a more productive career in their respective roles. There just isn't any way to put it. When injured Aikman was a complete target. Romo when injured could still make things happen. There shouldn't be much argument here if you make the comparison on a pure position performance vantage point.

 

[Smitty]

Again, what does "pure position performance vantage point " mean? Romo put up more passing yards? Of course. He played in a pass happy era.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Again, what does "pure position performance vantage point " mean? Romo put up more passing yards? Of course. He played in a pass happy era.

I believe I recapped it already. Versatility, play extension, productivity when playing injured. Aikman didn't have these qualities.

 

[jsmith6919]

I believe I recapped it already. Versatility, play extension, productivity when playing injured. Aikman didn't have these qualities.

No but he had his own areas where he was much better than Romo, Michael Irvin summed it up well when he said he trusted Aikman more in the pocket and Romo outside the pocket.

 

[townsend]

Romo never had to play against the high level teams that Aikman played against either. The Cowboys beat (and occasionally laid waste to) to all timer Bills, 49ers, and Packers teams. Really teams that there haven't been equivalents to in the parity era. So the obscene level of talent on the Cowboys of that era has to be considered with that in mind.

 

[L.T. Fan]

No but he had his own areas where he was much better than Romo, Michael Irvin summed it up well when he said he trusted Aikman more in the pocket and Romo outside the pocket.

Would it surprise you to know that Romo' s regular season winning percentage is better than Aikman' s. Allow me to couch that with there wasn't a calculation for games not played due to injuries but I think they will offset.

 

[jsmith6919]

Would it surprise you to know that Romo' s regular season winning percentage is better than Aikman' s.

You do remember Aikman led us to 3 Super Bowl titles right?

 

[L.T. Fan]

Romo never had to play against the high level teams that Aikman played against either. The Cowboys beat (and occasionally laid waste to) to all timer Bills, 49ers, and Packers teams. Really teams that there haven't been equivalents to in the parity era. So the obscene level of talent on the Cowboys of that era has to be considered with that in mind.

I don't see that as a factor because Dallas was one of the dynasty teams which would mean that they had an edge then. The parity affects all the teams so the Romo era would be at a disadvantage if anything.

 

[L.T. Fan]

You do remember Aikman led us to 3 Super Bowl titles right?

Yes but I will continue to repeat that is a team accomplishment and I don't think it is a factor when comparing the performance abilities of the position played.

 

[jsmith6919]

Yes but I will continue to repeat that is a team accomplishment and I don't think it is a factor when comparing the performance abilities of the position played.

Then why bring up Romo's regular game winning percentage? Aikman trumps the hell out of that with his playoff game winning percentage.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Then why bring up Romo's regular game winning percentage? Aikman trumps the hell out of that with his playoff game winning percentage.

Well Romo never had much of a team to get him to the playoffs and if you will check the glory days it was Smith's performance more than anything that obtained the playoff victories.

 

[jsmith6919]

Well Romo never had much of a team to get him to the playoffs and if you will check the glory days it was Smith's performance more than anything that obtained the playoff victories.

Gotcha, it was all Smith


Sigh, I'm done, my opinion is what it is and so is yours and it's obvious neither are changing. I like Romo but to say he's better than Aikman based on qbr and stats obtained in this watered-down version of football where the defense is handicapped is asinine