All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Pointless QB exercise
2/25/2013 8:14 PM
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.

2/26/2013 9:18 AM
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!
2/26/2013 9:23 AM
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.
Was Irvin somehow less open because he was allowed to push off?
2/26/2013 10:28 AM
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!
I did see Tarkenton play (I'm old, but not as old as MikeT).  You remember the scene in Rocky 2 where Mickey has Rocky chasing a chicken around the yard...?.  Tarkenton was the chicken.  Most of the defensive lineman of those times were big strong brutes and were ill-equipped to chase down the frenetic Tarkenton.  But that frenzied style didn't work as well against top-notch defenses (like in the Super Bowls), and he found himself overmatched.  Remember, he LOST those games against comparable defenses to other QBs that appeared in this list.
2/26/2013 10:39 AM (edited)
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.)

And just because his Vikings lost to Stabler's Raiders doesn't mean that Stabler > Tarkenton.  It's the teams that play each other, not the QBs.  And it's also one game.  If the Rams beat the Niners twice this year, it doesn't make Bradford better than Kap.
2/26/2013 12:55 PM
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.)
 
Considering his team had THE best defense of the early 70's?, yeah, it's a knock against him.  Playing badly in the biggest games of your life is NOT a good trait in a QB.  Look at Elway, he also lost three Super Bowls (while playing badly in a couple) and was considered a "choker".  Then he wins two Super Bowls and is now considered a top-10 QB by almost everyone.
2/26/2013 12:59 PM
You'd like Cowherd's list, 'tardcomm.  Super Bowl MVP is his automatic-qualifier.    He actually sounds like you except he's adding Rypien and Kreig to the list of 64.
2/26/2013 1:20 PM
I just caught a few minutes of Cowherd's show today.  I believe I heard him say that Vick was in his top 16.
2/26/2013 1:24 PM
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.
2/26/2013 1:38 PM
Fran Tarkenton gets bonus points for co-hosting the TV show "That's Incredible!" with John Davidson and Cathy Lee Crosby.
2/26/2013 1:45 PM
Well now he's head and shoulders above Stabler.
2/26/2013 2:43 PM
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.
If he actually slept with Cathy Lee Crosby, he'd be closer to Stabler than I originally thought.  Because the Snake would've nailed her twice and put her away wet.
2/26/2013 2:44 PM
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.
Older dudes know their ****.  Tarkenton is an OK pick in the fourth round, just not the second round.
2/26/2013 2:50 PM
Have we declared my quartet the best of the bunch yet?
2/26/2013 2:55 PM
Which group of QBs do you think is best?







Votes: 4
(Last vote received: 3/17/2013 6:18 PM)
of 19
All Forums > SimLeague Football > NFL > Pointless QB exercise

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.